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

to the second reading of the bill. (Hear, hear.) los
well understand that the noble lord and those who aot with
him should object to a vote -being taken- upon the second
readng. I dare say they have good reasons for their ob-
jection; and this resolution is framed—and very ingeniously
framed I must say it is—in such a manner as to secure the
support of those who, while disapproving of some par-
ticular portions of the measure, are still not prepared to
reject it as a whole, and to place those who defersd it in a
false position, by calling upon them to consider exclusively
those parts of the measure against whiCh, rightly or
wrongly, it is thought that popular opinion may be strongly
directed, and by preventing them from dealing with any
other part of the measure. (Hear. hear.) If it is desired
to obtain from the house an unbiassed verdict upon the
merits of the bill, I think reasonable objection
may be made to the course which it is pro-
posed to take, as being contrary to justice and fairness.
We might say, if a vote is to be taken upon this bill,
" Form your judgment upon it as a whole ; accept the
second reading or condemn it, but if you accept it you can
consider the details in committee." When the noble lord
compares the resolution which he is now moving with that
which last year led to a change of Administration, I must
say I think the analogy is in one respect at least quite accu-
rate. The motion of February last year was brought for-
ward avowedly and expressly as a vote of censure upon the
Government of the day. (Cries of " No," and " Hear.")
I am told that was not the case ; but if it was not proposed
as a vote of censure, I must ask was it not accepted as such?
(Hear, hear.) Ido not complain that a similar course has
been taken now, but I state that which we all know, that in
this debate the merits of the bill before us will not be the
only question discussed ; we all know that the question is
not whether this bill shall pass into law, but whether poli-
tical power shall pass into other hands. (Loud cheers.)
That is the challenge which I, upon the part of the Govern-
ment, am ready to accept. That is the issue which, un-
doubtedly, must be decided. Looking upon it in that light,
I am not disposed to criticise the manner in which the vote
will be taken. True it is, we are told that the adoption of
the resolution is not necessarily fatal to the bill, and that
even if the resolution be carried the bill may be brought to
a second reading. I know that that suggestion comes from
one who is a very competent judge of such points el Parlia-
mentary tactics, but the noble lord must allow us--we who
sit upon these benches—to be the best judges of that we
may consider to be duo to our self-respect and our own
honour. (Cheers.) No doubt the India Bill of last year
waa proceeded with after resolutions, and some say, Why
not pursue the same course now ? I say that the circum-
stances of last year in connection with the India Bill were
of a purely exceptional character. The Home Government
of India had before the entry into office of the present Go-
vernment been condemned by the Ministers who preceded
them. A bill was proposed for the transference of the go-
vernment of India without check or control to the Crown,
which was equally condemned by public opinion. Another
bill upon the same subject was brought in bee,itillile7ptrheastenitt
Government, which do doubt failed to command the support
of this house. Unc's.• those circumstances, fe
was important that the Home Government of India should
not be allowed to remain in abeyance at a time when civil
war was raging in India, we accepted what we felt was a;
necessity in that emergency, and adopted the method of
proceeding by resolution, which resulted in the passing of a
measure. I think that in adopting that course, in order to
avoid great public embarrassment, the Government were
perfectly justified; but there are many things that may be
done once—many steps taken under the pressure of emer-
gency, which ought not to be drawn into a general prece-
dent, which it would be most inconvenient to adopt. (Hear,
hear.) I say, then, I am expressing the feelingS of my
colleagues, and of those who support this measure when I
declare that the adoption of the resolution proposed by the
noble lord must necessarily be fatal to the bill. (Loud
cheers.) Now, referring to the noble lord's objection that
by this bill the working classes are excluded, 1 might ask
two questions—first, what does the noble lord mean by the
working classes ; and next, what does he mean by :‘ ex-
clusion-I" (Hear, hear.) There is nothing in England so
impossible to define as a class, and the term "the workingclass" is the vaguest of all, because it may be confined to
the very humblest grade of society, or it may extend almost
indefinitely upwards. But, taking the term in its ordinary
sense, and considering it as applying to those who live by
the labour of their hands. I say there are many belonging
to that class who will come within the scope of the princi-
ple laid down in this bill—(hear, hear)—by the property
qualification, by the lodger franchise, and by the franchise
in respect to deposits in savings banks which we propose.
One of the chief defects of the present state of the law is, I
apprehend, not so much that the 40s. freeholds are above
the reach of the working classes, because those freeholds can
be purchased for £5O, and have been bought for less, but
because by conferring the franchise in that form alone you
compel a man to invest his savings in a manner sometimes
unattainable, and when attainable often inconvenient. In
respect of qualification I am not unwilling to compare
the provisions of this bill with those of the bill proposed
by the noble lord in 1851. What did the bill of the noble
lord in 1854 propose to do ? It did not touch the case of
lodgers, but it dealt with the franchise connected with per-
sonal property, and I admit it only required £5O in a
savings-bank, whereas we require £6O. But there was a
provision in the noble lord's bill that the voter must have
had the sum of £5O for three years before he should be
allowed to vote. We know that it would take two years to
invest that amount in a savings-bank, and there was a pro-
vision that in the event of a change of residence to another
locality an additional 12 months was required, so that a
man would be five years without a vote, and might possibly
be more. (Hear.) Under the provisions of this bill the
franchise will be granted not in five years, but in two years.
(Hear, hear.) Objections have been taken to this form of
giving the franchise, and it has been said that it is a hard
thing if a man is compelled by the wants of his family or
other circumstances to withdraw his money from the
savings-bank, that therefore he should lose his vote,
although he would be just as worthy a member of society.
Now, I reply that, whatever may be the value of that ob-
jection, it is one that applies e pmlly to every kind of pro-
perty qualification. (Hear, hear.) If a man is compelled
to sell his freehold he loses his vote in respect of it ; if he
leaves his £lO house he also loses his vote ; and therefore
the objection applies-to all property qualification whatever;
and if we get rid of property qualification we are practically
thrown back upon universal suffrage. Then something has
been said of the danger of the creation of fictitious deposits,
but I think it can be shown—perhaps better in committee
than just now—that whatever danger there may be in- that
respect exists equally in the case of the immemorial fran-
chise conferred by the 40s. freeholds. It, is possible, 110
doubt, that a wealthy man who desires to create votes may
lend money to another for investment in a savings-bank
in order to obtain the franchise for him ; but so it is
in the case .of 40s. freeholds, and it is much easier
to be done in their case, because then the title-deeds
remain in the hands of the person who creates the
vote, whereas if the money is lent to create a savings-bank
franchise, it is necessarily invested in the name of the per-
son who is to give the vote, and can only be drawn out by
him. (Hear.) While I agree with the principle of that quali-
fication I may say at once that I lay no particular stress upon
£6O as the sum to be invested. I think the value of the
qualification consists not in the amount the voter may have,
but in the evidence which it gives of his industry and fru-
gality. (Hear, hear.) The principle is, I apprehend, not
to put the amount too high, so as to be beyond the reach of
the working man, and at the same time not to put it so low
that it can be gained without the exercise of prudence and
industry. (Hear.) That is the principle which is laid down
in this bill; that is the object we have aimed at. If there
be any objections as to themachinery which is proposed. that
is a proper subject for consideration in committee. When
it is said that by retaining the borough franchise at £lO the
working classes are exclued, what is intended is that they
are not admitted in a body. It is not a question whether
they should be shut out altogether—no one wishes that—
but whether they should be admitted indiscriminately—the
ignorant with the educated, the man who spends as well as
the man who saves ? (Hear, hear.) Now, I think and
speak with all respect of those whose lot it is to live by
labour, and if a large minority of those who are styled the
working classes cannot read or write, I am willing to admit
that the fault is less theirs than that of the classes above
them. (Hear, hear.) But although the inability to read
and write may not be a fault, it may be a disqualification
--(hear, hear)—and the difficulty of admitting the working
classes is that if you admit them in a body you must do it
to such an extent that by their numbers they will overbear
every other class. The difficulty therefore is—and it presses
upon those who bring forward a measure of reform--that
with regard to the working classes you should hit the
medium between giving them an overpowering share in the
excludingrePresentation and them altogether. I have
seen some ingenious speculations put forth that certain
members should be returned by the working classes, whil6
others have recommended that in certain large towns the
franchise should he exceptionally lowered, so as to have a
representation of the working classes in those towns. But
we cannot help feeling instinctively that these are ingenious
which cannot be put into practice.
slpheecyuladtoionnsot
merely,m cet the real difficulty of the case ; and that
is, how to admit the working classes on any principle of
selection without admitting them indiscriminately as a body.
(Hear, hear.) Are these illiberal or retrograde views ? Are
they the views of the Conservatives alone ? If there be in
this country one man more than another who has laboured
in the cause of human thought and human progress—if
there be one man more than another who believes in the
future of mankind, and who is not inclined to look back to
the past with any superstitious feeling of veneration that
man is John Stuart Mill. (Cheers.) Now, Mr. Mill has
written a pamphlet within the last few weeks, in which lie
expresses the view that it would be more satisfactory if
every man had a vote, but that it would be only possible or
expedient en condition that educated men, according to the
measure of their position and requirements, should have
five or six ' • and" Mr. Mill says that without some qualifica-
tion of that kind he believes that any general admission of
the working classes is impossible. I ani not fond of substi-
tuting authorities for arguments, and there is only one
other witness I will call. There are many members of this
house, and many more of the working classes who are
familiar with the name of Mr. Holyoake. (Murmurs and
Hear, hear.) Ho is chiefly known in connexion with
philosophical speculations of an unpopular character,
and also as warmly and earnestly. sympathising with the
cause of democratic institutions in Europe. No one is a
mere fitting representative in that respect of the feelings of
that section of the working class which interests itself most
strongly in politics. (Cries of Oh, oh!) Mr. Holyoake may
fairly be taken to represent the feelings of persons of ex-
treme political opinions, and it is with his political opinions
alone with which I have to do. Well, what is it that Mr.
weeksllol y ?oake says in a pamphlet published within the last few
,6 Who cares," he asks, " to give votes to the selfish,
the ignorant, the apathetic? Not more than ono man in
100 in this country gives time, money, serious thought, or
takes an earnest part in public affairs. Why should any
one die of exhaustion in endeavouring to enfranchise so
many as comprise a mere apathetic mob, who put no value
on a vote ? At the same time many would work hard and
long that even a limited number of men, intelligent and
earnest, who desire to take part in securing the well-being
of their country, should be enabled to do so. Now, any
mere mechanical suffrage founded on rating, or rent, or oc-
cupation, will, as the existing suffrage does, include many
utterly worthless persons, and exclude numerous deserving,
intelligent, but poor seen, who might by a simple expedient
be included. IVhat is wanted is an expansive suffrage
which shall be open to the worthy and shut out the unfit."
Mr proposes an educational test. I agree
IsithllliVinake the
the general tenour of his remarks, and he
fairly expresses the principle that I have endeavoured to
establish, admission of the working class by selection and
not in mass. There are two tests by applying which that.
principle may be carried out. The educational test is new
in this country, and no Government has yet ventured to.
apply it, so far as the working class are concerned, and we'
therefore come to the other—a law of personal property
qualification. Now we think that the possession of sorsies
property in the hands of a man who has earned it by hiss
labour is a test of industry, of self-control, of good moral
character. With the details of the machinery employed!.
you are now dealing. If the machinery we have adopted:
is good, employ it ; if defective, amend it ; but the princi—
ple is one upon which we ask the verdict of this house,— -
namely, the admission of the working classes by the prin—
ciple of selection, and not indiscriminately and at hazared.
(Hear, hear.) I come now to the question that has be in
so often put relative to the disfranchisement of the amid)