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

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

The Strangers' Gallery was filled immediately prayers
were oN er, and the stream of petitions that flowed inces-
santly against the Government measure, and the applause
with which they were received evinced, in the clearest
manner, the feeling of the house and the country. Mr.
BERKELEY was entrusted with a number of these petitions,
and excited considerable amusement by shouldering the
voluminous documents, and bending under their weight,
depositing them on the usual receptacle. Mr. GARNETT
presented a petition from the inhabitants of Hamersham,
praying for the adoption of the Government Bill ; and this
solitary demonstrcktion in favour of the obnoxious measure
elicited considerable laughter.

THE REFORM BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of the
Representation of the People Bill,

Mr. DISRAELI moved that the bill should be road a
second time.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I rise, sir, to move the amendment
of which I have given notice, and I believe I shall best
consult the convenience of the house by saying as little as
possible by way of preface to the arguments which I wish
to urge upon their attention. I shall be the more ready
to do this because I quite agree with the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the
duty of her Majesty's Ministers to propose a bill to amend
the representation of the people in this house. It might
be a question whether the Ministers, upon taking office,
being in a decided minority, were justified in presenting
themselves to this house ; it might be a question
whether it was right to hold out expectations that
they would present a Reform Bill to the house ;
but I think there can be no doubt that, having held
out those expectations, they were right in fulfilling
their pledge and bringing their propositions before Parlia-
ment in the shape of a bill. The right hon. gentleman
spoke much of the importance of this question, and I do
not wish to weaken what he said by attempting to add any •
thing to it. There can be no question of graver importance
to us, our children, and our posterity, than that which is
now before the house. And, sir, if it is a question of so
much importance, I think it cannot be wrong to urge this
house to consider every step which they take—not to be
blind to the importance of any movement which they make,
and to consider well before they advance in what may turn
out in a wrong direction. In the argwnents which lam
about to address to the house I am encouraged by the fact
that two of the colleagues of the right hun. gentleman—
one the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr.
Walpole), distinguished among his colleagues for his great
constitutional knowledge and the calmness and temper-
ance of his views upon all subjects—(hear, hear)—and
the other the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-
fordshire, than whom no man is better acquainted with
tho population of this country, or a better judge of their
character—have felt objections in a great degree similar to
that which I myself entertain against the bill which the
rest of the Government have introduced. I think it will
save much misconception if I read what is contained in the
beginning of the first clause of this bill, which, in fact,
contains the whole principle of the measure. (Hear, hear.)
I hear gentlemen saying, and I have observed the same re-
marks in public journals, " Exclude the clause which dis-
franchises freeholders in boroughs ; amend the clause with
' respect to borough franchises," and various other phrases,
implying, in the first place, that they think this bad bill
can be easily amended, and, in the second, that they have
not read the measure of which they speak. The bill con-
tains, in the first eight lines, the following proposition :
"Every male person of full age, and not subject to any
legal incapacity, who shall have any one of the several
qualifications hereinafter specified, shall be entitled to be
registered as a voter, and to vote in the election of a mem-
ber or members for the county, or if within the limits of a
borough, then in the election of a member or members for
the borough, where,,in the case of qualifications arising out
of lands or tenements, such lands or tenements shall be
situated, and where, in all other cases, such person shall
reside."

This lays down, as I imagine, the principle of the bill,
which is, that the suffrage throughout the country in coun-
ties and boroughs shall be uniform, or, as the Chancellor
of the Exchequer expresses it, identical. Now, sir, let tho
house observe the consequences of this proposition. I will
speak first of the particular consequences, and then of the
general principle which is here affirmed. The first princi-
ciple, then, is that all the freeholders resident in boroughs
who have hitherto voted for the counties in which those bo-
roughs are situated are hereafter to vote for the boroughs
in which are their freeholds. This is a complete change in
the constitution of this country. (Hear.) These rights
have been enjoyed for an immense length of time. When
there was recently int his house a discussion upon the right
of primogeniture, I stated that I had heard a freeholder of
Devonshire, when asked by the poll-clerk, " Have you had
this freehold more than a year ?" reply " More than a year
we have had it since William the Conqueror." (Hear.)
That shows, among a thousand other instances, what value
the smaller freeholders place- upon the antiquity of their
franchise. It is now proposed to deprive them of their
votes for counties and to compel them hereafter to exercise
their suffrage only in boroughs. Is that proposal made on
account of any delinquency or any crime on their part? Have
they shown themselves unworthy of the trust which has
hitherto been reposed in them ? It is evident that such is
not the case, because, otherwise, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would have proceeded, as the late Sir H. Peel
proceeded in the case of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland, to
propose their immediate disfranchisement. Instead of that,
the right hon. gentleman has brought in a special clause by
which he proposes that they shall retain their franchise for
life, thereby entirely negativing the supposition that they are
unworthy to exercise the right of voting which they have
so long possessed. With the exception, indeed, of a hint
that the Freehold Land Societies have increased the num-
ber of such freeholds to an injurious extent, there is not a
word to be said against the 100,000 freeholders who have
hitherto exercised the right of voting in counties. But by
the first proposition of the bill, although they themselves
are acquitted of all crime, their children for ever are de-
prived of their votes for counties, and compelled to vote
for the boroughs in which their qualifications exist. Now,
many of them, as I have said, have had their existing rights
handed down to them from a long line of ancestors. Others
have purchased their freeholds with the special view of
voting for counties. What injustice, then, to say you will
deprive them of their rights without any fault on their part,
and hereafter compel them to vote where they do not wish
to exercise their franchise. Therefore, I think it is esta-
blished that the first proposition of the bill is unjust. It is
unjust because there is no public necessity for it. (Hear,
hear.) But, in the next place, lam not afraid to maintain
that those persons who now vote for counties in virtue of
freeholds do give a character to the representation of those
counties which it would not otherwise possess. (Hear,
hear.) I hesitate not to say that they add to the liberal
element of the counties to which they belong. (Hear, hear.)
I find that
"In Devonshire, Plymouth, there are 797 freeholders;
in Gloucestershire, Stroud, 1,334; in Kent, Canterbury,
583 ; Dover, 1,037 ; in Lancashire, Liverpool, 3,300 ; Man-
chester, 3,043 ; in Middlesex, Tower Hamlets, 3,064 ; in
Northumberland, Neweastle•upon-Tyne, 1,687 i in bfaf..