The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-25 00:00:00

the case referred to, it was to give what was called an iden-
tity of franchise ; but what was meant by this neither the
ability of the noble lord (Lord Stanley) nor that of the Soli-
citor-General were able to explain. The noble lord (Lord
Stanley) said great dissatisfaction would arise if the prin-
ciple of uniformity were not adopted. He did not think any
great discontent would arise from that cause, and would
appeal to his noble friend to consider whether the sharp,
hard, broad line of demarcation drawn between the general
freedom which was offered to one class of the community,
and the condemnatory sentence of absolute nullity and in-
capacity of another, would not breed ten times more discon-
tent. He might depend upon it that this hard line being
drawn between two persons, one in the county and the other
in the borough—both living contiguous to each other, and
neither having prescriptive rights, was that which consti-
tuted the foulest and blackest blot in this identity of suffrage.
(Hear.) The defect could not be got over except by making
the suffrage universal. Were they prepared for that ?
Were they prepared to hand over the constituencies to the
poorest persons in the country ? (Hear, hear.) Well, that
convinced him (Mr. Walpole) that identity of fran-
chise was a mistake. Discontent, then, was his first
objection. His second objection was that political associa-
tions would have the means of manufacturing 40s. free-
holds in the different boroughs, so that not a borough in
the kingdom would be safe. The hon. member for Halifax
had quoted instances of how this had been done already,
and therefore he (Mr. Walpole) thought the proposed altera-
tion of the law in this respect was immensely for the worse.
He had the strongest objection to altering, in the main,
the nature and character of the county and borough fran-
chise. And the reason was obvious. All your new votes
and new franchises, as proposed by this bill, would only
require 12 months' residence, and could any one tell him
that a number of persons with fluctuating occupations,
changing from place to place, would give that permanent
character which was required to the constituencies of
boroughs ? Would any one tell him that there was not a
broad and wide distinction between the constituencies of
counties and those of boroughs ? Was not the nature of
the population. in one place more steady and that of the
other more fluctuating and changeable. Ought not the
suffrage to rest upon that which mainly constituted -that
distinction ? If they wanted to get rid of anomalies and
irregularities, they might get a bill constructed which
would be more proportionate and more pleasing to the eye;
but they would at the same time get rid of that variety and
diversity which had hitherto constituted the charm and
strength of our representative system—(hear, hear)—a
system by which were represented in that house the varied
talents and interests of different classes and occupations—
by which they had represented the industry of towns, and
the more stationary, but not less valuable characteristics
of the counties. (Hear, hear.) There was a passage ix
Edmund Burke which seemed to hint not to be inappli-
cable to this subject. He said :—" No system of repre-
sentation will be a good system, unless you impart into it
ability as well as property ; but, at the same time, as'
ability is an active principle, and as property is inert
and passive, unless you give a predominant influence
to property it will be at the mercy of the more
active principle." In France the interests of property had
to give way to this active principle of popular power, and
the time might come when the same would occur in Eng-
land if you did away with the distinction which gave pro-
perty its present influence. (Hear.) He had two other
objections to the identity of the franchise. The first was,
that if they did away with the distinction between counties
and boroughs, and reduced the occupation franchise down
to £lO, they would introduce into the constituencies large
masses of the people who did not contribute to direct taxa-
tion. (Hear, hear.) When the Reform Bill was passed,
the window-tax was a necessary condition of the franchise.
The £lO occupiers did away with that, and a house tax of
£2O was substituted. Now, if the franchise were brought
below £2O, and this incident of direct taxation were kept up
to £2O, great injustice would be done, for constituencies
would direct their members not only to keep up, but to in-
crease taxation on those above them. (Hear.) He was
certain that with such an enlarged constituency, if an ad-
ministration brought forward an income-tax bill, the house
would never be able to make it fall with equality on the
people at large. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The last ob-
jection he had to urge was, that this identity of franchise
would lead to electoral districts. The Solicitor-General
pooh-pooed this. What was meant by identity of fran-
chise ? It meant equality of power. The mere fact that
they had the same nominal franchise was not an identity.
One elector more in 300 had a potential influence as com-
pared with one in 1,000. But if the principle were to be
admitted with respect to England, why not apply it to Ire-
land ? If they did, how were they to assimilate the £8
rating in boroughs to the £l2 in counties ? Could they
make both £lO ? (Hear.) His right hon. friend (Sir E.
B. Lytton) pointed to France, and drew the inference that
all the misfortunes that befel France was because the
working classes were admitted to the suffrage. But
at that period the qualification for a voter in France
was 300 francs, or £l2 a-year, but the qualification
proposed for England was to be £lO. God forbid
that what the honourable gentleman predicted should
ever be witnessed in England by him or his children.
(Hear, hear.) For all those reasons he (Mr. Walpole) was
opposed to this part of the bill. It was a dangerous experi-
ment to throw this question of reform again afloat. Depend
upon it the question should be settled now. (Cheers.) They
ought to settle it, and they could settle it now, on terms
consistent with the just and recognised principles of the
constitution. They could settle it by adhering to pre-
scriptive rights, by maintaining the distinction between
county and borough, by upholding the interests of property
as well as the power and influence of numbers, and by
giving to all the interests of the country that variety of re-
presentation which it is advisable to maintain. (Hear,
hear.) If they only acted in this manner, fully, fairly—he
had alniost said finally—great would be their triumph,
noble their success. But great would be their responsibility
if they threw away the opportunity now afforded them.
(Cheers.)

Mr. BRIGHT—In the observations which I am anxious
to address to the house I shall endeavour to keep myself
strictly to the question before it. I shall not attempt any
answer to some, perhaps well intended, but rather feeble
assaults which have been made upon me during this debate,
and I shall not attempt any explanation in answer to what
was said by the hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-
General the other night when he spoke of an alliance
between the noble lord (J. Russell) and myself. That which
is purely imaginary is not easy to explain. (Hear, and a
laugh.) The house, I believe, will give me credit when I
say, that if I am found acting with the noble lord it is
because I think the course he is taking is advantageous to the
country, and I hope if I have hereafter occasion to differ from
him they will give me credit also, and will presume that I
differ from him only because my convictions lead me to do
so. (Hear, hear.) Sir, there are two questions before us—
the bill of the Government and the resolution of the noble
lord, and in addition to these the great question of Parlia-
mentary Reform which has been more or less discussed by
every member who has addressed the house. With regard
to the bill there is a singular unanimity of feeling. (Hear,
and laughter.) With the exception of gentlemen on the
Treasury bench, who may be considered in the light of pro-
fessional witnesses, I believe there is no single member who
has spoken who has not expressed strong repugnance to
some main point or principle of the measure. (Hear, hear.)
A remarkable speech has been delivered by a right hon.
gentleman on this side of the house. He denounced the bill
as much as if he had , been the greatest opponent of hon.
gentlemen opposite, but he was vehemently cheered by the
other side of the house throughout almost the whole of that
speech. Seeing that he turned the measure inside out it
was rather remarkable that his speech should be so relished
by hon. gentlemen opposite, and, considering some of the
observations which he made, the right hon. gentleman cer-
tainly suggested a course the most extraordinary. He de-
nounced the bill as treason, not to the Crown, but to the
people, and he proposed to inflict upon it something like the
barbarous punishment with which our law, I believe, still
visits those who are guilty of this great crime ; and yet,
after calling on the house to go with him in taking out the
heart of the measure, and, for aught I know, in disem-
bowelling it, he comforted himself with the belief that the
Government would accept and assist in carrying the bill.
(Hear, hear.) He appeared to forget that the Government
had parted with two eminent colleagues on the very points
of difference which he was discussing. (Hear.) He seemed
to forget that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted
this proposal he would lay himself open to the unfortunate
suspicion that that to which he would not consent at the
instance of two of his late distinguished colleagues he would
accept rather than have a vote of this house against the
Government, with the consequences which are likely to
follow. (Hear.) I certainly was astonished that a man so
acute as my hon. friend, after having spoken in such
glowing language, and with an eloquence rarely heard in
this house of the priceless honour of our public men,
should suggest to the Government such a course. (Cheers.)
Sir, I shall not follow the right hon. gentleman who has
just spoken on the details of the bill to the extent to
which he has entered upon them. I shall confine myself to
the two principles which, after all, are at this stage of the
bill only before us, being brought specially under discus-
sion by the resolution proposed as an amendment by the
noble lord. I should like to ask the house—because I think
there is some disposition to evade this question—what is it
that people understand by a measure of Parliamentary Re-
form ? I mean people out of doors, of whom hon. gentlemen
are likely to hear a good deal before this matter is settled.
(Hear.) They understand by such a measure not a mere
shuffle, not a hustling or huddling up of this question, for
fear lest somebody should talk of it hereafter. They under-
stand it should mean two things —first, an extension of the
franchise to considerable classes not now enfranchised ; and
at the same time that it should give to the country larger
and freer and more independent constituencies. (Hear,
hear.) Now, I want to ask how this bill meets such a de-
mand, because if it does not it is no Reform Bill, the Go-
vernment had no right to propose it in answer to that
demand, and the House of Commons will fail in its duty if
it gives any countenance to such a measure, or passes it
into a law. (Cheers.) In the counties at this moment,
confining myself to England and Wales, to which alone
this bill refers, there are, in round numbers, 500,000 elec-
tors, 400,000 of whom are freeholders, and 100,000 occupy-
ing tenants above the value of £5O. Now, is there any
doubt upon this point—that if any gentleman were asked
to put his finger upon that description of elector in the
counties which is most independent, he would say the free-
holder ; if upon the least independent, he would say of
necessity the £5O occupier ? Without saying anything
against tenant farmers or the owners of farms themselves,
I think this is a description which the house will admit to
be fair. Well, the bill proposes first of all to get rid from
the counties of one-fourth, 100,000, of the most indepen-
dent class, the freeholders. I am not now speaking of dis-
franchising them, but of getting rid of them from the coun-
ties, and mixing them up with another class of electors.
Everybody will see at a glance that if 100,000 of the most
independent class of electors are taken from the counties,
the less independent class must necessarily be made more
powerful. (Hear, hear.) The bill makes another proposal
of, to my mind, a most insidious character. The boundaries
of boroughs are to be altered in a very remarkable fashion.
The framers of the bill seem to imagine that it is necessary
for some object of theirs to include within the bounds of
boroughs every individual whom by any pretence they can
lay hold of and separate from the county, if they suspect
him to be infected with the prevalent opinions of the towns.
By this means, of course, after the passing of their bill they
would anguish still mere whatever there May be of the jA•

dependent element in the county constituencies. But now
observe the cunning—(a laugh)—will right hon. gentlemen
forgive me the expression ?—perhaps it was a mistake, like
the disfranchisement of 50,000 men—observe the mistake,
then, involved in the plan which is to be referred to our in-
telligent and impartial friend Mr. Darby. ("No !") I un-
derstood that Mr. Darby, the head the Encicsure Commis-
sion, was to appoint a commission for this object. (" No !")
The question, then, will be referred to him or to somebody.
I will admit, if you like, that the commission is as good as
lor anybody in this house could wish. This commission
is not to examine the case of all boroughs. It is merely
intended, as I understand it, to shut up within the borough
boundary all the suburbs of our cities and towns, and all
immediately contiguous villages. But the commissioners
have no charge to go to another description of borough,
and shut up the country parishes within the boundaries of
counties. Now, surely, if it was a fair thing to go to any
large town and say, " All these streets and villages shall
be comprised within the borough ; none of these £lO occu-
piers shall vote for the county," it would be a fair thing
to go to agricultural boroughs and say, "My good fel-
lows, farmers, and so forth, in all these country parishes
we are going to make a clear distinction—perpetual en-
mity between town and county ; everybody near a town
is to be shut into that town; you must be shut
out of the borough, and into the county." I
will tell the house what would be the result of the
proposal in one or two cases. There are at this moment
within the limits of boroughs farms the rental of which ex-
ceeds £2,500,000, and yet these are called boroughs. We
will take the borough represented by the First Lord of the
Admiralty. He will speak in this debate, and can correct
me if lam wrong. In Droitwich there is an assessment to
the income-tax under schedule A of land and buildings
to the amount of £56,000 a year, of which £39,600 is an
assessment of land and farms. There are four town parishes
and twelve rural parishes. The town parishes contain 160
electors, the rural 232 electors. In point of fact, therefore,
the right hon. gentleman does not represent a town at all.
(Laughter.) No, the large majority of his supporters and
constituents are farmers and persons as much connected
with rural affairs as if they were in the centre of the county
and miles away from any towns or villages. (Hear.) I
say, if this line is to be drawn, it must be drawn in all
cases. Take the case of the borough of Petersfield, which
is also represented by an hon. baronet on the Treasury
bench. In that town the case is still more glaring. There
is £31,000 assessd in land and buildings in the borough, but
of that £24,000, or more than four-fifths, is in respect of
land and buildings in agricultural parishes. (Hear, hear.) I
am not complaining of those parishes being added to the
town; but the Government has no right to propose, and Par-
liament will never pass, a bill the only object of which will be
to shut as many as possible in the borough in the one case,
and not interfere in the other, thus diminishing that great
variety of suffrages and of interests which it is desirable
that every member in this house shall represent. The
noble lord the Secretary of State for India said with regard
to the great ,measure of disfranchisement that it was a mis-
take, and that he was sorry the clause was not originally
introduced into the bill which was afterwards laid on
the table of the house by his right hon. friend. Again, the
Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he was charged
with the faulty character of the clause which extended the
£lO franchise to counties, made a rather staggering admis-
sion
that that was also in the nature of a mistake, and if it
was wrong that we could likewise go into that question in
the committee. (A laugh.) But I find everything that has ,
been done has one direction, and one only. (Cheers.) I
cannot understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he
speaks of the painful anxiety with which this bill has been
brought forward, that he should not in all that anxiety and
deliberation have discovered that he was going to dis-
franchise 50,000 of the best electors in the kingdom. Now,
what is the main object of this measure ? It is evidently
to make the representation of the counties, if possible,
more exclusively territorial than it is at present. (Cheers.)
I ask the house to consider whether that is a desirable
object for us to attempt ? Ask Lord Lyndhurst—long a
leading statesman, acting with gentlemen opposite—ask
Lord Aberdeen; ir Robert Peel is not here, and you can-
not ask him ; but you can ask the right hon. gentleman the
member for Carlisle, and the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer could add his impressive
testimony whether it has not always been the chiefest
difficulty of the Cabinet sitting on that side of the house—
I mean with gentlemen opposite—for many years, far
longer than I have been a politician, that they were sup-
ported by 150 or more gentlemen, representing the counties,
and elected very much in the way described by Lord Derby,
and, being supported by that party, whether they have not
found it utterly impossible, without doing that which was
very unpleasant to them, or without ruining themselves,
which is unpleasant to a Government, to propose or carry
any kind of measures which were made necessary by the
opinions and demands of the country. (" No, no," and
counter cheers.) Do not let gentlemen opposite believe
that I am finding fault individually with any one of them
in this matter. From 1842 to 1846 what was the difficulty
which the Government of Sir Robert Peel constantly found
in its way ? Of that, I dare say, the right hon. baronet the
member for Carlisle, could give us a graphic and instructive
description. What became of that Government of 1846 ?
There was a disruption which resulted in years of anarchy
in this house. But go back to the experience of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer in 1852. The then Government
was broken up by a majority of 19 votes in this house after
a general election, because it was necessary, in order to satisfy
the expectations and demands of that same party sitting be-
hind them, to propose a bill with regard to the malt-tax, for
which, on the whole, the country certainly made no demand,
and to which the house was not willing to consent. I was
then very sorry for Lord Derby, and I never, except once,
gave a vote which I more regretted to have to record than
on that occasion; but the Government could net alter or
withdraw their proposition, because the 150 gentlemen
behind them thought it necessary that such a measure
should pass, and now we find the right hon. gentleman in
the same position. Does any man believe that this is the
sort of bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks best for
the country ? Does any one suppose that a man with his
intellect, and who understands all the bearings of this ques-
tion, believes—l will not say the " deplerable rubbish," but
the grievous and fatal mistakes to be found in the clauses
of this bill ? He knows that this bill in its present shape is
a bill framed to satisfy the prejudices, the scruples, the con-
victions, if you like, and the fears of the 150 country gentle-
men who sit behind him. (Cheers:) I should think it a
great misfortune to have 150 gentlemen here representing
only ironworks, or only ships, or onlythe cotton and woollen
factories of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I believe it is essen-
tial almost to a good member of this house, so far as it de-
pends upon external circumstances, that he should have
among his constituents a variety of what the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would call " interests," persons of various
classes, occupations, and opinions. I think they keep him
better to his duty, modify his opinions, and make him a
more valuable member of the house than he is likely to be
if he represented only some special interest. I must say one
word about that charming part of our institutions of which
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has spoken in such
affectionate terms. I mean the small boroughs. They are
the jewels of our representative system. (A laugh.) Putting
the case now in the shortest number of wards, you will say
they take in men who cannot get in anywhere else. (A laugh.)
In one a boy was put in at 19. That is considered a great
argument for perpetuating such a system. (A laugh.)
These boroughs form in point of fact, a refuge for the po-
litically destitute—(laughter)—and all that I have heard in
their favour is that the persons who find shelter in them are
what would be called " deserving objects." (Renewed
laughter and cheers.) Now, the right hon. gentleman, I
dare say, reads the papers as well and as studiously as I do;
and he will perhaps recoiled a case or two which I will
state to the house. There was an election at Harwich the
other day. It is not long since there was an election there,
and I recollect a statement made at the time. It was said
that Mr. Bagshaw—not now a member of this house—had
discharged a drunken gardener. There were two free-
traders who had carried out their principles further than
the law sanctioned, and were imprisoned for smuggling.
(Laughter.) A respectable parson of the parish, who had
not been out of his room for two years, was brought down
by the aid of cordials, stimulants, and a sedan chair--(a
laugh)—to the poll, and those three individuals influenced
the result of the election. Now go to another borough. I
recollect an election for the borough of Carlow. There were
two troops of dragoons, two companies of infantry, and 150
police ; the whole of this force having, during the period
of the election, been engaged in keeping the .peace in a
town which comprised only 200 electors. (Cheers and
laughter.) Now, notwithstanding the picture which I
have drawn of this small borough, I must not bo under-
stood as saying that virtuous elections do not take place
in some of its class, and that they do not still retain some
remnant of freedom. But if there be, the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not content with
corrupting and maltreating them in every way, defaces
the fair form of your county representation, and lays his
sacrilegious hands upon those very spots about which
everybody but myself just now speaks in such very high
terms. I should like to give the house an instance of the
justice of what I state. There has been an election at
Banbury. It is but the other day that the hon. gentleman
who represents that place took his seat in 'this house.
Now, Banbury is a borough which I do not propose
to disfranchise, but it is one which everybody who knows its
size must admit to be possessed of singular independence of
action in political affairs. (Hear, hear.) I believe the hon.
gentleman who at present represents it will admit that to
be the fact. Now, just imagine what the proposition of the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will
lead to in the case of Banbury. Imagine, if you can, the
people of that borough making speeches, canvassing, ex-
plaining their political views, and resolving upon the pro-
per fulfilment of their political duties. Well, all this is
taking place, but at the critical moment you may see a man
—for aught I know he may be the concoctor of this bill—
(laughter)—for it appears to me to be not so much the bill
of a statesman as of some party electioneering agent—
(cheers)—you may see, I repeat, a man of this descrip-
tion, emerging after dark from the Carlton Club, proceed-
, ing to a pillar letter-box which stands quite near it upon
the opposite side of the street, and dropping into it—unless,
indeed, he should find it necessary to go as far as Charing-
cross for the purpose of registering them—some 10 or 20
letters about 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening, while the un
fortunate people of Banbury are labouring under the delu-
sion that they are carrying on a great constitutional con-
test. Unhappy men, they little know that the restless
locomotive engine has been set to work ; that it is bringing
down through county after county; and that they will
awake the next morning only to find out that, through the
instrumentality of a leathern bag, which has just been de-
posited at the post-office, somebody is returned as their
representative who has not the slightest sympathy with
their interests. (Cheers.) But this is no new thing. If
anybody will turn to the report of the Municipal Corpora-
tion Commissioners in 1834 he will there find a statement
made by Mr. Austin in reference to the borough of Car-
marthen ; and he gives the number of resident and
non-resident freeholders not of the value of 408., but
of £4, and in addition the number of £lO occupiers. The
number of burgesses in the borough he sets down at
646; resident in the borough, 178; outside the borough,
but still within the county, 257 ; in the county of Pembroke,
108 ; in Glamorgan, 31 ; in Cardigan, 25 ; in Brecon, 12 ;
and outside the limits of South Wales altogether, 35; so
that while the number of resident was 178, the number of
non-resident electors was 468. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Austin
then gives the list of voters at a contest which had taken
place for the election of sheriffs, when 131 votes were re-
corded in favour of the corporation candidates, against
them, 51; thus giving a majority in their favour of 80, of
which majority 75 were non-resident electors. (Cheers.)
The commissioner then goes on to say, "In effect, therefore,
the constant majority is a majority of non-residents who,
with rare exceptions, are supporters of the corporation
party." Now, let me ask if this system prevailed in the
case of a £4, is it not likely to do so in the case of a £2 free-
hold ? (Hear, hear.) It must also be observed that in the
former instance the votes could not be recorded by letter.
The voter had to appear in person at the place of election ;
but if this system of voting papers be adopted in addition
to non-residence I know of no limit whatever to the amount
of corruption which it may occasion. (Cheers.) You can-
not, therefore, in my opinion, too strongly express your
sense of the entire extinction of freedom which it is calcu-
lated to produce in all the small boroughs of a county.
(Hear, hear.) Now, there is also another point which a
large portion of our fellow-countrymen regard as of the
utmost importance, and to which I may be permitted briefly
to refer, l allude to the borough trauchiee. We en-

deavoured to show that the effect of the bill as it now
stands will be to render counties more exclusive, and to
hand over the small boroughs to rottenness and complete
dependence ; for the only independence they could possess
must rest upon the opinions and the wishes of non-resident
electors. (Cheers.) Now, lam not going to discuss this
question at all different from that which has hitherto marked
the tone of this debate ; but I would ask the house whence
comes it that we are here to-night discussing the ques-
tion of Reform at all ? There are plenty of other things
for us to do. (Hear, hear.) Why, then, is this question
thrast upon us by Minister after Minister ? Some per-
suns say that the noble lord the member for London is
entirely in fault. (Cheers and laughter.) Hon. gentlemen
may say whatever they like, but such an assertion as that
goes but a very little way indeed. The noble lord has no
particular desire, any more than I have, to disturb this great
question. (Cries of " Oh, oh I" from the Ministerial side of
the house.) Its settlement, however, has become a necessity,
and will continue to be a necessity to the existence of every
Government until it is set at rest in a manner that will be
satisfactory'to the country. (Cheers.) Do hon. gentlemen
by their cheers mean to show us that they do not want
reform ? (Hear, hear.) The Government have not touched
this question simply in obedience to the commands of their
followers, although, they have brought in this bill in accord-
ance with their prejudices and fears. (Hear, hear.) The
farmers do not ask you for reform, although there are, no
doubt, some respects in which they desire it. The farm
labourer does not press it upon your attention. No, the
demand for reform comes from all your towns and cities ;
nor is the cry heard from the mouths of the unenfranchised
alone, but, in point of fact, from the great majority of the
electors themselves. (Cheers.) It is not an uncommon
thing to hear it asserted—as several hon. members have
asserted in this house—that the electors of this country do
not care for reform. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side
of the house.) Those hon. gentlemen who cry "Hear,
hear," do not know quite so much as I do about the senti-
ments of people residing in towns. (Cheers.) When the
electoral power was in the hands of a few corrupt corpora-
tions the case may have been otherwise, for they turned
their electoral privileges into a means of annual profit, and
did not like to share them with their fellow-townsmen.
(Hear.) But I never heard it made a charge against elec-
tors in boroughs, at the present day, that they were anxious
to retain the franchise for fear of admitting others of their
fellow countrymen to be sharers, or rivals, or participators
with them in the advantages which it comprises. (Hear.)
Now the Government, it, seems, do not think it necessary to
make any change in the borough franchise. We all know
that the line which was drawn in 1832 was drawn in direct
and almost absolute exclusion of all that class of persons
who live by wages. (Hear, hear.) Has it been a source of
satisfaction to them ? Have there not, upon the contrary,
been constant protests against it ? Have we not seen and
heard—when there was great depression in trade and a
great scarcity of food, which now happily is not the case—
more constant protests aggravated into something like in-
cipient insurrection ? (Hear, hear.) That such has been
the ease is not to be denied. 'Well, and what is it that you
now do ? Twenty-seven years after the passing of the
great Reform Bill, and after a whole generation has passed
away, you propose to continue, it may be for 27 years
longer, that exclusion against which the great body of the
unenfranchised population of the country have been lifting
up their voices ever since 1832. (Cheers.) Now, what is
it that her Majesty's Ministers say to us in introducing this
measure ? What will this house in effect say if it passes
into a law in its present shape ? You proclaim, in a voice
which will reach the furthest corner of the land, that will
enter not only into the ear but into the heart of the inhabi-
tants of every home of the class of which I am speaking in
England—that we have something or another in our Legis-
lature which they cannot comprehend and must not inter-
meddle with. (Cheers.) You will in effect say to them,
" We do not trust you, you are as ignorant, as dangerous,
as little to be relied upon now as you were 27 years ago."
(Cheers.) And what will be the result ? They will come
to the conclusion that upon the same principle upon which
you now act you will act for the next 27 years, using pre-
cisely the same arguments and pursuing the same course.
(Cheers.) And now let me pause for one moment to ask
what sort of a generation that has been which is just pass-
ing, or has passed, away ? My answer is, such a one as
was never known before. You have had under its auspices
a longer period of peace than you ever previously enjoyed.
The humbler classes have had a larger proportion of the
comforts and necessaries of life than at a preceding period.
They have improved at a rate of which your grandfathers
scarcely dared to dream. (Hear, hear.) You have
a free press—though there may be something still
to be done in order that it may become completely unfet-
tered—a subject to which the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to turn
his attention when he gets out of the little difficulty in
which he is now placed. (Cheers and laughter.) You have
not only the ordinary number of public journals, but you
have 300 newspapers published at the rice of Id., circu-
lating all over the country. (Hear, hear.) 'Well, all this has
been accomplished, yet ydu propose to exclude the members
of that class to whom you are indebted for much of your
prosperity—with the exception of the trifling numbers whom
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his small mercy, pro-
poses to admit under the savings'-bank clause—(cheers)—
from the exercise of the franchise. I saw a statement the
other day, to the effect that the operation of such a clause ap-
plied to Scotland would be to give Edinburgh about 300,
and all Scotland not more than 600 additional voters. The
borough electors are 50,000, and this extraordinary exten-
sion of the franchise will admit 21 per cent. increase, and
that is all the small dole which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and his friends offer to the great body of the
working classes of that country. (Hear, hear.) Scotland is
a frugal country; its people are industrious and saving to a
degree which is hardly comprehended here, and yet this
boon will only enfranchise some 1,200 persons there. lam
prepared to assert that this is not a Bill of Reform at all.
(Hear, hear.) It is, in point of fact, that which, in elec-
tioneering phrase, is considered a complete case of per-
sonation. (Laughter.) It is not the genius of liberty
that comes before us in the shape of a bill, but it is some-
thing which the people of this country had hoped they
had seen and heard of for the last time in our his-
tory. I think if it were to pass it would be held by
the whole population of the country to be nothing better
than a complete delusion, disappointing every class,
and tending to create discontent, which this house would
have great difficulty hereafter in allaying. Now,
there is one point which has been dwelt upon by the
right honourable gentleman opposite and others, in
which I do not feel the same extraordinary interest which
some members appear to feel, and that isas to the uniformity
of franchise. Ido not say that it is necessary, I don't say
that there is any advantage in it, but I do not see the great
disadvantages which have been ascribed to it. (Hear, hear.)
It has been represented to me as a very democratic proceed-
ing. lam not myself very democratic—(loud laughter)—
therefore I can assure the house the scheme has not on that
account any charms for me. I think it would have been just
as well rot to have had this uniformity, but I do not see any
harm there is in it. Thereis only one reason why we should
complain of it, and that is that it would not be so easy to
give a move to the whole franchise hereafter as if the county
franchise were different from that of the boroughs. (Hear,
hear.) But I can assure hon. members that if they tie the
two together, there is no power in this house to keep the
borough franchise at £lO, and unless they give up the idea
of uniformity the county franchise must come down with
the boroughs. However, that is a matter for hon. gentlemen
opposite to consider, and no doubt it has been considered by
her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) But if I have
no alarm about that, there is one thing that I have some
alarm about, and that is the manner in which some mem-
bers of the house seem disposed to treat this question. I re-
fer particularly to my hon. friend near me (Mr. Horsman),
the right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts (Mr. S. Her-
bert), and the right hon. gentleman the member for Coven-
try (Mr. Ellice), who has not spoken in thisdebate, but who
wrote a letter to his constituents upon the subject. The
right hon. gentleman is an extraordinary instance of what I
may call hallucination. (Laughter.) He represents the
greatest number of working men to be found in any con-
stituency—out of a population of 40,000 there are 6,000
electors, which is a far larger number than I thought
of proposing to the house. My right hon. friend says
there is no constituency that he knows which equals
his in independence, in intelligence, in virtue. Well,
sir, I can't admit all that. I know something of Co.
ventry —my father was born there, but I never
heard, nor ever observed that the people of that
town were upon the whole very superior. I believe they
are in no degree inferior to the same classes in other manu-
facturing towns. My right hon. friend says he is in favour
of household suffrage, but as the people are not ready for
that he will do nothing—he will have household suffrage
or nothing ; which, after all, is very much like what was
called the Charter. lam alarmed that the right hon. gen-
tleman, like the members for Wilts and Devonport, should,
in the face of a hundred meetings held spontaneously within
the last month, delude himself with the idea that nobody,
beyond the 650 gentlemen in this house, cares anything
about this question, and that we may comfortably get rid
of it in some way here, by digging a hole in the floor of the
house and burying it, as nobody cares about it. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge University (Mr.
Walpole) has the same notion. He thinks it must be
settled this session—that it can be—that it is necessary it
should be settled. Why ? For this reason, that you know
that the form in which you propose to settle it will not be
satisfactory to the people. (Hear, hear.) You know well
—I think the right hon. gentleman has confessed it, as some
have—that during the autumn you may have meetings—
during the winter you may have agitation. Well, what would
this country have been without meetings, without agitation?
We boast that we have abolished our ancient and bar-
barous mode of making extensive revolutions and changes in
our political system, but if you have done with war and
bloodshed for these purposes do not imagine that those
changes which become necessary from time to time can be
carried out and accomplished without the healthy operation
in some cases perhaps approaching to a rude but still a re-
freshing and strengthening agitation. (Laughter and
cheers.) Some gentlemen opposite seem to wish to forget
some things had happened 15 years ago. Then their organi-
zation was complete. They had farmers' meetings every-
where. (Hear.) And, not content with farmers meetings,
they had an office in Old Bond-street and a publication
committee, and theyhad every description of instrument for
an irritating and exasperating agitation which they could
possibly devise. (Hear, hear.) I do not imagine for a
moment that this question can be settled in the present
temper of the house satisfactorily to the people. Are you
quite sure that there is nothing in what is going on out of
doors ? I met a right hon. gentleman the other day near
the house, and he said to me as a great secret, " You know,
of course, that nobody does care about reform ?" Well, he
did not get me to agree with him upon that point. (A
laugh.) I happen to have been to some of the largest popu-
lations of the country, and I have seen meetings exceeding
in number and exceeding in influence I believe' almost
every meeting that was held by the Anti-Corn Law League
during the agitation of the repeal of the corn-laws. The
populations you are about to disappoint and defy, what
have they done ? They have conquered everything they
have grappled with hitherto. I do not speak of distant
realms conquered under your banners, but of arts and manu-
factures and all that tends to wealth and civilization. Do
you think that this population will not also conquer a
much larger share of their political rights than in your pre-
sent mood you appear disposed to give them ? There was a
speech made by the hon. member for Dorset, and I agree
with those who have expressed regret that that gentleman
did not speak more frequently—(hear, hear)—but, in the
speech the hon. gentleman said, " I am not afraid of the
people of this country." (Hear.) And he gave a very
powerful, and eloquent, and just rebuke to a gentleman
who, in a thoughtless moment, cheered in a sneering man-
ner his observation. I tell the house frankly that they do
not well understand the great populations of this country,
especially of the manufacturing towns. I have seen great
mistakes made. I remember in 1848 when the right hon.
gentleman above me (Sir G. Grey) was Home Secretary,
there was a great panic on the 10th of Apnl—or rather be-
fore the 10th of April, for by that day the panic was laughed
at. Well, what was done. I don t know what was done
at the Bank but I am told that at the British Museum that
institutionswas actually garrisoned. There were no Minie
stones, or boulders, taken up to the roof •
rifles nor Armstrong guns, perhaps, but there were 100 or
Not only was it garrisoned but, very
02
f 0 Ot
ht oen smo of
speatvuni g
properly, the commissariat was attended to and provisions
for three days laid in, and I am told the steps leading to
the rooms where the medals aid mot precious articles were