The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-05 00:00:00

finality which he had professed for 20 years—in
1851 brought forward an abortion of a measure
which he called a Reform Bill. (Cheers.) Again, in
1854, the struggle stilicontinuing between the two
noble lords as to which should be the le der of the
Liberal party, the leader of the House o Commons,
and the Prime Minister of the country, Lord John
Russell, in order again to stand well ‘vith the great
'_majority of the Liberal party in the House of Com-
mons, brought forward what he called a Reform
Bill. Now, if that noble lord really and sincerely
desired the emancipation and enfranchisement
of the working classes, if he really desired
to confer upon the people of this country a great,
wise, and salutary measure of reform, why did he
not in 1851 and 1854, at both periods commanding
a large majority of the House of Commons, pass the
bill which he laid upon the table of the house ?
(Cheers.) It had become the will and the deter-
mination of the people that some Reform Bill should
be passed ; and he might remind them that when
he addressed them from that place in 1857, when
Lord Derby was not in power, and when there was
no idea that the great majority of his party would
sanction a Reform Bill, he called on them to agitate
the question of reform,with the view to an extension
of the, elective franchise to the great body of the
middle classes of the people. (Cheers, and " What
about the 40s. freeholders ?") Why, the 40s. free-
holders constituted the great mass of his supporters
in that county, and it was not likely that he should
ever forget them. (Cheers.) But let them consider
what the Government would have done but that
they were opposed and defeated by a combination
of factions in the House of Commons,who were alone
responsible for the destruction of the only Reform
Bill ever sincerely brought forward since the great
measure of 1832, and by which at least 1,000,000 of
our fellow-countrymen would have received the
elective franchise. He confessed that in reference
to any measure of reform, or to any kindred ques-
tion introduced with a view to the benefit of
the people, he had always thought it safer and
wiser not to proceed rashly, but deliberately and
by slow degrees. Those who complained of the
Reform Bill introduced by the Government must
remember that for twenty-seven years previously
nothing at all had been done in the way of reform.
When the present Government brought forward
an experimental measure, designed to enfranchise
1,000,000 of the community, no one could
fairly denounce them as the enemies of progress.
By the bill they brought in every man throughout
the country—for it was the intention to have ap-
plied its provisions ultimately to Scotland and
Ireland—who occupied a house of the value of
£lO a year would eventually have received the
elective franchise. They would, in that case, no
longer have seen that mischievous distinction
which obtained in reference to occupation, as a
ground for conferring the elective franchise, which
had given so great an amount of dissatisfaction to
the people during the greater part of the present
century, excluding as it did the occupier of a better
house in a county and of greater value than that
of the occupier within a represented borough, who
was admitted to the franchise, though the former
might be a man of better position and higher in-
telligence and attainments. The Government en-
deavoured by their bill to equalise the qualification
for the exercise of the elective franchise, and they
would have at once enfranchised the entire middle
classes of the people. He hoped his gallant oppo-
nent would tell them explicitly the reduction of
the franchise in boroughs which he was prepared
to advocate. He (the Attorney-General) ventured
to say that if a majority of the new House of
Commons should put an end to the Ministry of
Lord Derby, and bring Lord John Russell into
power, Lord John Russell could not maintain him-
self in office for one week without the support of
Mr. Bright and his party. (Cheers and uproar.)
Mr. Bright had within the last week publicly
avowed to a large assembly of his countrymen
that he thought the policy of the country required
that the suffrage should be extended, not, to a £6,
a £5. or a £3 franchise, but to householders
throughout the realm. He knew it was the deep
and deliberate conviction of Mr. Bright that it
would be for the good of the country that such
should be the qualification for voting ; and he
(the Attorney-General) asked, were they prepared,
by electing his gallant opponent (Colonel Adair)
to support an Administration composed of
Lord John Russell and Mr. Bright ? (" No, no,"
and uproar.) He would also seriously ask them
to consider what would be the first consequence to
the people of this country of the passing of such
a measure as that to which Mr. Bright would only
consent. There were, according to the last returns,
3,500,000 inhabited houses in England and Wales,
and the result of adopting the principle of house-
hold suffrage would be, after striking off half a
million for minors, women, and casualties, to create
a constituency of 3,000,000, of whom 2,000,000
would be occupiers of houses below the value of
£lO a-year. Once sanction a measure of that kind,
creating an entirely new constituency of 2,000,000
persons not possessed of property, and many of
them without education, and the consequence would '
be to outnumber the whole of the upper and
middle classes of the country. (Cheers.) The
learned gentleman proceeded to comment, amid oc-

casionarinterruption, on the lodgers' clause in the
Government Reform Bill, and the educational clause,
remarking by the way that for the first time edu-

cation had been made a qualification for the elec-
tive franchise—and the provision relating to
savings-bank depositors. With respect to the last-
named topic, which elicited some expressions of
ridicule, he said a gentleman had that very morn-
ing informed him that in a town in the northern
part of Suffolk, containing not more than 4,000
inhabitants, there were no fewer than 125 depositors
in a savings-bank to the amount of £6O and
upwards. (Cheers and uproar.) Did the Liberal
party pretend to talk to them (the Conservative
party) about the working classes ? What had the
Liberal party ever done for the working classes ?
(A Voice—" What had Lord Derby done for
them ?") Did the Liberal party do anything
for them in the Reform Bill of 1832, or in
those of 1851 and 1854? Let any one point out
to him a single measure which any one of
the . Liberal party ever brought forward or ever
supported, and which conferred the shadow
of a shade of benefit on the working classes. He
• would tell them what the Conservative party had
done. For three years in succession a bill was
brought forward to enable the working classes to,
resist combinations formed against them by their
masters and employers. It was introduced by an
independent member, and supported by any of
the Conservative party, and uniformly by himself
(the Attorney-General) as the representative of the
good men of East Suffolk. And by whom was it
opposed and thrown out ? (A Voice—" We've
never seen or heard of it," and laughter.) Why, by
the party led by Lord John Russell. Eventually,
however, it became the law of the land, and he (the

Attorney-General) bore a humble part in passing it.
The result was, that the working men throughout
the kingdom might now meet and agree upon mea-
sures for their own protection, without fear of their
masters. And yet it was the Conservatives who
' were to be taunted by the Liberals as the enemies
of the working classes. The learned gentleman
also reminded them that his party had sought to
benefit that class of the community by admitting
the most respectable and industrious of them to the
exercise of the franchise. He proceeded to defend
the proposed transfer to the borough constituencies
of the 405." freeholders whose qualifications were
situate in boroughs, and to comment upon the exer-
tions made by the Government to maintain the peace
of Europe and to prevent the country drifting into
a war, while they sought to uphold the honour of
the English name. He repeated in substance the
statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to his constituents in reference to the Mediterranean
and Channel fleets, adding that we had 100,000 men
in arms either about to depart from India or on their
way home. With such means of defence, and with a
Government determined to uphold, as far as in
them lay, the liberties of the people and to main-
tain the peace of the world, they need have little
apprehension in the present state of affairs. To
that Government they might safely intrust the
destinies of the country ; and he doubted not when
he met them on those hustings again he should
have to congratulate them upon England having,
throughout the impending conflict, maintained the
honour of her name and the stability of her insti-
tutions. (Cheers.)
Colonel ADAIR, the candidate in the Liberal in-
terest, then addressed the meeting at considerable
length, and with much vigour and effect. The
gallant gentleman was frequently cheered by his
flown supporters, but the partisans on the opposite
side kept up a continual clamour during his speech,
which, irrespective of its merits, was under the
circumstances a wonderful effort of lungs; and in
spite of great provocation he maintained his good
humour throughout. He exhorted them, as long
as the question of reform remained unsettled, not
to be diverted from it on one side or the other by
what the Attorney-General would call "collateral
issues." He added that he belonged to the great
Liberal party, for whom he claimed the merit of
preferring the interests of their country to any
party triumph. (Cheers.) He defended his party at
some length against the attacks of the Attorney-
General. Adverting to the 40s. freeholders, he
called it rash innovation and opposed to constitu-
tional law and custom to deal with them in the
manner proposed by the recent Reform Bill. Most
of all, he found fault with that tampering spirit
which led an inconsiderate Government into acts
from which it could not recede, and then placed
the mass of the people on one side and a portion of
the Legislature on the other. He warned his op-
ponents that ACT the question of reform had been