The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-14 00:00:00

of the metropolis. (Great laughter.) This question of Ite-
form, which had been one of the great stalking horses, had
become simply ridiculous. He thought the feeling in
favour of Reform was much overrated, and that the only
two hon. members that were 'really sincere on the subject
were the hon, member for Birmingham and the noble lord
the member for the city of London, and that many other
members in their apparent zeal on the question were
guilty of political insincerity. They had come fresh from the
hustings, where they had spent more money than they
wished, and they were pledged to reform, so that they were
apprehensive, if they did not make some sort of demon-
stration in its favour, they might be sent back to their
constituents the next year. (Hear, hear, 'and laughter.)
He felt bound to support this bill, and would not follow
the example of the non. member for Brighton (Mr. Coning-
ham)—(laughter)—but would vote for the second reading.
After a few words from Mr. BEACH and Mr. EGERTON,
Lord J. RUSSELL—In rising to give my opinion on this
bill I must be allowed to advert to subjects which have
been partly adverted to by other members which do not im-
mediately concern this bill, but have regard to the general
question. In 1848 and 1859 I gave an opinion that there
ought to be a further extension of the right of voting for
members of Parliament. I did so, in the first place, because
I thought the foundations of the constitution would be
strengthened by the admission of a great number of persons
who were well qualified to vote, and in the next place, from
the experience I had had, and seeing that the question was
then debated by gentlemen belonging to different parties
with a good deal of eagerness. I remember that for many
years the Catholic question used to be debated in this and
the other house of Parliament, and there was sometimes a
majority of six or eight for the measure and a greater ma-
jority always in the other house of Parliament against it.
But there came a time when immense mobs were collected
in Ireland, and Parliament, which had debated the matter
as if it were a pure matter of speculation for so many years,
immediately that it saw the prospect of a civil war, and that
a great party was organised under a powerful leader, passed
he bill. Another question which was agitated in the coun-
try and in Parliament was the question of the corn laws.
On that question again there was a majority, not great, in
this house, against the repeal of the corn laws, and a much
greater majority in the other house. But there came a time
of agitation, there came the failure of a harvest, and then in
the midst of that agitation the whole question was conceded,
and the corn laws were at once repealed. Now, it always
appeared to me that the example of facts such as these tended
to lower the authority of Parliament. If Parliament by its
wisdom and by its deliberations had not been able to settle
these questions, if it found that the prejudices against con.
cession were so powerful as to prevent Parliament from set-
tling the question, it was a great weakening of the power of
Parliament that suddenly in a moment of panic all that
deliberation, all that resistance should at once be waived,
and that the popular will, whether of England or Ire-
land, expressed with power and with menace, should effect
that which the opinion of some of the more distin-
guished members of Parliament had not been able to effect.
It was with this impression strongly on my mind that I
made the proposal for an extension of the suffrage, on the
principle that it was far better to come to some arrange-
ment when Parliament could freely deliberate upon it than
to wait for a time when the repetition of theagitation which
had taken place on these two questions should prevent and
overwhelm alldeliberation. I may have beenquite mistaken
in this ; but as the question has gone on and has been dis-
cussed, there has been, as I conceive, less and less of favour
shown to the desire of amending the constitution, and I
may say, in fact, it has not bean, like the opposition that
was made to the Reform Bill, and to reform before that bill
was introduced, an opposition from 'a particular class into-
' rested in a monopoly which existed before the Reform Bill,
but the opposition that has been made to reform recently
has been an opposition particularly of the middle classes of
the country. In the discussion on the Reform Bill we never
disguised that the object of it was to transfer the power to
the middle classes. It has had that effect. We may say it
would be wise in the middle classes to share that power
with the working men, but there is no doubt that, in point
of fact, for the two or three years last past, and especially
last year, it has been evident that the middle classes fear a
great admission of the working classes into the number of
those who hold the franchise, and that the opposition to the
bill of last year was far more from the middle classes than
it was from the House of Lords, or any portion of the
richer classes of the country. That being the state 01
affairs, I say I am much disposed toconcuras a general ques-
tion with an observation that was made by the right hon.
gentleman opposite the member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli),
that if you wish to deal with the question of reform it is
better that you should deal with it by some comprehen-
sive measure than by particular measures introduced
from time to time. Nay I will say even more than this.
I will say that in the present state of parties not only
in this house but in the country, I do not think that any
comprehensive measure would be likely to succeed, except
a measure which was founded upon the opinions not of one
party, upon the interests not of one class, but upon a general
consideration of the opinions and of the interest of all classes.
It will be long before that general agreement takes place,
but it seems to me, I confess, coming to this bill, that it is
not necessary that the house should wait, in order to con •
sider this particular question, either for the introduction of
a comprehensive measure of reform, which should be carried
only by the violence which took place at the time of the
Reform Bill, but that it would be wise for Parliament to
consider this question as it stands alone. It must be con-
fessed that people now seem to consider that the franchise
established by the Reform Bill belongs to:the:old:constitution
of the country ; but with regard to the county franchise, it
should be recollected that a very great change was made in
that franchise at the time of the Reform Bill, and, instead
of being, as I conceive all the other changes were, for the
general advantage of the country and the extension of
popular rights, it was a change very much for the worse.
It was a change proposed by one of the greatest enemies to
the Reform Bill. It was carried against the opinion of
Lord Althorp, then the leader of the house and the repre-
sentative of the reform Government and the reform party
in this house, and against the warnings which he gave.
Lord Althorp said —I have not looked at his speech for many
years, but he said in effect—" If you give the £5O tenants
the franchise, you will not be extending the franchise to
those who will exercise it fairly and independently. Those
who exercise it fairly and independently are the 40s. free-
holders, and we propose still to keep up the right of voting
by tenure for those who have leases to a certain amount
for 60 years, and for a smaller number of years for a
smaller amount ; but this extension of the franchise to
occupiers is, in effect, giving the power of returning mem-
bers for counties to the owners of land, according to whose
will and pleasure the greater part of these voters will
vote." This was the substance of Lord Althorp's speech,
and his predictions were so true that I have always
regretted that his opinion was not adopted at the time.
The reform party had an immense majority in the house,
but many who supported reform thought that this, being
an extension of the suffrage, it was wise to adopt it, as at
all events by adopting it, there would be a greater number
of voters. In my opinion this was a subtle poison. We have
felt ever since that the elections were not determined, as
they were formerly, by the freeholders of the county. I be-
lieve with an hon. gentleman who has just spoken that
there is no better franchise than thefreeholders of the county,
that they are men who have shown great independence of
character and conduct, and that the right of voting could
not be better placed than with them. But their voices have
been overpowered by the occupiers. Well that question was
considered before the introduction of the last Reform Bill,
and it was the opinionof Lord Grey's Cabinet, that although
the giving the franchise to £5O occupiers could not but be
injurious, still the House of Commons, having determined
on it by a considerable majority, it was bound by the opin-
ion of the majority. In the course of time it appeared de-
sirable to enlarge the franchise in counties, and I must say
I admire the courage and constancy with which the hon.
member for East Surrey, whether in season or out of season,
has proposed this extension. The preamble of my hon.
friend's bill says, " Whereas it is expedient to extend the
franchise to many of her Majesty's subjects who have not
heretofore enjoyed the same." I concur in the proposition.
My hon. friend proposes that it should be extended to occu-
piers of premises of the annual value of £lO, but although
that binds my hon. friend it does not bind the house, if they
assent to the second reading of the bill, that the franchise
should be conferred upon £lO occupiers. I should also
state, because I think it is important for the consideration
of this matter, that we have not hesitated to extend the
county franchise in one part of the United Kingdom, although
we have not changed it in any other. We found in Ireland
that the franchise, which had been given to them by the
Reform Act, and as it had been settled by the bill which
had been introduced a few years previously, operated injuri-
ously, and we introduced a bill in this house by which, I
think, we gave the franchise to occupiers rated to the
amount of £B. That proposition was modified in the House
of Lords, the occupiers of £l2 in Irish counties being de-
clared by that house entitled to the franchise. The bill a)
modified passed into law, and it was an instance in which,
although we did not alter the whole frame of the Reform
Act for Ireland and the country generally, Parliament did
not think itself excluded from altering the franchise. I be-
lieve Parliament has been justified its that change by a great
improvement in the state of the electoral franchise of Ire-
land, where undoubted frauds had prevailed with regard to
the freehold franchise which have not taken place in the
rated franchise that now exists. If the house should agree
to the second reading of this bill, it will be open to it to deal
with the franchise as it thinks fit. My hon. friend will take
the course that he thinks proper, but I should say if he
could make an useful extension of the franchise which is

likely to obtain the assent of Parliament, even though it
may be that the particular franchise decided upon not the
one that he himself proposes, he will confer a benefit on the
ermtry. Bat that will be a matter for his consideration.
And now, sir, hiving stated what I think of this bill, of
course I shall consider it my duty to vote in favour of the
second reading. I consider it a question totally apart and
distinct, I think my hon. friend is justified in bringing
forward a bill for the extension of the county franchise,
and I have no objection to the principle of the bill. I can-
not, however, finish without saying a word or two on the
question generally. An hon. member has stated that by re-
jecting the bill of Lord Derby's Government we acted very
unwisely, and that we lost thereby an opportunity of effect-
mg a reform. Now, I cannot admit that because a bill was

called a bill to amend the representation of the people, it
was therefore a bill that would effect that object. With-
out going at present into the merits of the bill, there was
one prevision in it alone which induced me to think it was
the duty of any House of Parliament to reject the bill—
namely, that which enabjed landowners to act with regard
to small boroughs as they acted in the last century, and of
which there are many examples in our parliamentary his-
tory. By that provision a landlord in Northumberland or
Cumberland could get a large or small property in a borough
—say in Cornwall—and insert in the list of voters for that
borough, 100, 200, or 300 of the servants of his tenants in
Northumberland and Cumberland, and send their votes by
the post, thereby swamping the votes of the inhabitants of
the borough. I think that proposition alone was in itself
so monstrous that it quite justified the house in rejecting
the bill; and I cannot but think that such a provision, if
passed by Parliament, would not only not have been in ac-
cordance with the constitution, but that it would have
totally destroyed all the benefits obtained by the Reform Act.
Those who have read the parliamentary history of this
country know that two or three centuries ago the persons
who voted in those boroughs were small voters, who gave
their votes according to their local interests; but when a
seat in Parliament became an object of desire, the great
landowners of the country went to the different boroughs,
bought freeholds in them, and established by that means such
influence in them that these boroughs became what were
called nomination boroughs. Those nomination boroughs
were destroyed by the Reform Act; but by the bill intro-
duced into this house by the late Government the power of
converting boroughs into nomination boroughs would have
been restored. This, I think, was a sufficient reason for net
adopting that bill. I will say, further, with regard to the
general question, that I do not think this is the time for in-
troducing a general measure. I said so on the first day of
the session, and I believe that what has passed in the interim
shows that the country does not wish that in the present
year a large and comprehensive measure should be intro-
duced, but such a measure as that of my hon. friend, I
think, might be agreed to with advantage.
Mr. DISRAELI—The noble lord commenced his obser-
vations by some of those historical recollections in which he
so frequently indulges. The noble lord tells us that he
remembers the great demand there was for the repeal of
the corn laws and for the relief of the Roir an Catholics in
olden days, how the neglect of those demands on the part
of Parliament led to a prolonged and dangerous agitation
for years, and that he, warned by those agitations, re-opened
in 1851 the question of Parliamentary reform. But the
noble lord forgets that there is no paralll between the in •
stance of the repeal of the penal laws against the Ronseei
Catholics ana tne repeal of the corn laws and this question
of Parliamentary reform. There is a fallacy in all the ob-
servations of the noble lord which are based on these illus-
trations, because the noble lord forgets that there was a
settlement of the reform question in 1832, and that there
had not been a settlement with regard to the penal laws
against the Cat holies, nor with regard to the corn laws. They
were great grievances which had been neglected, and in con-
sequence of that neglect there was extensive public disaffec-
tion, which led to that state of affairs which the noble lord
justly
,laments. But there is no analogy between these
questions and the question of Parliamentary reform, be-
cause there was a settlement of the question of Parliamen-
tary Reform in 1832, for which the noble lord is in a great
degree responsible, and therefore the question which the
noble lord had to consider in 1851, when he re-opened the
parliamentary discussion on the subject, was whether the
settlement of 1832 had been an adequate and sufficient set-
tlement of the question, and whether the circumstances
which existed in 1851 justified him as Prime Ministerin coun-
selling her Majesty to recommend a change in the law affect-
ing the representation of the people. But there is no doubt on
this point, that the noble lord is responsible, as the states-
man in modern times who has thought it his duty to bring
forward this question of Parliamentary Reform again before
the consideration of the Legislature; and our vindication for
the course that we took in bringing forward our measure
is founded upon the preceding conduct of those Ministers
who went before us. It is not merely that we found that
the question had been recommended three times from the
throne; but the house was in this situation, that you were
having a reform bill carried in detail. You had different
measures on different subjects at different dates brought
forward. You had all the inconveniences incident to the
discussion of a great constitutional question, discussions on
various interests of the country, giving a prominent impor-
tance to some particular interest to the injury of others,
without that ample information and due thought which
could alone enable us to deal with such questions. I main-
tain the soundness of that principle which has been acknow-
ledged by the noble lord to-day, that you cannot deal with
such a subject as the representation of the people except in
a complete and comprehensive manner. The noble lord him-
self admits that there was justice in the observations that
were made to that effect ; but, said the noble lord with great
inconsistency, although I think that sentiment perfectly just,
I make an exception in the case of the county franchise.
Now why admit that exception with regard to the county
franchise ? Is the county franchise that portion of the fran-
chise where we find the largest number demanding the
suffrage ? Is it in the counties where you find persons most
eager to claim the possession of the franchise ? Is the
county constituency, in point of numbers, inferior to the
borough constituency ? Is it not a notorious fact that that
constituency, represented by 150 members, is infinitely
more numerous than the constituency which is represented
by more than 300 borough members ? Then I want to know
if the noble lord admits the justice of the principle that
we ought to deal in a comprehensive manner with the
subject of reform, on what ground the noble lord can justify
the exception in this case. New the noble lord has assented
at last that it was necessary that he should in some degree
indicate the reasons for the course which he took with re-
gard to the measure brought forward by the late Govern-
ment. The house will observe that I who introduced that
measure, and I speak on behalf of my colleagues, never com-
plained of the decision of the house with respect to that
measure or any other measure that we brought forward.
We, I hope with due self-respect, bowed to the decision of
the house. Bat when intentional misrepresentations are put
forward by our successors in order to qualify or excuse their
conduct, I think the house will say that I do not arrogate
too much to myself if I allUde to the subject. This morn-
ing the noble lord has, in a spirit of curious revelation, ex-
plained to us the cause of the conduct which a couple of
years ago astonished, and I think in some degree annoyed,
the country. We now know why the noble lord thought it
his duty to oppose the measure of the late Government.
Taking up the measure which included hundreds of details,
the noble lord has held up one of them, and has said, "This
is the reason—because faggot votes can by this machinery be
created in a borough by a nobleman residing in a distant
county, this is the reason why I felt it my duty to oppose
the measure." Well, but if that were the noble lord's
chief reason, why did he not mention it in the resolution—.
(cheers)—which he asked the house to approve ? Why has
he shown this extreme reticence ? Is it that in taking a
course which certainly astonished Parliament at the time,
the noble lord did not think himself justified in stating to
the house the reason that really actuated him ? Why, it is
too late in the day to invent this shadow to perplex public
opinion. The issue which was taken on the measure
which I brought forward on the question of parliamentary
reform was this or it was nothing—will you or will you
not loweri the borough franchise F That was the broad
issue upon which the opinion of the horse was taken, and
by virtue of that opinion, and in order to carry it into
effect, the present government was formesl. We appealed
to the people, and the people decided against us. I think
it has been pretty well settled by the conduct of the go-
vernment, the conduct:of this house, and the opinion of
the public generally, that we read accurately and soundly
public opinion on the subject, that we tested accurately
and wisely the sentiment of the nation. I have given
the government credit for the course they have taken,
but what I do protest against and cannot pass over
in silence is that the noble lord, on second thoughts,
should, after nearly two years, in consequence of
a general expression of disapprobation of his own
supporters that the bill of Lord Derby was not allowed a
second reading—l do protest that the noble lord should on
second thoughts come forward with this finical reason,
which no one ever heard of before, founded on an obscure
detail of a bill full of details, to vindicate a policy which
at that time almost outraged public opinion, which we at
least can look at without mortification, but which the noble
lord can hardly regardas a subject of congratulation, unless
he be framed differently from other men. Now, sir, with
regard to this bill before us, I object to dealing with
this question of the extension of the suffrage except in a
complete and comprehensive manner. I deny that we can
consider the due and legitimate incidents of the county
franchise unless we take into consideration at the same time
the borough franchise and all that affects the representation
of the people in parliament. That would be with me a
sufficient reason for not entering into the discussion of this
measure, but I will not say, as others have said, that if a
large measure was brought before us, and this was a portion
of it that I should approve of it. I entirely disapprove of this
measure. I would state without the slightest equivocation
that it is not in any degree, either in its form or in its spirit,
the measure that we proposed with regard to the county
franchise. I pointed out the other night, hastily, from a
rapid recollection, some of the principle features of differ-
ence. But there have been subjects referred to ii this de-
bate of prominent importance connected with the extension
of the franchise in the counties, to which I did not then
advert. I reminded the house, the other day, when we were
told that the measure we brought forward with regard to
the franchise in counties was identical with that brought
forward by the hon. member for East Surrey, that in the
first place it was a £lO occupancy,rising from
land, and that it was only in the second place arising from
houses, and that our measure introduced into the county
franchise a personal franchise founded on intelligence,
and franchises of ether kinds, but that the mode by
which the bona fide and virtual representation of
the landed interest was secured Was not merely
confined to the invention of franchises. Why, we have
been reminded to -day that in that bill there was a provision
that the possessor of a freehold, should vote in the locality
where his freehold was situate—that is to say, we proposed
that while a £lO occupier should vote for the county, we
also took care that the urban influence should not be over-
whelming, and we did this by a provision, that the possessor
of land in towns should vote in the locality with which he