The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1859.

boroughs. This question lies, in fact, within narrow limits.
No one wishes to see a system of equal electoral districts,
and the only practical question before us was whether
50, 60, 70, or 80 small boroughs should be disfranchised,
and their seats distributed among the large towns and dis-
tricts. I am not about to enter upon an argument whether
these very small boroughs (whatever incidental advantages
they may possess) ought to form a permanent part of our
velitical system. I think it would be difficult, if not
possible to defend them on grounds of principle as a per-
=amen;possible, part of our system. But I look at the matter in a
practical point of view, and I ask if a large measure of dis-
franchisement had been contemplated by the present bill
what would have been the result? Why, besides those who
oppose all reform on principle (if any such exist), and be-
sides those who would oppose this bill for not going far
enough, there would have been arrayed naturally against
this bill the representatives of those 50 or 60 small boroughs
who would have been in no small degree instrumental in
its rejection. I believe that the practical difficulty arising
from that opposition would have been fatal to the success of
this bill; and as the object of the Government was not to
make the best bill that could be framed, but the best that
had a chance of passing this house, I contend that that fact
is in itself a sufficient vindication. But another difficulty
would have arisen. If the disfranchisement had been large,
the question would have arisen, "What are you to do with
the vacant seats ?" You would then have epened up in a
large measure the whole controversy as between counties
and boroughs. If the principle of this bill be accepted you
raise it in a form in which the claim of the counties becomes
much stronger than they ever were before. So long as you
had borough voters with a qualification of £lO and county
voters of £5O it might be argued, that an exact comparison
between the numerical proportion in which boroughs and
counties were represented was unjust, for that the boroughs
alone represented the £lO householder who had no share in
voting for the county members. But that plea is done away by
the uniformity, of franchise, and when you have the same
constituency both in boroughs and counties, it seems impos-
sible to refute the reasoning used by my right hon. friend
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer), which proves that the
representation of the eounties is inadequate. The principle
was admitted by the noble lord the member for the city of
London 'in the Bill of. 1854. But then the question
would stand in this way—that a large change being about
to be made the counties who do not ask it must in justice
have the principal benefit, while the towns from which the
demand arises will be affected in a comparatively small de-
gree, and will have a very small share of the benefit. For
these two reasons—the difficulty of disfranchisement, and
the difficulty of distributing the seats—we thought it better
not to attempt to deal with the subject, except so far as the
pressing exigency of the times demanded. (Hear.) The
next objection to the bill is the restoration of out voters in
boroughs. It is argued that their abolition at the time of
the first Reform Bill was an acknowledged benefit, and,
therefore, that their restoration is an abuse. I accept the
premises, but I deny the conclusion. I am ready to admit
that it was politic in 1832 to do away with out voters ; but
why ? Because at that time the payment of travelling ex-
penses by a candidate was permitted, and, the means
communication being very different then from what
_y
are now, :these expenses, whether they fell on the candi-
date or on the voter, necessarily constituted a very heavy
tax on the one or the other for the performance of a public
duty. But in this bill it is proposed that the payment of
these expenses by the candidate should cease, and if the
house will sanction the system of voting papers, or any sys-
tem by which voters shall not be compelled to travel to the
poll, that difficulty of travelling expenses and the objec-
tion to out-voters derived from it will be entirely done
away with. But, whether the house sanction that plan
of voting or not, two things are equally clear—first,
that these expenses are far less than they were, and next,
that they will not fall on the candidate, which was
the principal ground of complaint, (Hear, hear.) But
I am ready to contend, further,. that this theory of re-
quiring residence from a voter is unfitted to the ideas
and habits of the present time, because it assumes
that a man's interest in respect to which he votes must
necessarily be there alone where he happens to reside: We
know that hundreds and thousands of persons whose busi-
ness lies in towns are in the habit of residing along the great
lines of railways, often at a considerable distance from their
places of business. That is one of the features of the social
life of our time which it is impossible to ignore. (Hear.)
Then, again, if you are to require residence in boroughs,
why should you not require it as a qualification for counties
also P (Hear, hear.) The argument for requiring it in
counties is much stronger than in the case of boroughs, be-
cause there the area within which the voter may reside is
larger and the restriction is less. (Hear.) It is no answer
to say that occupation is the qualification for boroughs and
ownership for counties, since that distinction ceased to exist
when the Chandos clause was passed. (Cheers.) If you are
to draw such a distinction you must base it on some clear,
intelligible rule, and if no such rule can be laid down the
alternative is either to require residence in both town and
county, or to dispense with it in both. (Hear.) The last
alternative I beheve is the best, since no person would be
disfranchised, and in a country where the territorial area is so
limited, and the means of locomotion so great, the theory that
residence is essential to having an interest in a locality has
ceased altogether to apply. (Cheers.) It has been argued
that to do away with this requirement would give facilities
for the manufacture of a number of fictitious votes which
would swamp the resident electors ' • but in the sixth clause
of this bill there is a proviso which will have a considerable
effect in checking any such practices. It is there stipulated
that, with certain exceptions, not more than two votes shall
be allowed in regard to the same tenement. I believe it is the
habit, when fictitious votes of this kind are to be created on a
large scale, not to give distinct ownerships of freeholds, but
to create joint ownership, and to give a number of rent
charges upon the same property. (Hear, hear.) I come
now to the feature of the bill in which more than any other
its principle may be said to lie, and against which the prin-
cipal attacks of the noble lord were directed—the iden-
tity or uniformity of borough and county franchise. I
quite agree with the noble lord that we ought to consider
that principle without any reference to the particular
amount at which the franchise may be fixed. The question
is, is it or is it not right that the franchise should be made
equal and uniform in towns and counties—or ought that
distinction, which I admit has existed from the earliest
period of our history, still to be retained ? The first plea
which I offer for the identity of the suffrage is that unless
you adopt it you will always have dissatisfied classes.
(Cheers.) However low you put the franchise—say you
take a £lO franchise in counties and household suffrage or
rating suffrage in towns—clearly those inhabitants of coun-
ties who, if they had lived within the limits of a borough,
would have been entitled to the franchise, but who living
beyond those limits are excluded, will complain that they
are overlooked and unfairly treated ; that the distinction
thus drawn is an unfair one, and they will set
on foot a new agitation for a further reform. (Hear.
hear.) It is not an agreeable thing to be excluded
from the franchise • but exclusion on the ground of the
want of some general qualification is at least intelligible,
and can be understood even by those who think that they
have a right to complain, but to shut a man out because he
lives on one side of a street while his neighbour, who lives
on the other, has a vote—and we know that the boundaries
of boroughs are drawn as arbitrarily as this—must appear
capricious, oppressive, and even incomprehensible. (Hear.)
The lower you carry the franchise in boroughs the more
will this grievance be felt, because that class becomes larger,
which, if they lived in boroughs, would be admitted, but
who, living beyond the limits of a borough, are excluded.
(Cheers.) I say, then, that no measure which does not assi-
milate these franchises can really stop agitation for afurther
extension. But I go further, and ask what is the theory,
the principle, on which distinction of the franchises
rests ? I have a right to call on those who support
it for their defence, because one may safely assume
that no person creating an electoral system would
propose to fix two unequal franchises, divided by purely
arbitrary lines. I know, of course, what is . supposed
to be the constitutional answer given to this inquiry. It is
said, " the franchise in counties is based on ownership, and
represents the permanent interests of property; the fran-
chise in boroughs is based on occupation, and represents
temporary or fluctuating interests." On that distinction
I have more than one comment to make. Assuming it to
be true, its maintenance is hardly expedient. I cannot
conceive a more clumsy arrangement, nor one more likely
to bring different classes into collision, than to say that so
many members of this house are to be considered as repre-
senting property, and so many others as representing occu-
pancy. (Cheers.) There is another blot in it, perhaps
more important still. It ignores every form of property
except real property. A man may have an inadequate
fortune, say £lO,OOO in the funds, and, living in a hired
house, he will be held not to represent property, but occu-
pation only. But if out of his £lO,OOO he set aside £5O and
buys a 40s. freehold, he passes at once from one class to
another; and, though all the rest of his fortune only en-
titles him to be considered as representing occupancy, the
£5O places him in a different class, and ranks him among
those who represent property. Again, this scheme of sepa-
rating boroughs from counties fails entirely in its applica-
tion in this respect—that it never has been consistently
carried out ; for if, on the one hand, you say that a 40s.
freeholder, wherever he may reside,' shall be entitled to a
vote for the county, it follows from analogy, almost as
an inevitable consequence that the £lO occupier, wherever
he may reside, shall be entitled to vote, not" for the
county, but for the nearest town. But that provision has
never been contemplated, and never could be introduced
into any bill. But if this were the case before 1832, if even
this alleged distinction between the representatives of
ownership and the representatives of occupation was as-
serted only in a partial and incomplete manner, the incon-
sistency becomes much greater since the Chandos clause
was passed. (Hear, hear.) For the last 27 years you have
adnutted occupation as giving a right to vote for counties.
You have broken down the wall of separation which for-
merly existed, and I defy any one to say on what clear, in-
telligible ground that distinction is now maintained. It
does not even rest on any general rule or understanding
that the qualification shall be higher in counties than in
boroughs, because, though you now exclude £lO house-
holders from votes for the counties, you admit the 40s. free-
holder, who undoubtedly stands no higher in the social
scale. (Hear.) But other reasons exist why the distinction
cannot be maintained . In order to maintain it you must be
7;11on
able to draw an exact line between town slid count • you
must be able to say that all on one side is town an
the other country. But that is exactly what you cannot
do. Take the case of London—who can say precisely_
where London ends and the county of Middlesex begins r
Take Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, or any other
densely peopled city, it is the same. You have long lines
of suburbs stretching out along roads and railways far
beyond the limits of the borough, yet all having the town
fortheir centre. In some parts of England,
again, you
have boroughs that are in effect small counties ; in other
parts boroughs that do not include more than a part of the
town in which they are situated ; and in others large dis-
tricts densely, peopled, yet not capable of being included
within the limits of a borough. That is the state of
things existing at the present day, and with the growth of
our population that condition of things is likely to go
onincreasing. In many parts of England the distinc-
tionbetween town and country is one much more of degree
than of kind. (Hear, hear.) Some have more the charac-
ter of town, some less ; that is the only difference. (Hear,
hear.) But there is another point of view from which this
question of identical suffrage may be considered. By
adopting it as a principle, the disfranchisement of small
and decayed boroughs_ ultimately inevitable as new towns
arise requiring to be reuresented—beenmes at once less im-
portant and less difficult. At present, when you disfranchise
a borough, you take away the votes of the £lO householders
within it, and you don't give them votes for the county.
They naturally object, and the difficulty of the process is
greatly increased ; whereas, under the system of uniform
suffrage, the only result of disfranchisement is to transfer
the votes of the borough disfranchised into the county , the
only result of enfranchisement is that you take a certain
•
number of votes out of the county, and make them into a
separate constituency. Both the demand for enfranchise..
ment and the fear of disfranchisement are thus greatly in-
creased, and a partial solution is offered of a ,question which
has given, and may again give, rise to a great deal of agi_
tatien. I now come to another part of-the bill, to which the
noble lord made some objections—the transfer of freehold
to towns. Let me here say that I regret
votes in counties
the amendment by which the life interests in these free
holds are to be respected did not originally form part of the
bill. Reserving such interests is an ordinary practice, as
in the ease of freemen of boroughs; and there is ne deper-

trim from a principle in making temporary exceptions to it.
I cannot help lamenting that many persons out of doors,
and, possibly, some in this house, do not appear perfectly
to understand the nature of the change proposed. It is re-
presented as a proposal to disfranchise men who have
held the right of voting for many generations ; that
they will now be deprived of it by an Act of
Parliament. Now, how does the bill operate ? In the
case of a county freeholder who does not vote for a
borough, though living within it, there is no disfranchise-
ment whatever. (Hear, hear.) He only had one vote
before, and he retains that vote still. And, in point of fact,
the amount of political power possessed by the county voter
who is transferred to a borough is greatly increased. (Hear.)
The county constituencies are very much larger than those
of the boroughs ; and we know that the value of an indivi-
dual vote depends on the smallness of the constituency.
You take the voter from a constituency where he is one in
5,000 who return two members, and you put him where he
is one of 500 who return two members ; practically, his
power of affecting the representation is increased tenfold.
(Hear, hear.) In the case of the freeholder having two
votes—one for the county, and one for a borough—and
whom, after the life of the existing holder, you take away
one vote. But the question is whether upon any intelligible
principle, or one that can be defended, he has any claim to
the other vote. If any man has a dozen freehold qualifica-
tions in a county do you allow him to have a dozen votes ?
No ;he has only one. The duplicate vote of the borough
freeholder is only an accident of our political system—not
an essential feature of it. It is hardly worth while to ad-
vert to charges of interested and party motives having in-
fluenced this transfer. We have been told we "want to
cripple the operations of the freehold land societies, because
they interfere with landlords." Now, first, there can be no
object to induce any action against those societies, because,
as far as we can ascertain, their voters are very equally
divided between the two great
political parties. In the next
place, these societies are not crippled, because it is just as
easy to buy land beyond the limits of a Parliamentary
borough as within them, in which case the votes remain
unaffected by this bill ; and, lastly, it is a singular mode of
attempting to diminish the political power of a class of
voters when, as I have just shown, by transferring them
to boroughs that power is actually increased. (Hear, hear.)
And now one word as to the term " disfranchisement ;" it
has been much used in reference to this bill, but not with
much accuracy. I suppose it means depriving a man of the
right of voting ; but under the provisions of the bill not
one man will be deprived of that right; the constituencies
will not be narrowed by a single voter; there is a transfer
of votes, indeed, and a loss of second votes, but not one in-
dividual will be struk off the register. The effect of these
clauses will be much less than supposed. There are now
about 95,000 freeholders residing within the limits of bo-
roughs ; we cannot pretend to any certainty on this point;
but we believe that rather less than half of these have one
vote only these are not disfranchised—only transferred.
The remainder who have a second vote will prospectively
lose it, but only when, by the operation of other parts of
the bill, a great number of new voters are brought on the
list. We have heard much of the smallness of this mea-
sure ; but to the 900,000 £lO occupiers now existing the
bill will add 200,000 voters ; and this addition may by the
new franchises created be extended to 100,000 more. If
the amount of personal property on which a qualification is
given is thought too great, that is a point for future con-
sideration ; a principle is laid down in the bill on which, by
after amendments, the constituencies can be still further
extended. I believe, looking at the question in a practical
point of view, that the choice at the present time lies be-
tween a comparatively small bill and no bill whatever.
(Hear, hear.) I believe the attempt to carry through Par-
liament a large measure of reform would share the fate of
the measures of 1852 and 1854. I believe it would fail,
and for this reason—that the working classes are not now
pressing in the same manner as they did 27 years ago for
the possession of political power, and that the middle
classes, having a much larger share of political power than
they then possessed, are not disposed to part with it. We
hear it sometimes assumed that the Government of this
country is exclusively or mainly in the hands of the aris-
tocracy. I apprehend that is an entire mistake. I believe
that practically, ever since the passing of the Act of 1832,
what is called the "middle class" has had the prepon-
derating power in our Government. Even the Act of
1832 did not create the great power of the middle class,
it merely recognised and embodied in the political
institutions of the country that which it found
already existing. In all countries the importance
which belongs to the middle class and the amount
of power which it possesses have been taken as a
fair test of social progress. In England it is that class
which has always most strenuously vindicated the principle
of personal freedom, both against royal prerogative and ec-
clesiastical power. It is that class which has given us Pro-
testantism in religion and constitutional government in the
State. It is that class which has laboured to protect the
finances of England against the extravagance of armies and
of courts, and which has striven to preserve the peace of
England against the popular passion for war. It is by that
class that British trade has been extended over every quar-
ter of the globe, that British shipping has been sent into
every sea, that India has been conquered, America colo-
nised,,Liverpool and Manchester created. I see nothing in
the manner in which the members of that class have used
the preponderance of political power vested in them during
the last 25 years to make me believe that they are unworthy
to possess it still. It may be right that they should share
that power. It is not right that they should lose it ; and
lose it they will if an indiscriminate extension of the fran-
chise (for you will find it no easier to stop at £6 than at
£lO, and what you give to the boroughs you will not be
able to withhold from the counties) you should place every
class in subordination to one, and that one by no fault of its
own, but by the nature and the necessity of the case, the
least independent and the least instructed. (Cheers.)
Mr. H. G. STURT (who spoke from a back bench on the
Ministerial side) said he rejoiced that ' the noble lord at the
head of the Government had had the moral courage to
come forward and grapple with this question, which had
now been hovering over the country forthe last dozen years.
At the same time, he deeply regretted that that noble lord
had not gone a little fUrther, and, through his representa-
tive in that house, laid on the table a bill that was likely to

satisfy the just expectations of the people. (Cheers from

the Opposition.) In an able speech delivered to his con-
stituents, the noble lord the member for King's Lynn
seven or eight years ago declared that he was strongly op-
posed to anything in the shape of piecemeal legislation on
the subject of Parliamentary reform, and that he ardently
hoped, when the question was introduced into the House of
Commons, that a full and comprehensive measure would be
proposed, and one which would satisfy the people if not for
ever, at all events for a considerable time to come. It would
appear that the noble lord had now somewhat modified
his opinion, for he must be well aware that the bill
before the house, so far from being accepted by the
country as a proper and practical solution of this difficult
question, had been but the signal for renewed agitation and
general discontent. (Cheers.) He had heard the intro-
ductory speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with
considerable astonishment—(a laugh) —for it was surprising
that one who was second to no man in that house for poli-
tical sagacity should in 1859 coolly, gravely, and deliberately
propose to deprive 100,000 of his honest, intelligent, loyal,
and patriotic fellow-countrymen of their inestimable privi-
lege of voting at county elections. He was obliged to look
about for an explanation of so extraordinary a proceeding.
The hon. member for Birmingham was quite right in de-
scribing this as a sop thrown by the Government to the
county members on their own side. No, doubt it was kindly
intended, yet it certainly paid the county members no very
high compliment. (A laugh.) He wondered that they did
not regard it in the proper light—viz., as a great political
insult offered to themselves and their constituents, and did
not protest as one man against a scheme manifestly so un-
just and so unconstitutional. (Cheers.) Instead, of doing
this, however, his hon. friends first took the sop and then
did not like it—(laughter)—because a few days afterwards
down came the hon. member for Somersetshire, generous
man I and gave notice of amendment to maintain what he
called existing rights—a proposition which was nothing,
more nor less than a miserable compromise. County mem-
bers generally on the Mintsterial side were not supposed to
hold very enlightened views, or to have very expansive in-
tellects, and after mixing considerably with them himself
during the last six weeks, he must say he was rather in-
clined to share in that opinion. (Laughter.) He wished to
ask his hon. friends in public, as he had asked them over
and over again in private, why they were so suspicious and
distrustful towards the people ? (Cheers.) For many years
past the decent and loyal behaviour of " the masses" had
been the theme of admiration throughout the world. Itwas
said that there was a danger of the people undermining the
throne and subverting the aristocracy. He shared in no such
apprehension—he laboured underno such hallucination. It
was because he had faith in the people that he protested
against any attempt to tamper with their constitutional
rights. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He so protested be-
cause he was a Conservative. (An ironical cheer from the
Ministerial side.) Yes, he repeated, he made that protest
because he was a Conservative ; and he would tell the hon.
gentleman who raised that malevolent cheer, that that man
was more worthy the appellation of Conservative who ad-
vaned with the times in which he lived and identified him-
self with the principle of progressive improvement than
one who had no trust in the people, and who, whenever an
opportunity presented itself, :was invariably found raising his
voice and recording his votes in favour of a retrograde po-
licy. (Opposition cheers.) Moreover, when the proper time
arrived he(Mr.Sturt)should recordhisvote in favour ofextend-
ing the borough franchise,because in his conscience he believed
there were tens of thousands of the working classes in the
country precluded from that right to which their intelli-
gence and education so eminently entitled them. (Opposi-
tion cheers.) Desirous as ho was to see a satisfactory mea-
sure of reform passed in the present session, the question
naturally suggested itself—would he assist in attaining that
object by voting with the noble lord the member for the city ?
He thought not. (A laugh, answered by counter cheers.)
If the resolution of the noble lord were carried all chance
of passing an effective Reform Bill during the present ses-
sion would be lost. Surely it was in the power of any hon.
member, when the house went into committee on this bill, to
lomove_ a resolution embodying the objects of the noble
rd ? (Hear, hear.) Surely the Government had not
.shfewuro one
and
aenyhesitation to advance halfway in the path of im-
provement,he could not see any reason why the bill,
or two omissions, some alterations, and a few addi-
tions— (alaugh)—should 'not eventually assume a shape con-
sonant with the feelings and opinions of the house. And now
for the question of part
on the opposite side of the
likely to derive from joining
mem-
ber for the city in what he (Mr.
ex-
tremely dexterous party movement
a disunited party. Y. Heho wanted to ask hon:gentlemen
I,ll,7tehwat advantage they were
sits noble friend the
He would
justg refer,en ut A
fl
eaoi mustgoehnx a.
laugh.)
callriiTplhe
e,hyti
osw.
a sine qua non in themeconsidertaittiheen
theeballot. He was convinced hon.
side below the gangway would m the ueesegositef
reonsfoluoa-
yaPg'atsinsiWhim and in
Reform Bill. Believing, then, that no good could accrue
the ballot
etiiothneorfttho tehneocbolune
lord, he
rhteo
sanhoyuipdarvtyoteb
favour of the second reading of the bill before the house.
(Hear.) He had, in conclusion, to thank the house for the.
indulgent attention they had granted h.im. Ho hoped he
thathad not(the h urt the
Ministerial)
side
of theclany of his right hon. friends on
house. (Laughter.) He
trusted none of his hon. friends near him had been petrified
by aught that he had said. (A laugh.) He would only fur-
ther state that he had addressed the house as a free and
independent member, having no ambition to gr4ify, and
animated onlyby the wish—which he was sure guided every
member of that assembly—to secure to the utmost extent,
the safety, honour, and welfare of this native country.
(Cheers.)
Viscount BURY said he must congratulate the Govern •
ment on the speech which had just been delivered by one of
theirown supporters. (Hear, hear.) As to the hon. member's
allusion to party, he must remark that no one could accuse
the opposition of any factions conduct in reference to the
Government. The support rendered had, however, been
always understood to be dependent for its continuance on
one condition, namely, that when the proper time arrived
they would bring in a satisfactory reform bill; and having
failed to fulfil that condition, they had no right now to com- ,
plain of being taken unawares. Before he could vote for the
second reading of this bill he must ask himself what was
' meant by reform ? If the Government rdeant by reform 1

merely the redistribution of a few seats—a sort of Locke-
King and water change, that was not his meaning. He was
for an extension of the bill of 1832, which would embrace
persons who were not then perhaps, but were now, fitted to
exercise the franchise. (Hear, hear.) The whole scope of
legislation since 1832 had been to elevate the classes below
the middle class, so that they might be prepared for the en-
joyment of political privileges ; and any reform bill which
did not let in the classes who were omitted in 1832, would be
simply a mischievous innovation. The bill before the house
did not let in the working classes. As to the £6O in the
savings bank, that would admit to the franchise scarcely a
single working man, and, generally speaking, the Govern-
ment
were giving the country just the name of reform, and
dealing with it as if it were a child and might be pacified
with a toy. He objected to the bill, not only on account
of the smallness of the reform proposed, but because it was
not in the right direction. In fact this bill ought to be
nailed to the table of the house as a bad shilling was nailed
to the counter of a shopkeeper ; it was not true metal, its
ring was not satisfastory. It removed no incongruities, it
grappled with no defects, it did not give political power to
any large class who did not now possess it. Sir Robert
Inglis, who was a great authority on the ministerial
side of the house, said that if they were to have a Reform
Bill, it should come from the friends, and not from the op-
ponents, of reform. The right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the bill, told the
house why he considered her Majesty's Government the
fittest persons to introduce the question. He might have
spared himself the trouble ; for the history of his party
showed that they resisted reform as long as they could, and
then did not hesitate to propose it themselves. But the
Government had not consistently followed the precedents of
their party. When the Duke of Wellington and Sir R.
Peel at length proposed measure of reform, they proposed a
satisfactory settlement of the questions dealt with, and in
this respect her Majesty's present Government had not,
imitated their example. He was well aware that they dif-
fered from him as to the safety of admitting the working
classes to the exercise of the franchise; but he ,might refer
to the conduct of the working classes even at the general
election, immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill,
to show that they are worthy of confidence. At that time
they were invited to join an agitation, because they were
not included in the Reform Bill, but they had the good
sense to refrain from accepting the invitation. When the
House of Commons was asked to extend to the working
classes the benefit of political power, it would be most un-
grateful in the middle classes, with the remembrance of
former agitations before them, not to give to the working
classes their aid. He thought that as the Government
sought to act for the general good, it should be the repre-
sentative of the working, as of every other, class. And he
would especially remind that section of the house which
stood in fear of the working class, that there was more con-
servative feeling in the working man than in many of the
classes above him. He had, moreover, remarked that the
masses, when entrusted with either privilege or power,
were always induced to use it, not in furtherance of any
supposed views of their own class, but in the cause of law
and order. Take, for instance, the case of the police. Every
one knew from what class the police were taken, and yet
when any disturbance took place amongst the class from
which they came, there was no body to be more relied upon
than they. Indeed, if by entrusting the working-class with
the privilege of having a voice in the management of the
country, the course of Government was imperilled, it could
only be so because our Government was a tyranny. Now,
beheving, as he did, that it was not a tyranny, he believed
that no peril would ensue if the franchise were extended to
the class he had named. For all these reasons he believed
that the working classes were fit for and entitled to a real
and substantial extension of the suffrage. That extension
was not to be found in the present bill, andhe should there-
fore vote for the amendment of his noble friend. Nor was
this all, but on the second reading he should likewise give
to the measure his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. K. SEYMER said that those with whom he usually
acted took this view of the present state of affairs. They
desired to maintain the security of property and the pro-
sperity of the kingdom ; and, believing that those ends
would be attained by a moderate and judicious extension of
the franchise, they gave their support to the bill of the Go-
vernment. That was the principle on which they went ; for
they knew nothing of the rights of man. Let the house bear
in mind, at the onset, how different were affairs now to what
, they were 30 years ago. At the time of the Reform Bill many
of our greatest towns were unrepresented, and ofthose which
were represented, in many cases the members were elected
by close corporations, and in no way represented the towns
themselves. Seats were bought and sold, he might say
openly. Under these circumstances, the Reform Bill passed;
and speaking from those—the Conservative—benches, he
did not hesitate to call that a great and successful measure.
It was not a perfect one—the absurd formulary, " the bill,
the whole bill, and nothing but the bill," once so popular,
did much to spoil it ; but with its defects is was on the
whole a great success. And yet the country had been
told that they were but the slaves of an aristocracy. The
house had, in 30 years which had gone by, passed many
measures of great importance and of progressive improve-
ment. It might, perhaps, be said that he had no right to
take any credit for this, for that the party with whom he
acted had always opposed such measures. He would not
go into that question, for it was immaterial to his argument,
which was this—that during the last 30 years the House of
Commons had uniformly acted on the side of progress, and
was therefore not open to the charges which had been plen-
tifully brought against it during the recess. Take the
question of free trade. The hon. member for Birmingham
(Mr. Bright) was no doubt well aware that at the com-
mencement of the agitation on that subject, it found so little
favour with the working classes, that they were only ad-
mitted to its meetings by tickets. But that question of free
trade was carried by a large majority, both of the House of
Commons and the House of Lords. Again, he would ask
the house, and especially the hon. member for Birming-
ham, who was it who supported the Ten Hours Bill ? Was
it not the country party headed by Lord Shaftesbury, while
the opposition to the measure came from the hon. member
for Birmingham ? The principle of that bill was that of
interference in the cause of young children ; but had the
House of Commons been a house representing the working
classes only would the bill have stopped there ? They had
heard of an eight hours' cry for adults, and no doubt an
attempt would be made to push through some measure of
that kind if the operative class got the opportunity. In-
deed he found that the principles of the working classes on
questions of political economy like these were essentially
defective. He might mention a case which had only just
occurred amongst a class of operatives whom as a body ho
might be justified in calling Radicals. He referred to the
shoemakers. This class, notwithstanding their Liberal
views, had only just now been banding together for the
purpese of putting down the introduction of machines into
their trade. This reminded him somewhat of the licensed
victuallers of Marylebone, who at a recent meeting passed
a vote of confidence in their hon. and learned new member
as " a decided Liberal, and one who was opposed to the open-
ing of the victualling trade." He must admit that he re-
gretted that the Government should have taken the course of
disqualifying the county freeholders in boroughs. He looked
upon that class of voters as amongst the most independent
and honest in the country. That, hdwever, he thought was
a question which might well be considered in committee.
Another principle of the bill was that by which certain dis-
tricts were disfranchised. He admitted that the public had
expected that the nomination boroughs would have been
dealt with by the Government, but he believed that if they
had been, the loss would have fallen much more heavily on
the Whigs than on the Tories. As it was, they had dealt with
fifteen Whig and fifteen Tory seats, and had in the same fair
way dealt with the enfranchisement, striking as fairly as
possible the balance amongst all parties. He could not, he
must say, see why so much abuse had been cast on the
voting-papers. Some gentlemen liked the ballot because it
enabled them to vote secretly, and if others wished for a
plan which should enable them to vote, in case of illness or
infirmity, without leaving home, he did not see any reason
why they should not be gratified. As to the noble lord's
resolution, he must confess he could not imderstand on
what principle it was founded. The noble lord alleged that
what it aimed at was the principle, and he (Mr. K. Seymer)
had always understood that the principle of a bill was
always decided by a direct vote on the second reading. He
confessed that in spite of the disclaimer of the noble lord,
he believed that the country would better understand the
noble lord's motives about changing places with the gentle-
men on the Treasury bench, than respecting any expansion
of the franchise of the people.

Alderman SALOMONS hoped for the indulgence of the
house while for the first time he took a brief part in one of
its debates. (Hear, hear.) He wished he knew its members
sufficiently well to be able to distinguish between the two
hon. members from Dorsetshire, with one of whom he agreed,
whilst from the other he differed. With the first of those
hon. members ho entirely sympathised—all but the conclu-
sion to which he had come. He (Mr. Salomons) had often
been brought into contact with the working classes, and he
believed that if any idea was more firmly fixed than another
in their minds, it was that they were entitled to a fair
. share in the representation of the country. (Hear, hear.)
He believed that they could not, without danger, be ex-
cluded from a reform bill, and, looking at the immense
strides they had of late years made in intelligence, it seemed
extremely odd that at the present time their claims should
have been entirely overlooked in the Government measure.
(Hear, hear.) Much had been said in favour of the savings
bank franchise, but he believed it had been found that the
working classes generally were not depositors, but preferred
investing what little money they might have in building
societies, which were, he feared, not the most profitable of
investments. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said
about party influences. He must confess that his sympa-
thies were with the liberal party, but they were more with
liberal measures, and if he voted with the noble lord the
member for London it was because he believed that no
reform bill could be successful which did not give the
working classes their proper share in the representation.
They should remember that during the last three weeks the
bill of the Government had been condemned on every
hustings in the kingdom, and it was to him a matter of
surprise that not even in the counties had a single meeting
been got up in favour of it. He regretted that his first vote
in the house should be given against the Ministry, to whose
exertions he was in some respect indebted for the privilege
of sharing in its debates, but he owed it to his country and
his conscience, if he thought a measure not calculated to be
beneficial to the country, to give his vote against that
measure. Such being his conviction respecting the Govern-
ment measure, he felt bound to vote in favour of the noble
lord's resolutions. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. LIDDELL said he should vote for the second read-
ing, but as he did not consider that in its present shape
it was in all respects calculated to allay the agitation which
prevailed on the subject of reform, he should hold himself
free to deal freely and impartially with any proposition
which might be brought forward in committee for itsamend-
ment, with the view of still further enfranchising the work-
ing classes. Being really desirous of seeing the question
satisfactorily settled, and believing that the noble lord's reso-
lutionwould practically have the effect of delaying such settle-
ment, and interposing a difficulty in the way of a bill which
being brought forward by the party now in power, was
likely when it went up to the other house to be received with
favour there, he felt bound to oppose the noble lord's motion.
Sir C. WOOD congratulated her Majesty' Government
on the kind of support they had obtained. Both the hon.
gentlemen who had just spoken and his hon. friend the
member for Dorchester had stated that they found grievous
and serious faults with many of the provisions of the bill
and had even argued against that pro Vision which,' accord-
ing to the noble lord (Stanley) and the Chancellor of the
itdheenottihtyerof
ofth ethfranchise
m(eitnlehaerrs, hheaard.
Exchequer, was the principle of the bill—namely, the
tthheeironinetaennd-
)declared
tion to consider in committee such amendments as might be
brought forward for the purpose of lowering the franchise in
boroughs, the maintenance of which at the same rate as the
county franchise, the „proposers of the measure held to be
one of its main principles. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
(Stanley) seemed to think that to entertain the proposition
of his noble friend (Lord John Russell) would be to prevent
the passing of any Reform Bill during the present session.
Ho (Sir C. Wood) did not agree with that view, for seeing
that the great majority of the house, as he believed, was
anxious to see some measure of the kind passed before the
session terminated, his opinion was that whatever Govern-

ment might be in power, a Reform Bill would pass, and, as
he sincerely hoped, a far better one than that now before
the house. He looked upon the principle of the bill not
only as most objectionable but as revolutionary, but it ex-
cluded the possibility of any lowering of the franchise. The
noble lord asserted that the bill would admit the working
classes to the franchise in large numbers, but as it stood,
and if the principle for which the noble lord contended were
maintained, it would admit scarcely any of the working
classes. (Hear.) What was it that had led to the men-
tion of reform in the house ? It was that politicians of all
sides felt that the time had come when it was not only
desirable, but necessary, to admit the working classes, to
some extent, to the exercise of the franchise. (Hear.) From
the time that the noble lord (J. Russell) made the declara-
tion that the admirable conduct of the working classes of
this country in the trying crisis of 18 48 proved them to be in
every way qualified for the exercise of electoral rights down
to the present time that opinion had gone on increasing,
until it was now shared in by men of every party—(hear)
—and he was glad to hear his hon. friend the member for
Dorchester say, in the course of his able speech, that he was
fully persuaded the working-classes might be safely ad-
mitted to participate in the electoral franchise to an extent
far beyond what was now proposed. (Hear.) He (Sir C.
Wood) did not agree in the numerical franchise which was
advocated in some quarters. He believed that any such
measure would be attended with great danger. By the Re-
form Bill of 1832 the predominance of the aristocracyf in
the constituencies of the country was swept away, and he
for one was not prepared to place that preponderonce in the
hands of another class—the most numerous and the least
educated of the community. (Hear, hear.) With regard
to the savings bank franchise, he would in passing observe
that, whatever the amount of deposit which was to be the
qualification, it ought to be held for a longer period than
the bill proposed, otherwise there would be an opportunity
of creating fictitious votes. But, as far as he knew of the
working classes, it was not their habit to depositlarge sums
in savings banks, but rather to invest their savings in
building societies and other institutionswhich paid a higher
rate of interest. He did not anticipate that any of the new
franchises proposed in the bill would bring in the working
classes to any large extent. His noble friend (Lord J. Rus-
sell) had proposed, in one of the bills he had laid before Par-
liament, a £6 borough franchise, and in another a V fran-
chise. They had not much information to show the extent
which either of those propositions would have given in ex-
tending the borough constituencies, but from inquiries he had
made in the borough he had the honour to represent, he be-
lieved that the number of additional voters thus introduced
would have been comparatively small, and would have con-
sisted
chiefly of foremen and the higher class of 'workmen.
The first proposal of the Government was to eliminate one-
fifth of the independent electors of the counties. What
would be the effect of the £lO franchise as proposed by the
Government ? When his hon. friend the member for
Surrey (Mr. L. King) first proposed to identify the town
and county franchise he voted against it. He was told
that he had to apologise to his constituents for giving so
illiberal a vote; but the fact was that he explained to his
constituents his reasons, and they were satisfied. He ex-
plained to them that such a measure would put it in the
power of the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood to
swamp the electoral body. He happened to know the re-
sult which might be effected by what had taken place in
the borough he represented, where a proprietor, by divid-
ing a field and erecting a number of sheds upon it, had
created ten votes, which were held by dependents of his
' own. Under the proposal of his hon. friend (Mr. Locke
King) it would have been perfectly possible for any gentle-
man of landed property to cut up his estate into £lO votes,
and thus to destroy the independence of a county. The
house, it was said, was left to choose between the bill with
all its objections attached to it, and the taking a course
which would be fatal to the bill. But the proposition of
his noble friend need not necessarily be fatal to the bill, for
it left it open to the Government, if they adopted the course
suggested by the resolution of his noble friend, and which
he believed would be recorded as the opinion of a large
majority of the house, to follow some different mode of
dealing with the franchise in counties and boroughs. If
the Government did not choose to take that course, on
them and not on his noble friend would be the responsi-
bility. If the Government was so wedded to the principle
laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the
noble lord that night, ho should not regret their doing so,
as he believed that no bill at all would be better than that
which was now before the house.

Mr. HORSMAN said the gravity of the occasion, so
forcibly described in the speech of the noble lord the mem-
ber for the City, emboldened him to give expression to
opinions which, though it gave him pain to differ from
many around him, were yet felt so strongly by him that h e
could not incur the responsibility of suppressing or conceal-
ing them. He had great doubts as to the expediency of the
course proposed by the noble lord, and those doubts were
much increased by the speech of the right hon. member for
Halifax. (Cheers.) The right hon. member, in order to sup-
port these resolutions, had found it necessary to represent
this bill as one which the House of Commons was bound to
reject at once as beyond the possibility of amendment or
alteration. If that were really the case, on that side of the
house there would be no two opinions as to the course which
ought to be pursued. But he could not see what was to be
gained by encouraging a notion which exaggerated so much
the power of the Government, which depreciated the ability
of the house, and which was so much at variance with their
everyday proceedings. (Hear.) The hon. member for Dor-
setshire had reminded the house that if they differed from
the principle of the bill the proper time for enforcing that
difference was the second reading ; if with the details thatit
ought to be dealt with in committee ; but that the occasions
on which measures were dealt with by abstract resolutions
were extremely rare, and the results not encouraging.
(Hear, hear.) If he might venture on any criticism of the
speech of the noble lord the member for the City of Lon-
don, it would be that it was an extremely powerful speech
against the second reading of the bill. The same, too,
might be said of the speech of the right hon. member for
Halifax ; but if this bill deserved one-tenth of the condem-
nation which had been heaped on it, there was no reason
why it should not be condemned on the second reading
instead of being met by a resolution which, as the hon.
member for Dorsetshire said, was so skilfully drawn as to
provoke, if not to justify, the accusation of being a mere
party move. (Hear.) In what position did the house
stand with regard to this question of Parliamentary Re-
form, and how ought they to deal with it? During the recess
the question had been put to him by his constituents which
he observed by the newspapers had been put to many of the
gentlemen about him, " What do you intend to do with the
forthcoming Reform Bill ?" To that he had given the
answer which was given by most of the members of the
Liberal party, " I will give a full and fair consideration to
it, irrespective of its parentage. (Ministerial cheers.) If
it be a good bill I will support it ; if it be a bad bill.l will
endeavour to amend it in committee—(renewed cheers from
the Ministerial benches)—but after I have seen the effect of
our amendments in committee I will then determine what
course to pursue on the third reading; but I will not join in
any party move against it." (Loud cheers.) That pledge, as
a man of honour, he felt bound to redeem, and he was sure
those of the Liberal party who had given the same pledge
would also redeem it. If the interests of reform were to be
considered, what did those interests demand at their hands?
It must be remembered that it was the Liberal party who
had excited the popular expectation of reform, and pro-
clamed its necessity. (Ministerial cheers.) It was adniitted
that their efforts at legislation had hitherto failed. It was
admitted that it was the most difficult of all questions to
cope with, and the most delicate and perilous to trifle with.
(Hear.) It was admitted that a settlement was desirable,
that a period of tranquillity was the most favourable for
that settlement, and that it could only be accomplished by
the honest co-operation of both sides of the house, and a
scrupulous abstaining from all mero party moves. (Minis-
terial cheers.) Above all, and over all, it was admitted that
the Liberals had an immense numerical majority in that
house—(cheers and laughter)—and if they went into com-
mittee sincere and united in the desire to pass a good bill
'this session, they had absolute power to mould the present
bill into any shape they pleased, and to cast on their oppon-
ents the responsibility of rejecting it. Yet, with all these ad-
vantages, they were invited to-nightbya short and summary,
and as it might prove, an unfortunate and suicidal process, to
forego them, and to incur the odium which must, sooner or
later, attach to rendering all legislation at this time impos-
sible, and to postponing legislation possibly to a distant
period, when the passions of the million might be brought
in to override and usurp the functions of statesmen. (Mini-
sterial cheers.) What he felt was this, that 'there never
was a question with regard to which it behoved the Liberal
party to walk more warily and more circumspectly, whe-
ther they considered the interests of reform or collectively
and individually their political character. It was they who
had kept the question since 1851 dangling before the eyes of
the nation. It was by them that promises had been made,
and performance had been postponed in a manner which
had certainly not diminished the difficulties of legislation.
(Ministerial cheers.) There was on the Liberal side a
numerous and active, and they ought to be an influential
body, and yet while they were on those benches doing
penance for past mistakes they were on the point of preci-
pitating themselves into another mistake, which might be
greater and more unpsrdonable than all. (Ministerial
cheers.) He differed from what had been said by the right
hon. gentleman below him as to the effect of passing this
resolution. He could consider it as nothing but tanta-
mount to the rejection of the bill. (Hear.) He should be
very much surprised if the Government received it in any
other form. His Parliamentary experience was not quite
so lengthened as that of the hon. gentleman, but at the
same time. in the course of twenty-three years, he could
recollect no precedent of a Government accepting such an
amendment on the second reading of a bill and retaining
office one day afterwards. (Hear, hear.) It was a rejection
of the bill which was to be brought about by an alliance of
all those on the Liberal benches who had mostinfluence among
Liberals. All the great Liberal potentates, the noble lord
the member for Tiverton, the noble lord the member for
London, and his hon. friend the member for Birmingham,
had agreed to vote for this resolution, but the house should
consider what was the real character of this unanimity.
Was it founded upon an identity of sentiments ?
(Ministerial cheers.) He felt bound to put the
question in order that they might clearly understand what,
upon the question of reform itself, were to be the conse-
quenCes of the vote they were to give to-night. He asked
whether the unanimity which had been arrived at was
founded upon the love of reform ? Was it founded upon an
identity of sentiments on the shortcomings of the Govern-
ment bill, or was it founded on a common understanding as
to the basis of the bill which would be substituted for it P
(Ministerial cheers.) h He felt 'that before they rushed into
this division they ought carefully to contemplate the conse-
quences. He knew there were many people who imagined
that the very dwarfish proportions of this bill, which called
down consistently the condemnation of his hon. friend the
member for Birmingham, were merits in the eyes of other
opponents, and might have induced them to support the s:,-
cond reading. As to the opinions of the member for the
City of London on reform there could be no doubt, and if
any question was anywhere raised as to the motives by
which he was actuated on this occasion, throwing any doubt
on his zeal or attachment to the cause, it would meet with
no sympathy in that house, and would be refuted by the
whole tenour of his life. The noble lord had stood 'out
among public men so prominently as to be almost alone in

his advocacy of reform, and his name would go down im-
perishably engraven on the Act of 1832. Ho was the pa-
rent of the bill of 1862, He was the author of the bill- of
1854. In reality it was the secret dread of the noble lord's
influence which exacted the pledge of the bill of 1847,
and again it was the same mysterious terror of the noble
lord which impelled a Conservative Ministry to make
reform a Cabinet question. (Hear, hear.) This power
was founded in the conviction of the noble lord's sincerity,
but it cast upon him a proportionate responsibility; for
no one knew better than he did the difficulties which
surrounded the question. :(Hear, hear.) Twice had he
essayed to cast bills of his own. The last, in 1854, went
further than anything sketched in the amendment to-
night in extending the franchise, in extinguishing small
boroughs and granting. all that he could again attempt in
another bill. Why did that bill fail ? because, as the noble
lord told them, the country failed. The bill excited no sym-
pathy in the house. (Cries of "No.) He begged pardon.
He remembered the noble lord's last words. The noble lord
knew it excited no sympathy in the house, and he stated
that it created no enthusiasm out of doors. As a proof of the
national apathy, the noble lord, in withdrawing that bill,
stated that in the course of the whole session only 11 peti-
tions had been presented in favour of Parliamentary reform,
and only four of them were in favour of the Government
measure. (Hear.) He had always thought that it was a mis-
take on the part of the Government of 1854 to lay down the
resolution to deal with Parliamentaryreform only by a large
and comprehensive measure. He thought it a mistake for
two reasons. In the first place, he thought that the Minister
of the Crown, in his very responsible position, before he pro-
posed a great change in the constitution of the country, ought
well to estimate his strength to carry it. While he thought
nothing so mischievous as for an honest Minister to open
a question which he could not settle, and let loose opinions
which perhaps he could not guide, he thought it positively
criminal in a colleague of that Minister to become a party
to proclaiming to the world that the representative system
was replete with injustice and abuses, unless in heart he
was clearly convinced of the existence of those abuses,
and resolutely determined to correct them. (Hear, hear.) '
The second reason why he thought it a mistake was,
that the bill, which was intended to propitiate a large
section of Reformers, did not touch the question to
which they attached the utmost importance. Every re-
presentative of a popular constituency must be aware of
one fact. It might be right or wrong. It might be rea-
sonable or unreasonable. But of the fact there could be
no doubt, that the point in reform to which popular
constituencies attached the most importance was the ques-
tion of the ballot. They. said that, compared with that
question, all other concessions were insignificdnt or worth-
less. (Hear, hear.) Many who were without the suffrage
said that enfranchising them without protecting them was
conferring a curse rather than a blessing. (Cheers.) If that
were so, the opinion must be known to every Liberal mini-
ster who attempted to settle the question. Therefore in
1854 without the ballot there was no popular support, the
bill failed, and they unsettled the question. At the same
time if the bill had succeeded, as regarded the largest sec-
tion of Reformers, without the ballot it would have settled
nothing. (Hear.) Subsequent experience had only con-
firmed him in the opinion that there was no wisdom in mak-
ing legislation in Parliamentary reform an exception to
legislation on all other subjects. In other matters the rule
was to proceed gradually, safely, and with as little general
disturbance as possible, but on the question of Parliamentary
reform they had laid down the rule that they should only
legislate once in a quarter of a century, that for 25 years
abuses and evils should go on accumulating, that reform
should be postponed until it became a revolution, and no
sooner had they settled down after one revolution than
Ministers had to ask them to enter on another. (Hear.)
; There were the bills of 1852 and 1854, and the Cabinet Bill
of 1857 ; the last measure, from causes unnecessary to go
into, never came before the house. The Ministers under-
took to steer it through the question ; but the old hand was
not at the helm, and it lost its way. (Hear, hear.) Three
Liberal Ministers, one after the other, failed in their mis-
sion ; a Conservative Cabinet had now undertaken it, and
it was with their bill they had to deal. They invited the
house to read the measure a second time, that the necessary
amendments might be made in committee. (No, no, and
cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had
given notice of some amendments—(hear, hear)—and he
did not put the construction on the speech of the noble
lord (Lord Stanley) given by the right hon. member for
Halifax (Sir C. Wood)—that he intimated the house must
accept or reject the bill as it lay on the table without any
amendments. (Hear, hear.) Ho had read the bill, and
compared it with the previous measures, perhaps, as care-
fully as any honourable gentleman who would vote on it.
And he would state boldly and without fear of refutation
that in committee they could make it a better bill,
not only than the measure shadowed forth in the resolution
of the noble lord (J. Russell), but they could make it a
better, a more popular, and more comprehensive bill than
any that had been prepared since 1832. (No, no, and
cheers.) Let his statement be contradicted by any hon.
gentleman who had read the bill ; both lawyers and lay-
men would have full opportunity of showing whether he
was wrong. He repeated that they could do so by amend-
ments shorter and more simple than wero made in 99 out of
every 100 Acts that were passed by Parliament and became
law. (Hear, hear.) He should be surprised if that state-
ment were contradicted by any layman who had read the
bill ; still more surprised if he was contradicted by an y
lawyer familiar with the construction of Acts of Parliament.
No one who had spoken against the bill had shown that it
was incapable of amendment. The rignt hon. gentleman
(Sir C. Wood) did not make the slightest suggestion to that
effect. No one had shown that the bill could not be so
amended as to become all that the great body of members
on the Opposition &de of the house desired. If this were
the case what excuse, what justification could they offer to
the public for taking on themselves the responsibility of
throwing the country into all the turmoil and confusion that
might arise from an adverse decision to the Government by
rejecting the bill—(hear)—which they had the fullest and
most favourable opportunity of amending and passing ?
(Hear, hear.) He wished to make one remark on what had
been said, rather hastily he thought, as to the position in
which the Government had placed itself towards the house
and the country by proposing a very small and inefficient
measure. Many hon. gentlemen expected that the Govern-
ment would propose a very large measure, that it would
make a very high bid for Radical support. Some believed
that, if it did not rival the plan of the hon. member for Bir-
mingham (Mr. Bright), it would at least relieve the hon.
member for Bristol (Mr. H. F. Berkeley) of the necessity of
makinc, his annual motion. (Hear.) For himself he had
no such expectations, and therefore felt no disappoint-
ment ; and for this reason, he had no wish to see the Minis-
ters of England pursuing a course of conduct detrimental
to public morality. They had seen great measures carried
in that house by Ministers surrendering their party ; and it
had not induced in him any way to see the experiment re-
Rewed. (Cheers.) Tie had observed that these surrenders
never took place till public opinion had practically settled
the question. The very acceleration 'given to a. popular
triumph was a very small compensation for imputations,
often most unjustly cast on party leaders, the shock given
to the confidence reposed in them, the loss of influence by
those leaders themselves, which was still more valuable to
the house, and, above all, for the wound inflicted on every
heart in the nation, once proud and secure in the unsur-
passed and priceless honour of public men. (Cheers.) They
heard the other night the hon. member for Cambridge Uni-
versity (Mr. Walpole) and his colleague (Mr. Henley) ex-
plain to the house why they had quitted office. They wero
Ministers of the Crown; in their reasons for ceasing to be
so, the house might or might not concur; but the position
those hon. gentlemen now occupied was at least as exalted
as any that office could bestow. (Cheers.) And all, on both
sides of the house, political friends or political opponents,
owed those hon. gentlemen a common obligation for adding
another proof of the many already given that there was
- something higher than talent, and nobler than eloquence,
which constituted the true greatness of the assembly to which
they,were all proud to belong. (Cheers.) It was therefore
no matter of regret of astonishinent to him, that a Minister
in the position of Lord Derby should not have propounded
a scheme that would justly have excited the indignation of
his friends and the scorn of his opponents—ay, and the scorn
of the country. (Cheers.) He felt the difficulty in which ho
stood when expressingopinions with respect to the bill which.
of course, were not favourably received by many with whom
he whs anxious to agree. At the same time, it was the duty
of every ono to study the measure for himself and form his
own opinion on its merits. The resolution of the noble lord
(Lord J. Russell) had certainly hit two of the blots of the
bill, which were not only defects, but great defects. Others
might, perhaps, be pointed out ; he was not prepared to say
that others could not be selected as great as those on which
they were asked to pronounce condemnation. But still
less was he prepared to say that they could not be amended
in committee. The first fault was the provision as to the
40s. freeholders and the town franchise ; but what propor-
tion of the bill did those provisions form ? They were con-
tained in the first clause ; and in how much of the first
clause ? That clause ran through three pages. By striking
out the last line of the first page, and 18 lines of the second,
or about one-fourth of the first clause—in a bill containing
70 clauses—they would get rid of the provision affecting
the 40s. freeholders. Was that a very serious amendment ?
(Hear.) Why, he had often seen whole clauses expunged
from a measure ; and it would be a far more regular busi-
ness-like, and effective way of getting rid of the obnoxious
provision to make the amendments in committee, than to
meet it by a resolution on the second reading. (Hear.) The
other defect was in the provision relating to the franchise
in boroughs. That was also dealt with in the bill of 1854 ;
and how? By one single clause. He had this bill in his
hand, and the 18th clause provided for voting in boroughs
under certain conditions. But if they were anxious, by the
present measure, to extend the right of voting in boroughs,
he asked any candid man, whether it was not the most
reasonable course to propose it as an amendment in com-
mittee, and move its insertion in the bill ? The amendment
of a bill by a precise clause, stating the exact point to which
they would reduce the suffrage, was surely a more business-
like proceeding than the adoption of a resolution as vague
and indefinite as the one before the house. The provision
respecting voting papers was another defect in the bill ; but
nothing could be more easy than to move that it be ex-
punged. He could conceive of only one reason why the
Reformers should not go into committee on the measure.
If they went into committee there might not be that per-
fect unanimity among them which would be necessary to
carry out the amendments which they desired. (A laugh.)
They might apprehend that the same course would be
pursued which was adopted last year in the case of the
Indian Bill, when they were defeated on the details. But
if those who sat on that side of the house—the great Re-
form party—really had no common creed on reform—(a
laugh)—and could not trust each other in committee, how

could 'they tell hen. gentlemen opposite to make way for a
Government that was ready to settle this question ? (Minis-
terial cheers.) Union for one pitched battle might be prac-
ticable; union for a campaign might be impossible; but
unanimity even for 24 hours seemed to be such a godsend
—(a laugh)—that they must make the most of it ; and, if
they damaged the cause of reform, at any rate they might
let hon. gentlemen opposite see that they thought they could
storm Downing-street. (Cheers and laughter.) If the
Opposition were ready to assume office and anxious to turn
out the present Government it would be a more direct and
manly course—and, considering the enormous disparity of
force between the two sides of the house, it would surely be
a more magnanimous and elevated course—for them to meet
their antagonists boldly before the country with an avowed
purpose and on a true issue, insiead of masking their ad-
vance under a disguise too flimsy to conceal their real objects
and intentions. (Ministerial cheers.) They were all party
men in that house—(oll I and a laugh)—and he was as
ready as any one to join in any party move that could be
openly avowed and justified,. But he had seen party moves
there that could not be justified, and the disastrous conse-
quences of which had recoiled on those who made them.
Not many years ago a great Minister placed himself in the
power of his opponents by a display of patriotism which
exacted sacrifices from him proportionate to the benefits he
wished to confer on his country. The natural—it might
almost be said the pardonable resentment of that Minister's
friends had put him in the power of his antagonists. It was
an occasion for magnanimity. The temptation was great. In
an evil hour that temptation was yielded to, and the Opposi-
tion perpetrated a great crime. (Cheers.) His own vote of
1846 was the one act of his political life to which he had
ever looked back with shame and self-reproach. The last on
that memorable occasion to enter the division lobby most re-
luctantly, he, had also been the first to upbraid the new Mi-
nistry for endeavouring to proceed with the very measure on

which they ttid utigi64 01e'lf opponents. The vote of 1846
had conveyed to his nihici d p painful impression
of something more than the fallibility of those who
had the absolute disposal of the fortuneg a'fkl character
of the Liberal party ; and whenever party motives had 15ertt
hitt& singe ikehad sought to exercise that independent judg-
ment which oould surrender without incurr ng a
heavy responsibility. hit the effect of that vote on indi -
vidual leaders, serious as it was, was as nothing cora, are 1
with its effect on the party generally. A speedy retribution
followed. Was it not matter of history that the g fddt Whig
party had never prospered since that day? (Laughter and
cheers.) -Unhappy differences dealt a deathblow to the
Cabinet of 1851; humiliation befell them in 1853 ; and a
still heavier scourge smote them in 18555 when the most
illustrious of their body separated from them to seek other
sympathies for the time—(a laugh)—taking with him all
the noblest traditions and living renown of the party, and
leaving such a void behind I In that material and moral
ruin of a great historic party the world saw both a retribu-
tion and a moral. And did the plague which smote the
leaders spare the followers ? Why, in what condition had
they been ever since ? (Laughter.) In what condition as a
party were they now? Could they justly be dignified with
the title of a party ? For the last 12 months they have been
less a party than a mob—(laughter)—without leaders with-
out union or combination, without a common policy, prin-
ciple, or purpose. Why, they had exhibited, the most
piteous spectacle— (laughter and cheers)—a spectacle of the
utter disorganisation and the low estate to which a great
party might sink, never to rise again until it recognised
and dealt with the real cause of its calamities. Look at the

resolution before the house. Wise heads, secret influences,
had been at work upon it. It had come forth in the name
of the noble lord, who was the putative parent ; but whose
image and superscription did it bear ? (Laughter.) Not
the noble lord's, for it was a satire upon the manliness awl
directness with which he had grappled with the bill on its
first appearance It did not reflect the wishes of the noble
lord the member for Tiverton, because they were welt
assured that his sympathies•and sagacity wculd lead him
to favour the second reading of this measure. (A
laugh.) It rather indicated . that another victory had
been achieved by that lower substitute for statesman-
ship which had too often meddled and manoeuvred in
the Whig Cabinets, both of the noble lord the member

for Tiverion And the noble lord the member for London,
discrediting their Governments, and involving them and
their followers in one common ruin. (Cries of " Name I"
He could only now repeat what he had stated at
the outset, that the gravity of the vote they were
about to give could scarcely be over- rated. If he
felt that by supporting the amendment he should be
increasing the noble lord's influence for public objects, he
should be anxious to afford him every assistance ; but be-
lieving, as he did, that if they rejected this measure, they
would be rendering legislation this year impossible, the
success of the noble lord would only be the commencement
of his difficulties, and would involve the country in greater
difficulties. The Ministry had been likened to a sick roan,
sick even to death; and he (Mr. Horsman) thought, if the
noble lord had to rush in to despatch him, it was unfortunate
that this question of Parliamentary Reform should be used
as the instrument to deal the blow that was sure to recoil upon
himself. If the Ministry had to go out upon reform, they (the
Opposition) would have to reconstruct their new Govern-
ment on that question. (Ministerial cheers.) They would
have to propose a larger measure of reform ; but could they
carry it ? (Hear.) Nothing could justify a Minister propos-
ing a large measure of reform except the certainty that he
had the strength to carry it. Popular support failed in 1854.
Had they the certainty of that popular support in 1859 ? Be
that as it might, they would have a more compact and for-
midable Opposition; the contest would be embittered by
their contumelious rejection of this bill ; and that Op-
position,' if it chose, might use Parliamentary Reform
as an instrument for embarrassing them. What would be
their position? The hon. member for Bristol would place
on the books of the house a notice of motion that no bill
having for its object a reform of Parliament ought to receive
their sanction that did not concede the ballot. (Hear,
hear.) But suppose gentlemen who would be then on the
Opposition side of the house, instead of taking part in the
division on that question, should go home to a family dinner
—(a laugh)—what would become of the Government? They
would be outvoted by 5 to 1; the Government would be
gone; but would the question of F.`arliamentary Reform
be gone ? (Cheers.) It would then have slipped from the
hands of Parliament, but it would fall into other hands else-
where ; legislation the then Government had made impos-
sible, but agitation they had made inevitable and more suc-
cessful. That agitation would proceed year by year. The
question of reform would have more and more party dirt
thrown into it, and the Ministry, Parliament, and public
men bo discredited, until a period Might arrive when the
sky would not be so tranquil as now—when commercial dif-
ficulties and manufacturing distress might dispose an ill-fed
and ill-employed population to co-operate—then, with
tumultuous gatherings in the provinces, with telling refer-
ences to official speeches delivered for one purpose, but now
available for another—(cheers)—with the table of that house
Laden with petitions, and its avenues thronged with excited
crowds—perhaps the hon. member for Birmingham, even if
his influence should then remain—for a man who only said
what he believed, and believed what he said, would see num -
berless candidates for popular favour anxious to discredit
him—if even his influence should remain—would be looked
to as a preserver, and his bill accepted as a compromise
against the angry passions which the blindness and folly of
that house would have done so much to stimulate and in-
flame. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Horsman) could understand
gentlemen voting against the second reading of the bill ; and
he could understand gentlemen voting for it, in the hope of
having opportunities afforded for amending it in committee ;
but he confessed he could not understand how any gentle-
man in that house could have the courage to lend himself
to the rejection of a measure from which his own judgment
could not altogether dissent. (Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. A. MILLS said, he had voted against the motion of
the right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton, to which
the noble lord the member for London had referred, because
he regarded it as a great Parliamentary evil, that members'
of that house should be called on to give a vote that
might be misconstrued unless it was explained. It appeared
to him that the movement on this occasion was dis-
tinctly open to that objection. The practical consequence
of passing the abstract resolution of the noble lord would
be the indefinite postponement of all Parliamentary Reform.
The noble lord had said his amendment would not neces-
sarily lead to that result ; but if he (Mr. Mills) had enter-
tained a doubt on that point it would have been dispelled by
the able speech of the hon. gentleman who had just ad-
dressed the house. The antecedents of the noble lord cer-
tainly afforded a guarantee that he was incapable of trifling
with the question of reform ; but if the necessary conse-
quence of his resolution would be, as he (Mr. Mills) con-
tended, an indefinite postponement of the subject,he thought
the house in assenting to it would afford a practical proof
that they themselves were disposed to make light of the
question. It had been said that the measure was unpopu-
lar, and no doubt a great number of meetings had been held
at which it had been condemned, and at one of which, at
Rochester, a resolution was unanimously adopted that, un-
less the police interfered, the party assembled would not
"go home till morning." (A laugh.) For his own part,
however, he was not disposed to attach much importance to
these demonstrations. He did not believe that they repre-
sented the real feeling of the country. On the contrary, he
was of opinion that if all the electors and non-electors of
England were polled it would be fOund that there was a
general disposition to allow this bill to go into committee.
Ho acted from no party motive in this matter, and if the
bill should be rejected he should feel it his duty to give his
earnest support to any Government which would promise
an adequate and satisfactory solution of this question during
the present session. (Hear.)
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN congratulated her
Majesty's Government upon the supporter whom they had
found on that side of the house. After the very lukewarm
support which they had received from their friends, it must
have been satisfactory to them to find upon the opposite
benches a right hon. gentleman, never very famous for
agreeing with them. Parliamentary Reform had
become a matter of necessity, and, in his opinion,
no measure would be satisfactory to the country unless
it contained these two ingredients—a large extension of
the franchise, and the redistribution of seats. Tn -the
latter respect he did not go so far as the honourable
member for Birmingham. The destruction of all the small
boroughs would be a great misfortune, but it was impossible
to deny that during the last 25 years great alterations had
occurred in the circumstances of the country which ren-
dered it necessary that members should be withdrawn from
some places and given to others. He was not in favour of
either manhood or household suffrage, but thought that a
rating franchise, which should give a vote to every man
who was rated and paid rates would be satisfactory both to
the house and to the country. This might not satisfy hon.
members below the gangway, but he reminded them that
the Reform Bill would have another ordeal to pass after it
left that house, and that it was desirable to adopt such a
franchise as was likely' to receive the sanction of the House
of Lords. (Hear, hear.) The Government bill not only fell
short of these requirements, but in many cases it offended
against the great principles which ought to govern the de-
cision of this question. Like every other measure which
the present Government had brought forward this was a
measure of compromise. Before his accession to office the
present Prime Minister said that the British constitution
was founded upon compromise, and his followers, with a
fidelity worthy of a better cause, had ever since been endea-
vouring to prove the truth of this assertion by abandoning
one by one all the great political principles of their party.
The supporters of the bill said that no reform bill would be
passed this session unless the second reading were carried ;
but, rather than accept a bad measure, he would consent to
the postponement of reform. They said let the bill go into
committee and then the Government will effect alterations ;
but that which needed alteration was not a mere matter of
detail, but the very principle of the bill. (Hear.) He knew
that the Government wished to put the opponents of the
bill in an awkward position if they presumed to vote against
the second reading. The Government would, no doubt,
say upon the hustings that those who voted against the
second readinc, voted against all reform;; but the opponents
of the bill did not mean to be done in that way. (Laugh-
ter.) They meant to place an intelligible issue before the
country. They meant to tell the country that they did
not wish to postpone reform, but that they would postpone
it rather than accept the miserable abortion that had been
presented to the house. (Hear, hear.) The Government,
no doubt, anticipated that those hon. gentlemen who were
members for small boroughs would, out of fear for their
seats, vote for the second reading of the bill. 'He repre-
sented a small borough which appeared in one of the sche-
dules—(laughter)—and when the proper season arrived he
should be quite prepared to support the claims of that in-
creasing and independent borough. (Laughter.) But he
should be ashamed to go before his constituents and tell
them that he had been deterred from voting against the
second reading of a bad measure, lest by another measure
their borough should be disfranchikd. The Government
wished, by holding out the threat of a dissolution, to compel
the house to agree to their measure ; but he believed that
the Government durst not appeal to the country—(derisive
cheers)—and that if they did appeal they would find them-
selves wofully mistaken.
Mr. NEWDEGATE would ask the Government whe-
ther they had not created their own difficulties on this sub-
ject by adhering to the principle of uniformity of qualifica-
tion? (Hear' hear.) He was ono of the earliest Reformers
on that (the Ministerial) side of the house. (Laughter.) He
could call many gentlemen to witness that he had for years
endeavoured to impress on the Conservative party that they
ought not to refuse reform to the people of this country.
(Cheers.) He had urged them not to oppose the second
reading of any Reform Bill unless it contained something
highly objectionable. (Laughter.) The misfortune of the
Government was, that they had introduced a Reform Bill
which was objectionable to both sides of the house.
(Cheers.) He regretted to be at variance on this question
with those with whom he had acted for 14 years, but nothing
should induce him to vote for the equality of suffrage.
(Hear, hear.) Nothing should induce him to give a vote
that would place the institutions of England upon that false
principle of equality, which, when it Was adopted in
France, led to the destruction of the liberties of that country
and plunged it into anarchyand bloodshed. Nothing should
induce
principle of equality which was
to
thvoo
basistefe
r that
of
the constitution of the United
adoptedhim
as
States, and which was rejected almost as soon as adopted;
for any one who knew the constitution of the United States
knew that soon alter its establishment the whole population
were declared to be incapable of the franchise. Was it for

a Con:....,srvative Government to force on the house a mea-
sure so democratic that the hon. member for Birmingham,
thinking that /t would legitimately end in the establishment
of electoral districts, said it contained the most democratic
principle that had ever been enunciated ? The counties, as
soon as they obtained equality of suffiuge, would demand
equality of representation, and therefore one principle of
the bill, identity of franchise, was inconsistent with the
other, preservation of small constituencies. He hoped the
Government would still yield to the remonstrances which
had been addressed to them, and abandon at least so mush
of their bill as related to the £lO occupancy in counties.
Lord R. CECIL had not heard a single defence of the
Ministerial preposition for taking away the double votes in
boroughs, and yet it was in itself absolutely and intrinsi- •
cally just. There was at present no equality in the repre-
sentation of the counties and boroughs. The rural popu-
lation did not enjoy that consideration in the apportion-
ment of seats which their wealth and numbers deserved.
If we enfranchised the £lO householders in counties we im-
mediately infused into the rural populations an enormous
element, the sympathies of which were exclusively with
towns. The populations ceased, in fact, to be rural. Some
counterpoise must be given, and how was it to be obtained
except by taking away a franchise which was utterly
anomalous and without principle ? It appeared from returns
recently presented by Government, that the property
assessed under schedules A, B; and D, in counties, was
£117,000,000, and in boroughs £101,000,000 ; while the
proportion of representation was as 159 to 337. If property
was to be taken as the test, the proportion of members
ought to stand as 262 to 234, or as many as 103 members
ought to be taken from the boroughs and given to the coun-
ties. If schedule A was to be adopted for the basis, mem-
bers ought to be transferred from the boroughs to the coun-
ties ; if schedules B and D, 84 members : while the test of
population would require the transference of 137 members.
Even the number of electors—and that was the weak point
of the counties—would demand 81 members to be taken
from the boroughs ,and given to the counties The hon.
member for Birmingham saidthat there were many boroughs
which were rural in their character, but he left out of con-
sideration the difference between the franchise in counties
and towns. There might be many acres round boroughs,
but those acres would not give a vote, which every housein
the town would, and therefore a large extent of rural pre-
perty could not outweigh a small amount in boroughs. In
the case of those boroughs which the hon. member had
called small counties the fields round the outskirts were held
by large farmers, and no large amount of rural rating was
infused. Nor was it correct to saythat agricultural boroughs
were entirely rural in sympathies and feelings. A shop-
keeper was a shopkeeper still whether he lived in a large or a
small borough, and took an interest in none but shopkeeping
questions. In agricultural boroughs they did not ask you
about the malt tax or financial boards for counties, but the
teadealers asked you about the tea duty, the chemist in-
quired about the Sale of Poisons Bill, and the attorney re-
quested you to oppose any scheme for registration. (IL
laugh.) The truth was that in small as well as large
boroughs, every man looked after his own interest, and did
not care a straw for those of his neighbours—(a laugh)—
and that small boroughs were as much urban in their sym-
pathies as large ones. But, said the noble lord the member
for the City, the counties were so dependent upon the will
of the landowners, that it was necessary to pour in some
95,000 or 100,000 borough freeholders, because they were
more independent and liberal than the rural voters. He
did not understand the tone adopted by the noble lord the
member for the City of London with respect to the county
representation. Some people seemed to think that the in-
fluence of an educated man over an uneducated was noxious,
and regarded that as a model constituency where none were
influenced by those above, them. As, however, the men of
property would always be outnumbered by the men of
poverty, he did not think it wise to depreciate the influence
of the superior and educated over the uneducated. The
noble lord, in supporting the second part of his resolution,
argued on a fallacy. The noble lord contended that the
franchise should be extended to the working men, not be-
cause their admission to the enjoyment of the franchisewouldl
improve the character of that house, but because the working
men were worthy of the franchise. He admitted that five-
sixths of those excluded were as worthy of the franchise as
those who had it, but their worthiness was not the ques-
tion. The real. question was whether the extension of the
franchise to them would contribute to the security of the
institutions of. the country, and give a beneficial character
to the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) The reason why there
existed restrictions on the admission of the working classes
indefinitely to the enjoyment of the franchise, was because
their numbers would swamp every other class. (Hear.)
The great object of constitutional restrictions was to pre-
vent any one class dominating over other classes. (Hear.)
And when it was said that the . working classes ought to
have a share in.the Government of the country, he must
observe that it was not a question of a share merely, for
their numbers were so great that, when once they were ad-
mitted to the franchise, the other classes who now exercised
power must abdicate. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that
the matter was surrounded with difficulties, and the work-
ing classes were naturally sore at having this privilege taken
from them by an arbitrary line. The only way of recon-
ciling these difficulties was by maintaining that very influ-
ence of the educated classes over the lower which it seemed
to be the object of modern reformers to destroy. With re-
spect to one portion of the members on the Opposition
benches, it was quite obvious that the public opinion, on.
which they relied to discredit the Government, was not the
public opinion in which they sympathised. Every public
meeting of late in the great towns had pronounced in favour
of manhood suffrage, vote by ballot, and electoral districts,
which the right hon. gentlemen opposite refused to grant.
(Cries of " Non In the Times of that morning, which, no
doubt most hon. members read, there was a report of a meet-
ing-held at Walsall, which an hon. member well known in that
,house, attended. Mr. Duignan, a banker, who seemed to
wnret more explanation than was given him, cried out—
" What about John Bright ?" In reply to this question.
Mr. Forster, the hon. member in question, replied—" I
believe it will be found that John Bright and Lord John
Russell will sail in the same boat." (Cheers and laughter
from the Ministerial benches.) "If my friend," pro-
ceeded Mr. Forster, " will only wait , till next week, het
will see that there is perfect agreement between John
Bright and Lord John Russell. I may say that John.
Bright fully concurs in the confidence which Reformers en-
tertain in Lord J. Russell. (A voice.--' Let John Bright
form a Ministry.' Laughter and confusion.)" (Ironical
cheers and laughter from the Ministerial benches.) Tho
hon. member for Walsall (Mr. Forster) was well known in
that house as having played an important task last year,
when he was selected to fulful, in respect to a portion of the
Liberal party, the delicate duty so long performed by the
right hon. member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter). He pre-
sumed that the hon. member for Walsall was fully in. the
confidence of his leaders, and his statement was, no doubt,
based on good authority. Probably the hon. member for
Birmingham was too pure a statesman to have anything to
do with so degraded a machinery as that of " whips "
(laughter)--but still the hon. gentleman (Mr. Forster)
must have had his information from high authority. Per-
haps he would enlighten the house upon this remarkable
conversion, but hon. members opposite (pointing to those
above the gangway) would do well to reflect upon this
ominous alliance. Directly the sacrifice was consummated
a test would be applied. Tho noble lord would probably
form a Ministry, and they would soon find out whether per-
fect unanimity prevailed between Lord John Russell and
John Bright. Either, however, this assertion was incor-

rect or hon. gentlemen opposite must be the first to desert
the Ministry they were now so industriously forming. The
allies would endeavour to oust one another in order to
attain the objects at which each aimed for itself. Which
party would succeed—whether the moderate Liberals, who
sought to climb to power over the shoulders of the Radi-
cals, would afterwards kick the Radicals into the gutter—'
(laughter)—or whether they would continue to act with
, men whose opinions they did not share—it was impossible
to predict; but certainly out of such an alliance would come
a gain of political credit to neither party, and he thought
that each would regret it. (Hear, hear.) The time might
come when the dark picture drawn by the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr. Horsman) might be realised. If the house lost
the present favourable opportunity for settling this intricate
and thorny question, a season of difficulty and of crisis
might shake public confidence and provoke an excitement
which would force them to consider a reform measure
under very different circumstances from those which now
existed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON moved the adjournment of the debate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be for the convenience of the house that the debate
should proceed continuously, and called upon lion. mem-
bers who had motions on the paper for this day (Tuesday)
evening to give up their prior claims.
The debate was then adjourned until this evening.
COUNTY PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill passed through committee pro forma.
SAVINGS BANS (IRELAND) CONTINUANCE

BILL.

The Savings Bank (Ireland) Continuance Bill was road
a second time.

SUPERANNUATION BILL.

The further commitment of this bill was adjourned till
Monday nest.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (MUNITIONS OF

WAR)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring
in a bill to amend the law concerning patents for inventions
with respect to inventions for improvements in instruments
and munitions of war.

The bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time.
LUNACY REGULATION ACT (1853) AMEND-

MENT.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring
in a bill to amend the Lunacy Regulation Act (1853).
The bill was brought in and read a first time.
COMMON RIGHTS, &c. (WAR DEPARTMENT).
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring
in a bill to make further provision for the purpose of com-
mon and other rights by her Majesty's Principal Secretary
of State for the War Department, and in reference to land
vested in or taken by such Secretary of State.
The house adjourned at twenty-five minutes to one
o'clock.