The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-02 00:00:00

MEETING OF LANCASIIIBE REFORM

DEPUTIES.

Yesterday afternoon an exceedingly large and
crowded meeting was held at the Assembly-room,
Free-trade Hall, Manchester, being a conference of
Reformers in Lancashire favourable to the general
principles of Mr. Bright's Bill. Mr. Bright, M.P.,
was present, and was received with most enthu-
siastic cheering. The following is a list of some of
the deputations present, but owing to the late hour
at which some of the appointments were made it is
not complete, and it is probable some few mistakes
are made in names
The following are the names of the deputations
and friends from the various towns named
ACCRINGTON.--Messrs. Langbridge, Geo. Bury,
Thomas Haworth, James Barlow, R. Massey, E.
Bowker, Swaine Rhodes, Bridge (Church, Robt.
Westin (Church), J. Tattersall.
ASTLEY.-Mr. Samuel Newton.
ASEETON-UNDER-LYNE.--Mr. William Hill.

BLACKBURN.-Mr. James Pilkington, M.P. ;
Aldermen Wm. Pilkington and R. R. Jackson ;
Messrs. W. H. Johnson, Adam %Hough, T. B.
Westall, Thomas Eccles, R. Shackleton, B. Abbott,
R. Webster, James Shaw, H. Cocks, F. Nichols.

BOLTON.—Messrs. Robert Heyw, ood, Thomas
Thomasson, P. R. Arrowsmith, T. Satterthwaite,
Henry Ashworth (the Oaks.)
BAcur.—Messrs. Chas. Stewart, Richard Smith,
Robert Smith, John Howarth.
BURY.—Messrs. Thomas L. Openshaw, Thomas
Pilkington, Thomas Grundi James Kay, James
Chattwood, Richard Ward, dwardßates, William
Farebrother, Thomas Crompton, Samuel Kay, John
Wood, John Ratcliffe, James Livsey, John Horrox,
John H. Tyson, Peter M. Cooper.
CHADDERTON.—Mr. Allen Mellor.
CHORLEY._Messrs. William Lawrence, William'
Gillibrand.
HASLINGDEN.—Rey. G. W. Clapham.
HELMSHORE.—Mr. James Whittaker.
KIRKELAM.—Mr. Richard Bowdler.
LANCASTER.—Mr. James Thomson Wray, and
Mr. Alderman G. Jackson ; Messrs. George Cle-
minson, Verity, John Clark Hornby, Tennant
Kirkby, and W. Guineas, Bentham.
LIVERPOOL.—Messrs. Robertson Gladstone, J.
R. Jeffery, Lawrence Heyworth, Charles Holland,
J. P. Danson, R. W. Ronald, Richard Shiel, David
M'Clellan, R. Bennett, J. Steel, T. Cope, and K.
Liversedge.
.LEEDS.—Messrs. George Atkins, Chas. Andrew,
John Holroyd, H. Atherton.
MIDDLETON.—Messrs. John Knox, Edward
Howarth, John Woolstencroft, Thos. Mills.
NEWCHURCH.--Messrs. John Kershaw, Whit-
taker, H. Law, Barcroft, George Hood.
PRESTON.—Messrs. Rolt, R. Charnley, J. Han-
kinson, J. J. Merriman, John Thompson, Jun.
OLDHAM.—Mr. Councillor Dransfield, Messrs.
Leonard Haslop, John Bromley, John Swailes, E.
Ingham, Jos. Shaw, John. Ashton, Edwd. Kirkby,
John Bradley. Adam Bradley, John Beswick, John
Green, John Swires, Edward Rye, Richard Peat,
Charles Mellor, J. Hulme Hill.
ROYTON.—Messrs. James Stott, Thos. Chadwick,
John Buckley, Jos. Harrop, Adam Whitworth,
John Mellor, Miles Taylor.
ROCHDALE.—Mr. Alderman Healey, and Mr.
Alderman Livsey ; Messrs. Jacob Bright, John Pe-
trie, George Ashworth, Robt. Kelsall, Henry King,
James King, T. B. Willans, J. F. Pagan, William
Shepherd, Abraham Greenwood, Sam Asquith,
John Clegg, Sam Casson.
SOUTHPORT.—Dr. Craven ; Messrs. Wood, Henry
Robinson, Robert Lloyd, John Jackson, Walter
Smith, Wm. Hodge, Boothroyd.
STALEYBRIDGE.—Messrs. W. Bayley (Mayor),
Randall Ridgway, John Summers, George Smith,
Hugh Marsland, Abraham Hilton, Jos. Shawcross,
E. Shipley, J. Kenworthy, W. Bayley, jun.
ST. HELEN'S.—Messrs. Samuel Gurney, Bernard,
Dromgoole.
STOCKPORT. Messrs. Alderman Chapman,
liampson' and Walmsley ; Messrs. Forrester,
Blaekett (Stacksteads), Richard Ashworth, David
Bowlas, James Longson, S. Maiden.
TODMORDEN.—Messrs. Abraham Ormrod, Robt.
Fielden, W. Fielden, L. H. Suthers, John Fielden,
Thos. Chambers
_i John Whitaker, James Nuttall,
Edward L, William Crabtree, Joseph Firth, W.
Haworth, J. Shepherd, Wm. Greenwood, Ashton
Stansfield, John Barker, jun., George Hinsliffe,
James Schofield, John Cockcroft. James Dawson,
John Brooke, Wm. Shackleton, Henry Duckworth,
J. H. Wilson, Barker Crabtree, James Ashworth,
John Veevers, L. Tapling.
WARRINGTON.—Rey. R. A. Mould ; Messrs.
Peter Rylands, Holbrook Gaskell, C. H. Cartwright,
Edward. Robinson, John Burgess.
COWPEN.—Edward Ashworth.
The following letter had been received from Mr
Bailey, M.P.:

" Hayesleigh, Manchester, Jan. 26.
" My Dear Sir, —Having been long engaged to proceed
to London on Tuesday next, to fulfil an important engage-
ment, I cannot, I regret, have the honour of attending the
Reformers' Conference on the evening of that day.
" Again, I beg to assure you that I shall feel it to be my
duty to assist in obtaining as comprehensive and judicious
a reform in the representation of the people of this country
as the Legislature can be induced to yield.
" Allow me to ;take the opportunity of thanking my
Liberal friends for the honour of electing me a vice-presi-
dent of their Reform Association.—Believe me to remain,
most faithfully, " THOS. BAZLEY.
" George Wilson, Esq., &c.”
On the motion of Mr. J. C. DYER, seconded by
Mr. HARVEY, Mayor of Salford, Mr. Geo. Wilson
was unanimously voted to the chair, amid loud
cheers.
The CHAIRMAN regretted that, in the absence of
one of the most distinguished Liberals in the county,
he had been, at a. few minutes' notice, called
to take the chair on this occasion. The object of this
meeting was to afford to the leading Reformers of
Lancashire an opportunity of expressing their
opinions on the great measure of his friend Mr.
Bright. (Cheers.) Speaking from his intimate ac-
quaintance with the past assemblages of Liberals
in thii district, he was prepared to maintain that
the names which had been sent in as those of dele-
gates to this meeting offered a selection more re-
spectable and influential than he had ever seen in
the palmiest days of the League. (Cheers.) As this
was a meeting of delegates, he hoped no gentleman
would refrain from expressing his opinion, inas-
much as at great personal inconvenience Mr. Bright
was present. If they were to have a discussion on
Mr. Bright's measure, now was the time for it, and
now was the time to obtain any information re-
quired in reference to it, in order that, after due
and mature consideration, they might combine to-
gether strongly and with the requisite degree of
force, in order that that measure should have its
due influence in the House of Commons. (Cheers.)
He
thought
Mr. Bright had reason for peculiar
gratification at the reception of his proposals, not
only by the great meetings he had addressed at
Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Bradford, and Rochdale, but
even
meetings. of
importance had been held, nwb when the parties
muche
to them were advocates ofmore extensive
measures than that of the memberhotnh.orefo for Bir-
mingham. He (the chairman) retookit for
granted that we were not likely have theold
game played over again, but that the
classes for themselves were prepared to accept workingh
the leadership of Mr. Bright with reference to thiste
Reform Bill, and that we should see a combinatione
throughout the country in favour of this measure
such as was never presented in favour of a Reform
Bill on any former occasion. A good deal of unani-
mity had probably arisen from the fact that Mr.
Bright was not self-elected as a leader, because he
had been chosen by the London Reform Association,
the first reform association in the country for the
talent of its members and for the attention it had
given to the cause it advocated during the last two
or three years. He took it for granted that the
members of that association, with their 50 or 60
members of Parliament on its council, would not
have made that selection unless they, had come to
the Conclusion that a measure of reform could be
safely intrusted to the hands of Mr. Bright.
(Cheers.) He considered that Lancashire had
especial reason for supporting this Reform Bill.
Long before 1832, and since that time, no county
in the kingdom had received, in the acknowledg-
ment of population or property, such unfair treat-
ment as Lancashire. • (Cheers.) They asked for no
exclusive privileges, but for fair-play.. We should,
no doubt, hear from that: ingenious advocate
of the landed interest, and probably the most
able. supporter of the present Government in the
that of Commons, Mr. Disraeli, a great outcry
'kat the counties had not their fair share of repre-
Sentation in proportion to :their population and
their voters
Bucking-
hamshire, it Taking his own, county of Bucking-
urwinould be found, however, that for
many years during the e contest for the Reform Bill
Mr. Disraeli sat g h
knowing that .Buckingham-
shire; with its
6440000 voters (borough' and county
ipcluded), its population, and its property
rated to the income tax of considerably less than
£1,000,000, returned 11 members , while Lanca-
shire, with a poPulation of
and.
mupwardsore of 2,000,000,
more than 88,000 voters,
thano L 10,000,000
property tax, only of assessment .to &returned 26
members to Parliament, and that if county of
Lancaster during that time had returned in
portion to the county_of Buckingham, pro-
am, instead
of
26, it would have had 130 members. (Cheers.) He
would, however, not take the comparison with
Buckinglrata alone. At. the ..present time there
were'- nine counties in England with less than
400,000 porgation, with assessment under schedule
A of the prolierty-tax of -£700,000 less than that
of Lancashire, Which returned 98 members to Par-

liament against the 26 from Lancashire. And,
taking into consideration the great increase of
population since the Reform Bill, it would be found
that the increase alone in Lancashire since then

exceeded the entire present population of Dorset,
Buckingham, and Devonshire, which returned 38
members.. (Hear, hear.) The Times had stated
some time ago that there were but three men of
great debating power in Parliament, and those
were Lord Derby, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Bright.
Now, all these gentlemen were Lancashire men—
(cheers)—and -he thought they had reason to be
proad of the fact.
Mr. HENRY ASHWORTH, of Bolton, congratulated
the meeting on the influential character f the de-
putations sent. One. leading feature of the pro-
posed Reform Act was an extension of the suffrage,
and it might be supposed to be some new and
dangerous discovery. But where did we hear of
a Reform Bill of which it did not form a part ?
Lord John Russell's Bill -proposed a £5 rating
clause, and therefore it appeared that Mr. Bright's
proposition was not altogether novel. If the con-
stitution, which was always in danger, was in need
of repair, he thought they would not be disposed to
take advantage of anything in the institutions of
the continent. A great outcry had been made
against assimilating our institutions to those of
America, but to what country could we go with
greater hope of deriving a lesson that would be use-
ful and safe ? He referred to the question of the
ballot as an instance. It had been found to work
well on the whole in that country, and therefore
we might expect it would work well here. He
proceeded to defend Mr. Bright's Bill, and thought
that even in it they had not asked for all to which
they were entitled. He concluded by moving a re-
solution to the effect that Mr. Bright's measure
deserved the support of this county, and that the
conference was disposed to give it all the support
in their power. (Cheers.)
Mr. HERVEY, Mayor of Salford, seconded the
'resolution.
Mr. BARNES, late M.P. for Bolton. supported the
resolution, and said he should have been prepared
to go with Mr. Bright if he had gone a little fur-
ther. He did not know but he should have asked
for manhood suffrage, because Governments seldom
gave all that was asked. He believed there never
was a man who stood before the country with the
1 same amount of confidence, that he spoke the sen-
timents of the great mass of the people, and he be-
lieved that the people never had such an able ad-
vocate before. What he wanted was a power at
his back—(hear, hear)—and if this bill was lost they
might depend it would be their faults, and not Mr.
Bright's. (Cheers.)
Mr. R. GLADSTONE, of Liverpool, rose amid
great cheering. He regretted that Liverpool had
not been in the foreground on this question, like
Manchester, and he came there to give his feeble
help, because he thought it would be a stigma on
them if they remained silent. He spoke for himself,
and not for others, and he asked whether it was
better to wait till greater evils had developed them-
selves in our political system, or to apply at once
a remedy while there was time. ln Liver-
pool there was , of course, a considerable difference
of opinion. Of course, from the old Tories there
was an opposition, but they knew how that oppo-
sition was to be dealt with, and that if the people
were firm and resolute in their demand not the
Tories, nor even the Times newspaper—which, after
all, was a Tory—with all the briefless barristers
and preachless ministers at its back as writers,
could stand against the arguments which pointed
to such a measure of Reform as Mr. Bright now
proposed. He did not profess to speak either for
the Tory or the old Whig party of Liverpool, but
he came to that meeting as one of a considerable
phalanx of the more advanced Liberals, to express
their most grateful thanks to Mr. Bright for his
distinguished services on this question. (Cheers.)
Mr. JEFFERY, of Liverpool, and Mr. THOMPSON,
of Ray, near Lancaster, heartily. supported the re-
solution, which' was carried unanimously.
Mr. BRIGHT then rose to address the meeting
amid enthusiastic and repeated cheering. He said,
—Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,—l can corrobo-
rate a remark which has been made by the chair-
man in reference to this meeting, for, looking back

to all or any of the meetings which were held
under the name of " conferences," and called in

the middle of the clay, during the agitation of the
Anti-Corn Law League, I do not remember any
one so numerous, and I rembember none more
entirely united in action, more enthusiastic or in-
fluential than that which I loook upon at this
moment. (Cheers.) There are one or two
points which have been referred to as to which I
feel constrained to take something like an objec-
tion. Now, it must be understood, from the first
I have never put myself forward with any view
of becoming a great popular or Parliamen-
tary leader, either on this or any other public
question. You are aware, I presume, how it was
that I undertook to prepare a bill to be laid before
Parliament :—that a conference was held in Lon-
don, that many influential men were there, that
they represented many more, as they believed, who
were not present ; that they thought it would be
desirable that Parliament should see a Reform Bill
prepared by earnest reformers ; and that they did
me the great honour to ask me if I would under-
take, hr conjunction with others, to prepare such.a
bill, with a view to its being laid before Parliament.
Well, I did not feel at liberty absolutely to refuse,
but I explained clearly the ground upon which I
intended to proceed ; and I now allude to this
question in reference to what has been said by my
friend Mr. Barnes. I said " I shall not be ex-
pected to introduce a bill framed upon the pro-
gramme or specification of anybody else or of any
Reform Association, but it shall be one that shall
square with my own convictions ; and I will take
the advice of some gentlemen in whose opinion I
have great confidence on a question of this nature."
I did not propose to prepare a bill that should be
theoretically perfect. We were not landed from a
colonisation ship in a new country, and about to
arrange a constitution without reference to the
past, I have no wish at all to be severed from the
great part of this country, but I proposed to take
this course—to prepare a bill just such as in my
conscience I believe it is the duty of any Minister
of the Crown really and honestly in favour of re-
form to prepare and submit to Parliament; not to
submit to Parliament for the sake of having a great
field-night, and making a great speech, and having
a vote, and. the thing being then dismissed, aid
never heard of again until another session or some
subsequent period ; but a measure that should have
regard, as far as possible, to all that exists in the
country, whether of fact or of opinion, hoping
thereby to combine in its favour so large an
amount of public support that it should finally
obtain the acceptance of the most influ-
ential of our statesmen, whose influence,
of course, must diminish when they set themselves
permanently against the power of public opinion in
this country. Well, now you will observe the pro-
, positions that I have made, and, as I said even at
that time, anybody who is dispdsed to cavil may
cavil. (Hear, hear.) Anybody might cavil at the
Reform Bill of 1832, but it was a great measure
notwithstanding, and it passed ; and anybody who
is not now honestly, in favour of reform, or who has
any personal dislike to the prominence which I
have taken in this matter, can of course, if he likes,
find fault with many of the arrangements which I
propose. But I have submitted to my countrymen
a measure, as a whole, founded upon broad and easily
understood principles—recognising the great rights
of a great people, stepping not to the right hand
nor to the left to favour particular interests or par-
veccuolmare t
localities—(hear, hear)—and I offer this
measure
them
calculatedat once,t
ogive bevleievthinegmit,
thatif i tfaisrh,oaunldd
become
equal, and complete control over the legislation and
Government of this country which our constitution
says we ought to possess, and our experience of the
past shows us is necessary to our welfare for the
future. (Hear, hear.) So, with regard to the
question of the Parliamentary suffrage, I da not
include everybody. I don't know iny suffrage
scarcely that could, but I hand it out freel so
that no class and no man of any class can stand' up
and say, "Your bill is directed to exclude me, while
it intends to include somebody else." (Hear, hear.)
The exclusions are of that nature that they affect
equally all classes, and the invitations to come in
within the pale of the constitution are broad and
general to all classes of the people. (Cheers.) Well,
then, you will observe that there is not very much
discussion at this moment on the question of
the franchise. The discussion now turns upon the
mode in which I have endeavoured to arrange
the distribution of members after having
disfranchised a certain number of the boroughs.
To obtain a certain number of seats, I
am told with great pertinacity in some
quarters, though with great feebleness of proof—
(laughter and cheers)—that I have been greatly
unfair to what is called the landed interests of the
country. Now, I suppose it is intended that the
distinction between boroughs and counties is still to
be kept up. I proceeded upon an observance of,
and a regard for, the ancient customs and land
‘marks of our system. If anybody wishes to sweep
them all
away, and arrange something else, well,

let him try. But I understood that the great body
of the thinking people of this country preferred
something built, as it were, upon ancient founda-
tions rather than that we should clear the ground
of stone, and brick, the mortar, and everything
that has existed heretofore, and begin a new build-
ing upon an entirely new theory. (Hear, hear.)
Now, it is essential that the public should be con-
vinced, if the,7 are to support this bill, that I have
dealt; fairly with the different classes of the country.
Observe, nobody has found fault with the figures.
You have seen the lists of those schedules. You

know that somebody has spent days and nights,
almost weeks, in arranging those schedules and
figures, but nobody has yet undertaken to show
that there are serious errors of any kind in them,
and from this you may well be assured that great
care has been taken in the arrangement before it
was submitted for public approval. (Cheers.) But
the charge is that we are lifting a great power which
is now on the side of what is called the landed
interest, and we are placing it on the side of the
commercial interest, and that whatever is the pre-
sent disproportion and want of balance, if this bill
passes we shall have an equal want of balance with
that which now exists, but on the other side of the
house, or upon the other interests of the country.
I showed on a very late occasion that so far as the
great towns are concerned, and the purely agri-
cultural counties, accepting thus all populations
(although. bear in mind that all population is neither
enfranchished now nor is it intended wholly to

enfranchise them), the purely agricultural popu.
lation have more members in proportion to their
numbers than the population of the great towns to
which I propose to give three or four, or six repre-
sentatives each. (Hear, hear.) I showed that if
there were any counties not sufficiently represented
they were those which had a great manufacturing
and mining population, and that those which really
and obviously were very insufficiently dealt with
and had much too few members were the counties
of Lancashire, the West Riding of York, Middlesex,
and Surrey ; but it is very difficult to get men to
look at a question with anything like fairness.
Some one sent me yesterday an extract from a paper
of large circulation, published in the town of Liver-
pool. That paper goes upon this simple statement,
that the population of the counties is so much, and
I propose to leave it with so many members, that
the population of the boroughs is so much less than
that of the counties, and that I propose to leave it
with so many members, much more than the coun-
ties, and the writer says I am treating the counties
with a gross injustice, but what is the state of things
now ? How grossly unjust, according to his theory,
is the present position of the county representation ;
because, at this moment, the population of the
counties being in excess of the Parliamentary
boroughs the counties now have about 159 members
(I am speaking now of England and Wales only) and
I propose to give them 177, which is 18 more, while
the boroughs now have 337 ; and I propose to bring
them down to 301, but this learned scribe never com-
plained before. (Laughter.) Why, if by giving the
counties 18 more and the boroughs 36 less (because I
take from English borough to give some to Scotland
and some to Ireland) I am guilty of grievous injus-
tice to the counties, I should like to know what is
the way to do this gentleman justice—(cheers)—
but if this gentleman writer, whose criticism I am
now criticising, would have carried his observation
a little further, he would have seen that there is a
portion of the borough representation in England
which is nominally over-represented. As far as
the counties measure with the great boroughs there
is no great disparity.. It is not of the slightest
consequence to us as inhabitants of boroughs whe-
ther every member represent a thousand more or
less than in the counties, and, taking the two to-
gether, all the rural counties and all the great
boroughs, the difference is altogether unessential,
or, if there be any difference, it is in favour of the
counties ; but if you get lower in the boroughs, to
all those which return or are proposed to return
one member each or two members each, you will
find of course that the representation appears to be
greatly in excess. You will find that whereas if
all the 'population were divided by all the members
each member would have about 37,500 persons in
the small boroughs, with only one member the
average had not more than 11,000 or 12,000, and in
boroughs with not more than two members the
share of representation is very much greater than
in the counties or in the large boroughs. But then
this is absolutely inevitable if you intend to main-
tain the distinction between boroughs and counties,
and I can show you how the equalisation is
brought about. (Hear, hear.) I can show you, as I
believe in :my conscience to be absolutely true, if
my bill were to pass, it would be utterly impossible
for any man studying the figures and studying the
facts to hold the opinion that the county popula-
tions or the landed. interest were not sufficiently
represented in the scheme I have laid before the
public. I shall not occupy more than a moment or
two in explaining how that is. Now, in looking
over the schedule of those boroughs that are to
have one member each, schedule B and schedule D
—that is, all the boroughs between 8,000 and 25,000
population—T believe there aro at least 50 seats
which may be set down to be almost certainly
connected with the same influences which direct
the representation of the counties, and therefore
they may be fairly added to the county repre-
sentation of the country • but there is another
schedule, that of boroughs with two members,
and I should just like to read over the
names of a few of these, to show you
exactly. to what my arguments tend. If you ask,
" who is the representative of a county ?" in almost
any part of Great Britain, you will find, with the
exception of half-a-dozen counties or divisions, that
he is a good landed proprietor, or a son or near
relative of some nobleman or great proprietor of
the county. Traders are never admitted into the
agricultural counties. You can return Willitim
Brown and John Cheetham for the county ; but if
you go to North and South Cheshire, and the various
other agricultural counties of the Kingdom, you
will find that your merchants and manufacturers
are not admitted there. But how is it with your
boroughs P Take, now, on this very list, in what
I call schedule D, the boroughs that, according to
my proposal, would have two members. There are
19 boroughs out of these which cannot be said to
return or to have chosen manufacturing represen-
tatives for themselves. There is the borough of
Gateshead, Well, Mr. Hutt, who represents
Gateshead, is by marriage connected with an
aristocratic family and a large landed property in
that district. If you come to Carlisle, you find Sir
James Graham, the owner of a magnificent estate
within, I believe, ten miles of that place, represent-
ing the city of Carlisle. If you come to North-
ampton, you find Mr. Vernon Smith, himself a man
of great wealth, and I believe of great landed pro-
perty, representing that town. If you come to the
borough of Aylesbury, you find Airlesbury is a
siball county in itself, for it has a very large lande(
district united to the town. If you come to Chester,
you find a son of the Marquis of Westminster is
almost always representing that city. If you come
to Oxford, you find a very excellent gentleman of
landed property, represents that city. If you come
to the borough of Shoreham, in the county of Sussex,
you find it is as much a county as any part of Not-
tinghamshire or Buckinghamshire, because there is a
large district added to the borough, and the votes of
the district. and the land rule the representation
of the borough. If you ".come to Ipswich, you
find a very excellent gentleman, Mr. Adair, the son
of one of the largest landed proprietors in Suffolk,
representing that borough. If you go to Galway,
in Ireland, another town in the schedule, you find
Lord Dunkellin—a son, I think, of Lord Clanri-
carde—representing that city. If you come to
Cheltenham, you find Colonel Berkeley, one of the
family of the late Lord Fitzhardinge, representing
the town of Cheltenham, and returned through
the influence of the Berkeley family in that
county. If you come to Coventry, you find that
very excellent friend. of mine, Mr. Ellice, represent-
ing that city. He is a large landed proprietor in
Scotland, a man of great wealth, and connected by
marriage very intimately with oxe of the most aris-
tocratic families of the country. If you come to
Macclesfield, in our own neighbourhood, you find
Mr. Egerton representing that place, and he is a
brother, I think, of one of the largest landed pro-
prietors in the county of Chester. If you go to
York, you find Mr. Smyth, who is a very large
landed proprietor in the neighbourhood of Wake-
field, representing the city of York. If you go to
East Retford, in Nottinghamshire, you find it is a
landed district of country, itself inside a county,
and having no more to do with what we call com-
mercial interests than the most agricultural county
in the whole kingdom. And so you may go through
all these, and you will find in this very schedule,
with two members to every borough, not less than
19 or 20 seats at this moment occupied by persons
having no connection whatever with commerce or
manufactures, being themselves landed proprietors,
or allied to great landed proprietors, in the neigh-
bourhood. Well, I venture to say this affects—if
it were fair, which I believe it is not ; but if it
were fair to take the population exactly of the
counties and boroughs into consideration, I say the
consideration of these facts very much affects the
question which is before us. I think it is quite
possible to be shown that even if this bill passed
the commercial classes of this country would still
be able to speak with fairness against the very
powerful and unbroken phalanx which the landed
interest would offer in the House of Commons; but
we don't pretend to be legislating for boroughs
only. The members for Manchester now, or the
members for Manchester ever since the Reform
Bill, had never been men who pretended to legis-
late for cotton mills and great warehouses. They
have no Game Laws to fight for. They have never