The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVgNING, MARCH 25, 1859.

During. all this time what had we seen in them to give rise
to feelings of condemnation rather than of sympathy, of
exclusion rather than of comprehension ? What crime could
we lay to their charge ? What was their behaviour when
all Europe was convulsed ? (Hear.) What had they been
in times of war and in times of peace, in times of prosperity
and in times of privation ? Had they not borne all like
true and honest men, who well deserved the praises that
had been heaped upon the middle classes ? They had borne
with patience and with hope deferred the refusal of their
political rights. They had been put off with promise after
promise by Government after Government. They. had still
bad the unextinguishable conviction in their minds that
they deserved the franchise—the unextinguishable ho_pe
that they might one day obtain it. (Hear, hear.)
trusted they would not only be included soon within the pale
of the constitution, but that they would be received with a
joyous and hearty welcome. (Cheers.)
Mr. B. HOPE said the hon. member who had just sat
down deserved great credit for having removed the debate
from the arena of party conflict, and for discussing the
question whether this measure was really a judicious bill
for amending the representation of the people. He could
speak with a clean breast and a clear conscience upon the
amendment now before the house, because, when the pre-
cedent upon which it was founded was established, he voted
for the abstract resolution which led to the fall of Lord Pal-
merston's Government, not because he approved of it, but
as negativing the second reading of the Conspiracy Bill.
He was one of the 99 who voted against the introduction of
that measure. The practice of introducing an abstract re-
solution, though useful at times, was quite out of place now,
as playing pitch and toss with the dignity of legislation.
Ile remembered, when he was at the university, attending
s debating club called the " Union," where the propositions
discussed were of an abstract nature. The questions de-
bated were amusing and exciting, and bets ran sometimes
high as to the results of the discussions. Now it was rather
hard that in the great council of the nation they should be
carried back to the system of their youth in settling a large
and important question by an abstract resolution. In his
opinion the bill before the house would enable both counties
and boroughs to be well represented ; it proposed a franchise
by which such a result could be obtained, and that being so,
the measure ought to be acceptable to the Parliament and
the country. It was clear, therefore, that this outcry
about the disfranchisement of freeholders in boroughs was a
sham and a delusion, and a mere got-up grievance he (Mr.
Hope) had never heard. It was merely a grievance upon
Ere.
tiLtaewasverynevier eecvenent,one of
harmless,
ehe
and most
broilert
meetings which had been held of late. He had found him-
self in the middle of one of those meetings the other day in
Hyde-park, which was one of the most absurd caricatures
of popular excitement he ever saw. A man was speaking,
some few were listening, others were laughing. He (Mr.
Hope) stood by a workman who had his ears a little more
open than the rest, and asked who it was that was speak-
ing. " I don't know," said the man, "it is only some
democrat." (Laughter.) Presently the democrat sat
down, whereupon some seven men cheered, and the cliders
were then taken up by a number of small boys, one of whom
candidly affirmed he did not know what were the senti-
ments he so ignorantly applauded. No doubt many meet-
ings which had been cried up by some of the morning
papers were not more formidable than this. Under all the
circumstances, he should give his vote for the second read-
ing of the bill, believing that it did not attempt to deal
theoretically but practically with the subject. It had been
said that the bill was a compromise, but, if it was, it was a
fair and honest compromise. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he could assure the hon. mem-
ber for Maidstone, who had just resumed his seat, that if he
did not attempt to follow his ingenious speculations in this
debate, it was from no disrespect to the hon. member; but
owing to the private and confidential nature of his (Mr.
Hope's) communications with the Treasury bench. It
was very difficult for any gentleman sitting on the Opposi-
tion side q( the house to catch the gist of the hon. member's
argument; but he (Mr. Osborne) had heard sufficient to
assure him that when he canvassed the borough of Dun-
garvon about six years ago for the hon. gentleman, he was
very much mistaken in his estimation of his hon. friend,
who was not the reformer he then represented himself to
be. (Hear, hear.) This question of reform was in a very
anomalous position. They were told by gentlemen on the
Treasury bench that there was no one in the country who
cared about reform, and yet by a strange coincidence every-
body was anxious to carry a Reform Bill.. (Hear, hear.)
He was not about to scan the motives of hon. members.
He thought her Majesty's Government had fully redeemed
the pledge which they gave last year in bringing in a Re-
form Bill, but he thought it might have been as well, if,
in touching this great anddifficult subject, they had touched
it in a larger and moreliberal spirit, and given some earnest
of a fair and permanent settlement of the question—(hear)
—because, unless the house settled the question upon some
permanent basis, it would have been better not to have
brought in a bill at all. (Hear, hear.) However, the Go-
vernment had done their duty, and it now remained for the
house to decide how far the bill was an improvement on
that of 1832, and how far it offered a permanent settlement
of the question. Ho might ask, why was any Reform Bill
called for at all ? The Act of 1832 had a candid acknow-
ledgment paid to its merits by the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who called it the greatest act
passed for 500 years. (Hear.) He believed the right hon.
gentleman to have been perfectly sincere, and he was ready
to acknowledge the fairness and ability which characterised
that great and statesmanlike speech. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman called it " that great act," Well, why
were they about to interfere with that act ? It no doubt
possessed great merits, for it gave a large share of power
to the middle classes, who had not hitherto been admitted
to act in the constitution. But it had great defects, be-
cause it totally excluded the working classes from any share
in the constitution of the country; and he took it, if they
were called to bring in a Reform Bill at all, it should be to
redress those grievances which had escaped notice in the
Act of 1832. (Hear.) Did this bill propose to do that ? If
there were doubt on the subject that must have been dis-
pelled by the speech of the right hon. the Secretary for the
Colonies. The right hon. gentleman told them that he had
great respect for the working man, whether in the town or in
the country, whether in a fustian jacket or a smock frock;
that he thought him rather a good fellow than not;
' but at the same time he declined to admit the working
man to any share of power. (Hear, hear.) The righthon.
gentleman, in beautiful and eloquent language, had in-
scribed "No surrender" on the colours which he had re-
cently hoisted in the Conservative camp. The right hon.
gentleman had twitted his right hon. friend upon the sub-
jec t of the ballot, and the views he had advocated during
the debates on the appropriation clause. He (Mr. Osborne)
thought he would bun to the history of that day, and he
found that the right hon. baronet had spoken and voted in
favour of the appropriation clause and for the ballot. When
the right hon. gentleman talked of the consistency of his
opinions, he (Mr. Osborne) regrettedthatwhilst he imitated
Burke in the splendour of his sentiments and eloquence of
his period's, he excelled Burke in having deserted the princi-
ples which animated him in the early part of his career.
Whig had become the Conservative
(Cheers.) The literary
hilosopher—(laughter)--aml he was employed now in dis-
franchising the working classes whom he had been so elo-
quent in defending. But the right hon. gentleman. had at-
tempted to mislead the house and raisef a false issue onthe
subject under discussion. He brought orward the old story
of the dissolution of the French Ministry and the f.atehtohf the
French MOnarchy, IP (Mr. Osborne) asked the rig
what.
gentleman, who had r ad history to so much purpose,
Vas
was the cause of the fate of the French monarchy ?
it not by carrying into action the very principles which the
right hon. gentleman had so eloquently expressed, of "
surrender" to the people? (Cheers.) At least such was his
(Mr. Osborne's) reading ; and, if the right hon. gentleman
should ever write a history of France, he (Mr. Osborne)
hoped he would lay down different principles from those he
had now enunciated: (Laughter.) But the right hon. gen-
tleman went further. Carrying out his parallel of Franceho
forgot, in the subsequent calamities of the French people,
that denial of suffrage was the very thing that brought
France into revolution. What was the consequence? There
was a broad line of demarcation drawn between the rich and
the poor, and 100,000 veZers was_the whole number thought
fit to be entrusted with the franchise. (Hear, hear.)
Of course that ugly rush" occurred which had been so
often alluded to, and the French monarchy and the French
constiution fell, he needed not tell the house, how. What
did the French Government do ? They attempted to raise
a war of classes. They called on the middle classes to stand
by them, and what was the conduct of those classes ? They
did not stand by their own order in that day. The Minister
who relied on them bad a faith in them which he (Mr.
Osborne) hoped never to sea relied upon in this country.
So much for the principle of identity of suffrage, which he
held to be most dangerous and revolutionary. But he
wished to know, when the right hon. gentleman the present
Conservative philosopher talked of the " deplorable rub-
bish." which had been spoken on the question, whether he
forgot what was spoken by Lord Derby in 1854 upon the
subject ? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) might remark
that this was a subjeet which had been carefully avoided
by the Government. (Hear, hear.) That noble lord dis-
tinctly laid down that the true and only principle upon
which a Reform Bill ought to be brought in was the keep-
ing up 'of a distinction between the suffrage in the counties
and in the boroughs. Lord Derby, for what reason he (Mr.
Osbert-lie) could not tell, had altered his opinions on that
point. His (Mr. ()Aqua's) main objection to this bill was

founded on the same reason which had induced two right
hon. gentlemen to think it consistent with their duty to
leave the Government. (Loud cheers.) If he might give
some advice to the Treasury bench, he would say, " Get
rid of this mischievous principle, and get back those two
good excellent men--(cheers)—who gave strength and sta-
bility to your Government." (Repeated cheers.) Let those
right hon. gentlemen bring in a Reform BM, and he would
take upon himself to say they would obtain a greater sup-
port than was accorded to the Government on the present
occasion. (Cheers.) So much for the principle of the bill.
Now let the house consider how this bill proposed to benefit
the working man. It so happened that in the bill the
working classes wese never recognised, except when they
were to be disfranchised—(cheers)—under the head
of dockyard labourers. (Laughter.) And the right hon.
gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who had such a
respect for the "cultivated intelligence" of those mechanics
—who was so anxious to elevate them in the social scale—
proposed to disfranchise the "cultivated intelligence" of
the mechanics in the dockyards. That might have been well
in 1852, when the dockyard committee sat, and the agitation
which prevailed among them was so great ; but a very dif-
ferent state of things existed at the present time. In 1856
all patronage was taken out of the hands of the Admiralty
and given to the superintendents of the yards, and that was
done mainly that the labourer should have a fair chance of
voting without being liable to pressure from the Admiralty.
But what did the Government now do ? Had they revoked
that order , Was the patronage now in the hands of the
Admiralty ? (Cheers.) If not, how could they reconcile this
—that they were about to disfranchise these voters, so dis-
tinguished for their " cultivated intelligence?" rheers
and laughter.) He (Mr. Osborne) must say that he per-
fectly agreed with the hon. member for Birmingham, and
he supposed it was a sign of revoluion to agree with him—
(laughter)—that these fancy franchises were not the thing
for the people of England. (Cheers.) They were the mere
political millinery of Downing-street. (Laughter.) What
they really wanted was a broad and simple test--variety of
suffrage, if they liked—but still the test must be broad and
simple. He candidly confessed that he was in favour of a
property test, though it might be an imperfect one. (Hear,
hear.) Therefore let them have none of these fancy fran-
chises. Take, for instance, the lodging-house franchise,
which was supposed to be sucha great boon to those gentle-
men in smock-frocks and fustian jackets for whom the right
hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had such a
profound respect. He found on inquiry that the wages of an
intelligent mechanic formed about one-tenth of his earnings.
(Great laughter arose from the hon. member using
the word "wages" by mistake for "lodgings.") Well
they proposed to give the franchise to a man who paid
Bs. a week for his lodging. Taking his (Mr.
Osborne's) calculations that would not admit any
mechanic to the franchise. That would only admit a class
of men who had £lOO a year and upwards. Why, this bill
would keep the lodging classes out of the franchise. It was
a complete delusion, for such a franchise would depend upon
a scolding landlord, or a smoky chimney. (Laughter.) The
savings bank franchise was perhaps better, but it was ex-
tremely questionable whether it would apply to working
men, although it might include some small capitalists. He
would not go into the cases of Government pensioners, or
certified schoolmasters (for none other were to be enfran-
chised), nor would he mention the doctors or the lawyers,
who had got the franchise already ; but he would ask
whether under any one of those fancy franchises the work-
ing man would get a vote ? (Hear, hear.) He challenged
any occupant of the Treasury bench to show in what way
the working classes were to be enfranchised under this bill?
But the noble lord the President of the India board quoted
Mr. Holyoake as an authority to show that working men
did not want the franchise. The house might not probably
know who Mr. Holyoake was. Hon. gentlemen no doubt
took him for the eldest son of the respected Northampton-
shire baronet of the same name. (Laughter.) But did they
know who he was ? Well, he was a very clever political lec-
turer of very freethinking opinions. (Laughter.) The hon.
member for North Warwickshire shook his head gravely,
and he (Mr. Osborne) did not wonder at it, for the noble lord
the President of the India b card had been quoting the senti-
ments, not'of the working men of England, but of an infidel
lecturer. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. Holyoake was no
authority on this point, and was not regarded as such by the
working men of England. Then, again, the bill sought to
disfranchise the 40s. freeholders. Was this, he asked, on
the ground that any accusations had been brought against
their honour or independence ? None had been brought,
but an attempt had been made to assimilate them with the
40s. freeholders in counties, and they were obnoxious because
they were independent. (Hear, hear.) The bill was in
fact to be to them a political Procrustes, which was to
clip their wings and dismember them in the boroughs,
and stretch them in the counties, in order to carry out a
mistaken principle of uniformity of franchise, which was to
reduce everything to a dead level. (Hear, hear.) If the
bill contained no other objectionable clause but the disfran-
chisement, or rather, to use the language of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the "transference" of these voters, he
hoped the House of Commons had sufficient reverence for
mere custom and tradition than to disfranchise this noble
and creditable body. (Cheers.) Then, again, see how the
bill deals with small boroughs. The right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a Parliamentary
borough should have a constituency " large enough to be in-
dependent, and select enough to be responsible." Be it so.
He agreed with him in that definition, but his objection to
small boroughs was not because they were small, but be-
cause they were under the influence of a patron. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. gentleman had instanced the case of
Arundel, and said, " Look at Arundel ; it is a small borough,
but it represents the feelings and wishes of 900,000 of the
Roman Catholics of England." He confessed he was sur -
prised to hear that sentiment, for what were the facts with
regard to the borough of Arundel? Why, previously to
1832 it returned two.members to Parliament. The consti-
tuency since that period had dwindled down from 400 to
198, and how had Lord Arundel and Surrey, when sitting
for it, represented the interests of his 900,000 Roman
Catholic fellow-subjects in England ? In the year 1851
the unfortunate measure called the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill
was introduced. (Hear, hear.) He remembered it well,
and he always regretted that such a bill had been intro-
duced. (Hear, hear.) He voted against it, and so did the
Earl of Arundel and Surrey. (Hear, hear.) But what
was the penalty the noble earl paid for his vote ? What
became of the 900,000 Roman Catholics ? Why, he got a
hint from the proprietor of the borough—he had to leave
his seat and take refuge in the town of Limerick. (A voice,
"The city of Limerick.") Oh, he begged pardon of his
hon. friend the member for the city of Limerick—the urbs
intacta—he knew it well. (Cheers.) The noble earl was
obliged to take refuge in the city of Limerick, and
from that capital of an Irish county he represented the in-
terests of 960,000 Roman Catholics in England I (Cheers
and laughter.) Could that house have a better illustration
of the rottenness of this beau ideal of boroughs than that
presented in the case of Arundel ? Now what, he asked,
were the reasons assigned for voting against the resolution
of the noble lord the member for the City of London. Seve-
ral strange reasons had been assigned by hon. gentlemen
sittinaon either side of the house; but the strangest appeared
to come from his (Mr. Osborne's) side. There was first and
foremost the reasons assigned by the right hon. gentleman
the member for Stroud. (Hear.) That right hon. gentleman
was rather a dyspeptic politician. (Roars of laughter.) He
gave some reasons, and very peculiar reasons, for voting
against the resolution. They were peculiar but not original,
for who had not read the letter commencing "My dear
Elcho ?" (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman seemed
content to open his mouth, shut his eyes, and see what
weuld turn up. (Laughter.) " Give all you can and let sue
dream the rest" was the sentiment of the right hon. gentle-
man, and then with a refinement of cruelty he exclaimed
The Ministry is ki unto death. I once voted against Sir
Robert Peel and I am very sorry for it--(laughter)—the
Ministry is sick, but don't, I beseech you, put an end to
their sufferings, but come with me into committee and we
will torture them to death." (Great laughter.) He the n
made some dark mysterious hints about the drawing up of
the resolution. Ho asked whose superscription it was, of
course inferring it had sprung from the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the author of all
mischief. (Laughter.) But it would seem that the right hon.
gentleman had nothing to say to it, and had not been con-
sulted on the subject. He confessed it filled him with sur-
prise that the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud,
representing as ho did a constituency containing so many
working men, could propose to treat a measure like this as
he would a turnpike bill, and vote against the resolution
of the noble lord the member for London. The hon. and
learned gentleman the Solicitor-General had made an in-
genious speech from the other side of the house, and, for-
getful of the deep obligations he was under to the hon. gen-
tleman the member for Birmingham, criticised him, and
put him in the same boat with the noble lord the member
for London ; but did the hon. and learned gentleman forget
that if he had not been in the same boat with the hon.
member for Birmingham he would not now be pulling the
stroke oar of the Ministerial boat. (Laughter.) No doubt
the hon. and learned member for Belfast felt uncomfortable.
(" No, no," from the Ministerial benches.) He did not feel
uncomfortable—he was perfectly resigned to his fate. He
appeared so the other night—(laughter)—but he (Mr. Os-
borne) asked him how dare he ascribe motives to the noble
lord the member for London—how dare he say that the noble
lord was actuated by personal motives—by motives of "poll-
tical aggrandisement and private advantage." (Loud cheers.)
What would the hon. and learned gentleman say if it were
whispered that he had visions of the woolsack floating be-
fore his eyes? (Hear, hear.) He came into the house as a
professional man, and he was fairly entitled to look forward
to such honours ; but he was not entitled to impure motives
of personal advantage to any hon. member. (Hear, hear.)
How, he would ask, had the hon. and learned gentleman
kept his own pledges to his constituency at Belfast ? (Hear,
hear.) He told his constituents that there two points
likely to come before Parliament—one involving a question
of expediency, and another of principle. The question of
reform, he said, was one of expediency ; but the emancipa-
tion of the Jews was one of principle, which ought never
to be abandoned. (Hear, hear.) But had he abandoned it ?
(Hear, hear.) Had he voted for the admission of the Jews
to Parliament? The hon: and learned gentleman had
quoted an extract from a former speech of the noble lord
the member for London, to the effect that the members for
Manchester were men of "narrow minds ;" but he (Mr.
Osborne) would give the house the opinion of the head of
the present Administration by a gentleman whose name he
Nould disclose to the house by and bye. It was pronounced
ivn connection with the Appropriation Clause of the Irish
Church. This gentleman, warming with declamatory elo-
quence, and fired with impassioned ardour, said—" Will no
experience warn you? If you resist the principle of a small
ven
reform, beware how you now procrastinateilargeanredfoirrrmitactaenthdoe
public mind to that point when ,
little more than save you from revolution." Mark how he_
dealt largely with revolutions.] (Laughter. And again'
whethv
.—"'For his own part, he did not look very favourably on
the suggestion of one
the great
abilitieseat disproportion had
to render more conspicuous
his unrivalled powers as a debater and his ill luck no less ,
unrivalled in his capacity of a legislator—Lord Stanley."
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) These were the opinions held
by the Colonial Secretary in (hear,lB36
hear)—and yet
he taunted the noble lord the member for London with
changing his ()pinions. The hon. and learned gentleman
bad better in future look at home, and read the debates, be-
fore he ventured to make accusations in that house. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the right hon. gentleman the leader
of the house, he was
willing to give himthe greatest credit.
He was a ratin of great talent, and had a noble ambition.
(Hear, hear.) He had had a difficult task to perform in
pulling the omnibus full of country gentlemen no the hill,
and he had done it well. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If
there were any consis • tency in the party they owed it to
him. He brought forward the bill for the emancipation of
the Jews, which was so revolting to the principles of the
hon. and learned gentleman the member for Belfast. (
redA
laugh.) Ho gave the right hon. gentleman great cit
for that and for other measures. He only lamented th at,
with his great intelligence, his undoubted ability, and, he
believed, his excellent motives, .the right hon. gentleman
had consented to separatehimself from those two right hon.
gentlemen on. the third bench [Messrs. Walpole and Hen-
ley]—(hear hear)—and initiated a bill which in the bottom
of his heart believed to be an act of spoliation and in-
justice—a bill which was change without progress, and in-
novation without improvement. (Hear, hear.) Se feeling
he had no hesitation in giving his hearty vote for the reso-
lution of the noble lord. (Cheers.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE and Mr. WALPOLE rose simultane
ously. The former advanced towards the table, but the

shouts for Mr. Walpole became so vociferous that the Se-
cretary to the Treasury resumed his seat.
Mr. WALPOLE was received with loud cheering. He
addressed the house as follows :—The more he had listened
_ _

--. —_
to the debate the more he became convinced of concurrence
of argument upon all sides of the house that they were now
placed in a position of considerable difficulty and embarrass-
ment—a state of difficulty and embarrassment from which
the speech of the hon gentleman who had just sat down,
powerful RS it was and humorous as it was, failed to extri-
cate them on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) On the one
hand they had a Reform Bill, which unfortunately, he
thought, would not and could not be acceptable to the house
or to the country. (Hear, from the Opposition.) On the
other hand, he felt in common with many hon. members
who had spoken, and with the hon. gentleman who had just
sat down, that it was desirable, without continuing agitation,
that they should, if possible, come to a settlement of this
question, and not hang it up for a longer period of time.
He was placed in a position of considerable difficulty, and
the embarrassment he felt had been increased since the de-
bate had commenced. The hon. member for Dorsetshire
(Mr. Tier Seymer) who had made a speech which made it
_ _ _

matter of regret that he did not oftener address the house,
had told them so clearly the reasons he entertained against
the bill, that he (Mr. Walpole) only wondered that he said
he would vote in favour of it. The right hon. member for
Stroud (Mr. Horsman) who had been paid off by the hon.
member "for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne) with such ingenuity
and ability, said in his speech that he could not agree to the
first 18 lines of the bill, which contained more or less the
principles of the bill, but, nevertheless, he would vote for
the second reading of the bill, without having had any
assurance of improvements being introduced into it.
(Hear, hear.) He would, with the permission of the house,
, submit his views of the measure, and of the resolution

of the noble lord, and then, if he could, he would draw
a conclusion as to the best mode of dealing with this bill.
He would make this observation regarding the measure. It
had always struck him that when they were discussing the
first principles of a bill, and making material alterations in
the Constitution, their first duty was to see what were the
acknowledged grievances, and what were the deficiencies to
be supplied.. He wished to bring this matter to a practical
test. In remedying grievances and supplying deficiencies,
they should see that the changes they made were such as
would harmonise with their institutions. As had been said
by the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies
(Sir B. Lytton), they should endeavour to elevate by the
change, and not to depress the character of the house. That
was the way the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) proceeded in
1832 to remedy acknowledged grievances, and to apply prac-
tical remedies. (Hear.) More grievances had to be dealt
with then than now. Birmingham, for instance, had no
member. Small boroughs had fallen into decay, and could
barely be assigned more than a nominal existence, and towns
were represented where votes were confined to close corpo-
rations, which required expansion, so that the inhabitants
might have a voice in the choice of representatives. Tho
elections then extended over 14 days, spreading turmoil,
extravagance, corruption, and violence, and they wanted to
prevent bribery at elections, and also to prevent delay All
these things were remedied, not by deviating from any
principle, but by supplying to them a practical remedy.
They were now, however, in a different position. There was,
no doubt, in the present measure much that was good and
capable of being turned to excellent account. They had in
one or two parts much that was good, and other parts that
required alteration. The inconveniences now existing, might
be classed under three heads—first, the right of voting was
not extended to those persons who, by intelligence and in-
dependence, should have it. That was the main grievance at
present, and was one which should be altered. The second
was of a smaller kind; that there were still some places not
represented, or not adequately represented, in commercial,
agricultural, or manufacturing places, and which ought to
have representatives ; and then there was the inconveni-
ence of not giving to all electors facilities for voting. He
wished to take the questions fairly—first, the necessity of
giving facilities to the electors to vote. He did not expect
to meet the wishes of those who sat below the gangway, on
the Opposition side, and who would answer this point by
one short word—the ballot. (Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr.
Walpole) was not alarmed at the ballot because it would in-
jure-his party. He was not alarmed at it because he thought
you should put a screen on those who wanted to intimidate
and corrupt electors ; but he objected for reasons which had
not been answered, namely, that if they had secret voting,
and that corruption and fraud and personation took place,
they would not then have the means of detecting them.
(Hear, hear.) He objected to it, in the second place on this
ground, that he was of opinion that in all their institutions,
if they wished to have purity, they must bring every one
to the open bar of public opinion, and make him answer-
able fpr his acts. He gave credit to the. Government for the
manner in which it had dealt with this part of the question.
There were many on the opposite side who objected to vot-
ing papers. But he (Mr. Walpole) would support the Go-
vernment on that point, because he thought it a good one.
What WAS the principle adopted to guard them from being
employed for a fraudulent purpose ? The principle was
this, that instead of carrying electors to the poll, they
brought the poll to the electors. The system would lessen
the expense of elections by not carrying electors to the poll,
and would prevent intimidation and violence, which at pre -
sent prevented the better classes of electors going to vote,
and would enable manufacturers and others to give their
votes without trouble. The consequence of that would be,
that you would increase the number of electors, and enabie
them calmly to give their vote without being subjected to
popular clamour. It might be said that system would
lead to personation and fraud, and would also lead to
bribery. These were defects in the voting papers which
could be easily remedied. The voting papers were to be
sent to the electors to be filled in before two witnesses, one
of them to be a householder, and then to be sent to the
public officer. But why only one householder ? Both the
witnesses he considered should be householders, and resi-
dent in the place, and the declaration made before a public
officer. That mode would prevent personation and fraud,
and they would have evidence to refer to if fraud should be
practised. There was a remarkable passage in the great
Roman historian, when public voting was turned into secret
voting. He said : " When the voting took place in the
public view, aloud, and the conduct of the person was ex-
posed to the eyes and the ears of his friends and country,
the aspect df the grave magistrate was a long lesson to the
multitude ; but the system of secret voting abolished the
infliction of fear and shame, when interest and the absence
of freedom had accelerated the progress of anarchy and
despotism." That was a passage in ' Gibbon's Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire." Now, if they had the
declaration in the voting papers made before a public officer,
they had a security against personation and fraud But
then, as to bribery. They all know that generally bribery
took place in the last two or three hours of an election, but
these voting papers would meet that difficulty. Then, as
to the second point, giving member* to those places not re-
presented. Government proposed to withdraw members
from 15 boroughs—ono each to be gis en to certain borough
towns, and to certain divisions of counties. (Hear.) But
how were they to do this ? The hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Dover evidently means the small boroughs.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—No, no ; I said nomination boroukhs.
Mr. WALPOLE—WeII, then, perhaps the hon. gentle-
man would give him leave to ask how be would define them ?
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Midhurst. (Loud laughter and
cheers from the Opposition, in which Mr. Walpole heartily
joined.)
Mr. wALPoLE—He was obliged to the hon. gen-
tleman for having referred to a borough in illus-
tration of his views, because it was a borough
which was, fortunate enough, better able to an-
swer his illustration than any other that ho might have
referred to. (Hear, hear.) This was not a small borough
returning two members to Parliament from qualifications
arising from two old buildings. (Hear, hear.) It was a
Whig borough, with Whig proprietors all around it, and it
was not disfranchised at the time of the Reform Bill. (Loud
cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The borough was
extended in its area, and was now almost as large as a small
county. (Hear.) There lived in that borough the ally
of the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr Cobden), and he
would tell the hon. member it was not a nomination borough.
The present peer, whom they thought had the borough in
his hands, had not, he believed, 50 tenants there—indeed
not 40, but it was an agricultural borough—(hear, hear,
from Mr. Bright)—with proprietors all round it of enser-
vative principles, and one lived in the immediate neighbour -
hood. Still, there was as much independence there as there
was in the town of Dover. (Laughter and Ministerial cheers.)
That borough had returned members to that house who had
become ornaments in that house as orators and statesmen ;
and the noble lord the member for London knew well that
when Mr. Fox was only 19, he was returned to Parliament
by that nomination borough, and he sat in that house for
the great Whig patron, through whom he obtained that
great name which he had left behind him. (Hear, hear.)
He hoped the Whigs would not now disfranchise that
borough which had returned to Parliament someof the most
eloquent lawyers that ever spoke in that house. (Loud
cheers.) He had to apologise to the house for this inter-
ruption, and he would now proceed with his argument in
reply to the hon. gentleman's observations on nomination
boroughs. The hon. gentleman would do away with nomi-
nation boroughs. But this class of boroughs stood upon
the ground of prescriptive right ; and the principle upon
which these boroughs claimed the right of representa-
tion was admirable, and eloquently advocated by the
right honourable gentleman the member for Kiddermin-
ster, in his speech to the electors of that borough last year.
He told them that the moment they destroyed the ties that
bound up the constituencies with the prescriptive rights of
these boroughs, they would do that which would go far to
destroy the constitutional stability of the country. (Hear.)
Let them prove that these boroughs were corrupt, he would
then disfranchise them ; but if that was not proved, and it
was only shown that they were small nomination boroughs,
then he would adopt the argument of his right hon. friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and say, vary the bo-
roughs and the constituents in them. Let them look both
to the smaller boroughs as well as to the larger towns, if
they desired to see men in that house of moderate views and
cultivated minds ; men who would devote themselves to the
public business of, the country—men who could give advice
when Government failed and men of position faltered.
(Cheers.) Again he would say he cordially approved .of
the measure brought in by the Government in that respect,
and he thought the Government was deserving of the
thanks of the country for not giving way to a mere theore-
tical
cry, by means of which they_ might have obtained a
little more popularity, but the result of which would be
possibly no improvement to the character of that house.
(Cheers.) He had, now to approach a more difficult task.
and one of which he should have to speak partly with plea-
sure and partly with pain. The other practical inconveni-
ence which they had to deal with, was in giving to certain
persons the power and means of acquiring the franchise,
and upon that part of the case he, did not differ very mate-
rially from the hon. member, but he could not find from
him or any one else wlaat specific description of alteration
they required. (Loud cheers.) Ile would now refer to
that part of the bill to which he could not give his assent,
unless they gaVe a guarantee that the whole question to
which he was going to refer would be fairly open to consi-
deration in committee, and that any alteration which might
be proposed, and fairly accepted by the house, should be
adopted by the Government. (Hear.) This part of the
question had been entered into by the noble lord the mem-
ber for London, but not fully so. All the old franchises, in
connexion with the counties, as carried by the Refer-in Bill,
had been altered, and altered for the worse. There was
; first the old 40s. freehold franchise. That, however, he
would leave with the noble lord the member for London to
deal with. There was however, the question of the lease-
hold for years,
that relating to copyhold, and the £5O occu-
. pation 'clause. All these were altered. In respect to these
different classes of the franchise, they had the security that
L there must be a franchise over and above :the rent and
charges. But the question of the rent was now excluded
from the clause referring to them. The £5O franehise was
. reduced to :810. The words relating to occupation, 'as they
appeared in the Reform Bill, were wholly kft out, why,
he could not.say, unless the term " tenement" was a legal
difficulty. The object of the Reform Bill was to give a resi-
dent franchise ; but by the wording of the present bill in

the case referred to, it was to give what was called an iden-
tity of franchise ; but what was meant by this neither the
ability of the noble lord. (Lord Stanley) nor that of the Soli-
citor-General were able to explain. The noble lord (Lord
Stanley) said great dissatisfaction would arise if the prin-
ciple of uniformity were not adopted. He did not think any
great discontent would arise from that cause, and would
appeal to his noble friend to consider whether the sharp,
hard, broad line of demarcation drawn between the general
freedom which was offered to one class of the community,
and the condemnatory sentence of absolute nullity and in-
capacity of another, would not breed ten times more discon-
tent. He might depend upon it that this hard line being
drawn between two persons, one in the county and the other
in the borough—both living contiguous to each other, and
neither having prescriptive rights, was that which consti-
tuted the foulest and blackest blot in this identity of suffrage.
(Hear.) The defect could not be got over except by making
the suffrage universal. Were they prepared for that ?
Were they prepared to hand over the constituencies to the
poorest persons in the country ? (Hear, hear.) Well, that
convinced him (Mr. Walpole) that identity of fran-
chise was a mistake. Discontent, then, was his first
objection. His second objection was that political associa-
tions would have the means of manufacturing 40s. free-
holds in the different boroughs, so that not a borough in
the kingdom would be safe. The hon. member for Halifax
had quoted instances of how this had been done already,
and therefore he (Mr. Walpole) thought the proposed altera-
tion of the law in this respect was immensely for theworse.
He had the strongest objection to altering, in the main,
the nature and character of the county and borough fran-
chise. And the reason was obvious. All your new votes
and new franchises, as proposed by this bill, would only
require 12 months' residence, and could any one tell him
that a number of persons with fluctuating occupations,
changing from place to place, would give that permanent
character which was required to the constituencies of
boroughs ? Would any one tell him that there was not a
broad and wide distinction between the constituencies of
counties and those of boroughs ? Was not the nature of
the population in one place more steady and that of the
other more fluctuating and changeable. Ought not the
suffrage to rest upon that which mainly constituted that
distinction ? If they wanted to get rid of anomalies and
irregularities, they might get a bill constructed which
would be more proportionate and more pleasing to the eye;
but they would at the same time get rid of that variety and
diversity which had hitherto constituted the charm and
strength of our representative system—(hear, hear)—a
system by which were represented in that house the varied
talents and interests of different classes and occupations—
by which they had represented the industry of towns, and
the more stationary, but not less valuable characteristics
of the counties. (Hear, hear.) There was a passage is
Edmund Burke which seemed to him not to be inappli-
cable to this subject. He said :—" No system of repre-
sentation will be a good system, unless you impart into it
ability as well as property ; but, at the same time, as
ability is an active principle, and as property is inert
and passive, unless you give a predominant influence
to property it will be at the mercy of the more
active principle." In France the interests of property had
to give way. to this active principle of popular power, and
the time might come when the same would occur in Eng-
land if you did away with the distinction which gave pro-
perty its present influence. (Hear.) He had two other
objections to the identity of the franchise. The first was,
that if they did away with the distinction between counties
and boroughs, and reduced the occupation franchise down
to £lO, they would introduce into the constituencies large
masses of the people who did not contribute to direct taxa-
tion. (Hear, hear.) When the Reform Bill was passed,
the window-tax was a necessary condition of the franchise.
The £lO occupiers did away with that, and a house tax of
£2O was substituted. Now, if the franchise were brought
below £2O, and this incident of direct taxation were kept up
to £2O, great injustice would be done, for constituencies
would direct their members not only to keep up, but to in-
crease taxation on those above them. (Hear.) He was
certain that with such an enlarged constituency, if an ad-
ministration brought forward an income-tax bill, the house
would never be able to make it fall with equality on the
people at large. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The last ob-
jection he had to urge was, that this identity of franchise
would lead to electoral districts. The Solicitor-General
pooh-pooed this. What was meant by identity of fran-
chise ? It meant equality of power. The mere fact that
they had the same nominal franchise was net an identity.
One elector more in 300 had a potential influence as com-
pared with one in 1,000. But if the principle were to be
admitted with respect to England, why nut apply it to Ire-
land ? If they did, how were they to assimilate the £S
rating in boroughs to the £l2 in counties ? Could they
• make both £lO ? (Hear.) His right hon. friend (Sir E.
B. Lytton). pointed to France, and drew the inference that
all the misfortunes that befel France was because the
working classes were admitted to the suffrage. But
at that period the qualification for a voter in France
was 300 francs, or £l2 a-year, but the qualification
proposed for England was to be £lO. God forbid
that what the honourable gentleman predicted should
ever be witnessed in England by him or his children.
(Hear, hear.) For all those reasons he (Mr. Walpole) was
opposed to this part of the bill. It was a dangerous experi-
ment to throw this question of reform again afloat. Depend
upon it the question should be settled now. (Cheers.) T hey
ought to settle it, and they could settle it now, on terms
consistent with the just and recognised principles of the
constitution. They could settle it by adhering to pre-
scriptive rights, by maintaining the distinction between
county and borough, by upholding the interests of property
as well as the power and influence of numbers, and by
giving to all the interests of the country that variety of re-
presentation which it is advisable to maintain. (Hear,
hear.) If they only acted in this manner, fully, fairly—he
had almost said finally—great would be their triumph,
noble their success. But great would be their responsibility
if they threw away the opportunity now afforded them.
(Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT—In the observations which I am anxious
to address to the house I shall endeavour to keep myself
strictly to the question before it. I shall not attempt any
answer to some, perhaps well intended, but rather feeble
assaults which have been made upon me during this debate,
and I shall not attempt any explanation in answer to what
was said by the hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-
General the other night when he spoke of an alliance
between the noble lord (J. Russell) and myself. That which
is purely imaginary is not easy to explain. (Hear, and a
laugh.) The house, I believe, will give me credit when I
say, that if I am found acting with the noble lord it is
because I think the course he is taking is advantageous to the
country, and I hope if I have hereafter occasion to differ from
him they will give me credit also, and will presume that I
differ from him only because my convictions lead me to do
so. (Hear, hear.) Sir, there are two questions before us—
the bill of the Government and the resolution of the noble
lord, and in addition to these the great question of Parlia-
mentary Reform which has been more or less discussed by
every member who has addressed the house. With regard
to the bill there is a singular unanimity of feeling. (Hear,
and laughter.) With the exception of gentlemen on the
Treasury bench, who may be considered in.the light of pro-
fessional witnesses, I believe there is no single member who
has spoken who has not expressed strong repugnance to
some main point or principle of the measure. (Hear, hear.)
A remarkable speech has been delivered by a right hon.
gentleman on this side of the house. He denounced the bill
as much as if he had been the greatest opponent of hon.
gentlemen opposite, but he was vehemently cheered by the
other side of the house throughout almost the whole of that
speech. Seeing that he turned the measure inside out it
was rather remarkable that his speech should be so relished
by hon. gentlemen opposite, and, considering some of the
observations which he made, the right hon. gentleman cer-
tainly suggested a course the most extraordinary. He de-
nounced the bill as treason, not to the Crown, but to the
people, and ho proposed to inflict upon it something like the
barbarous punishment with which our law, I believe, still
visits those who are guilty of this great crime; and yet,
after calling on the house to go with him in taking out the
heart of the measure, and, for aught I know, in disem-
bowelling it, he comforted. himself with the belief that the
Government would accept and assist in carrying the bill.
(Hear, hear.) He appeared to forget that the Government
had parted with two eminent colleagues on the very points
of difference which he was discussing. (Hear.) He seemed
to forget that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted
this proposal he would lay himself open to the unfortunate
suspicion that that to which he would not consent at the
instance of two pf his late distinguished colleagues he would
accept rather than have a vote of this house against the
Government, with the consequences which are likely to
follow. (Hear.) I certainly was astonished that a man so
acute as my hon. friend, after having spoken in such
glowing language, and with an eloquence rarely heard in
this house of the priceless honour of our public men,
should suggest to the Government such a course. (Cheers.)
Sir, I shall not follow the right hon. gentleman who has
just spoken on the details of the bill to the extent to
which he has entered upon them. I shall confine myself to
the two principles which, after all, are at this stage of tho
bill only before us, being brought specially under discus-
sion by the resolution proposed as an amendment by the
noble lord. I should like to ask the house—because I think
there is some disposition to evade this question—what is it
that people understand by a measure of Parliamentary Re-
form ? I mean people out of doors, of whom hon. gentlemen
are likely to hear a good deal before this matter is settled.
(Hear.) They understand by such a measure not a mere
shuffle, not a hustling or huddling up of this question, for
fear lest somebody should talk of it hereafter. They under-
stand it should mean two things—first, an extension of the
franchise to considerable classes not now enfranchised; and
at the same time that it should give to the country larger
and freer and more independent' constituencies. (Hear,
hear.) Now, I want to ask how this bill meets such a de-
mand, because if it does not it is .no Reform Bill, the Go-
vernment had no right to propose it in answer to that
demand, and the House of Commons will fail in its duty if
it gives any countenance to such a measure, or passes it
into a law. (Cheers.) In the counties at this moment,
confining myself to England and Wales, to which alone
this bill refers, there arc, in round numbers, 500,000 elec-
tors, 400,000 of whom are freeholders, and 100,000 occupy-
ing tenants above the value of £5O. Now, is there any
doubt upon this point—that if any gentleman were asked
to put his finger upon that description of elector in the
counties which is most independent, he would say the free-
holder; if upon the least independent, he would say of
necessity the £5O occupier ? Without saying anything
against tenant farmers or the owners of farms themselves,
I think this is a description which the house will admit to
be fair. Well, the bill proposes first of all to get rid from
the counties of one-fourth, 100,000, of the most indepen-
dent class, the freeholders. lam not now speaking of dis-
franchising them, but of getting rid of them from the cowl=
ties, and mixing them up with another class of electors.
Everybody will see at a glance that if 100,000 of the most
independent class of electors are taken from the counties,
the less indbpendent class must necessarily be made more
powerful. (llsar, hear.) The bill makes another proposal
of, to my mind, a most insidious character. The boundaries
of boroughs are to be altered in a very remarkable fashion.
The framers of the bill seem to imagine that it is necessary
for some object of theirs to include within the bounds of
boroughs every individual whom by any pretence they can
lay hold of and separate from the county, if they suspect
him to be infected with the prevalent opinions of the towns.
By this means, of course, after the passing of their bill they
would dimipisb. still more whatever there may be of the in-

dependent element in the county constituencies. But noes
observe the cunning—(a laugh)—will right hon. gentlemen
forgive me the expression ?—perhaps it was a mistake, like
the disfranchisement of 50,000 Men—observe the mistake,
then, involved in the plan which is to be referred to our in-
telligent and impartial friend Mr. Darby. ("No l'') tuns
derstood that Mr. Darby, the head the Enclosure Commis-
sion, was to appoint a commission for this object. (" No 1")
The question, then, will be referred to him or to somebody.
I will admit, if you like, that the commission is as good as
lor anybody in this house could wish. This commission
is not to examine the case of all boroughs. It is merely
intended, as I understand it, to shut up within the borough
boundary all the suburbs of our cities and towns, and all
immediately contiguous villages. But the commissioners
have no charge to go to another description of borough,
and shut up the country parishes within the boundaries of
counties. Now, surely, if it was a fair thing to go to any
large town and say, " All these streets and villages shall
be comprised within the borough ; none of these £lO occu-
piers shall vote for the county," it would be a fair thing
to go to agricultural boroughs and say, "My good fel-
lows, farmers, and so forth, in all these country parishes
we are going to make a clear distinction—perpetual en-
mity between town and county ; everybody near a town
is to be shut into that town ; you must be shut
out of the borough, and into the county." I
will tell the house what would be the result of the
proposal in one or two cases. There are at this moment
within the limits of boroughs farms the rental of which ex-
ceeds £2,500,000, and yet these are called boroughs. We
will take the borough represented by the First Lord of the
Admiralty. He will speak in this debate, and can correct
me if lam wrong. In Droitwich there is an assessment to
the income-tax under schedule A of land and, buildings
to the amount of £56,000 a year, of which £39,600 is an
assessment of land and farms. There are four town parishes
and twelve rural parishes. The town parishes contain 160
electors, the rural 232 electors. In point of fact, therefore,
the right hon. gentleman does not represent a town at all.
(Laughter.) No, the large majority of his supporters and
constituents are farmers and persons as much connected
with rural affairs as if they were in the centre of the county
and miles away from any towns or villages. (Hear.) I
say, if this line is to be drawn, it must be drawn in all
cases. Take the case of the borough of Petersfield, which
is also represented by an hon. baronet on the Treasury
bench. In that town the case is still more glaring. There
is £31,000 assessd in land and buildings in the borough, but
of that £24,000, or more than four-fifths, is in respect of
land and buildings in agricultural parishes. (Hear, hear.) I
am not complaining of' those parishes being added to the
town; but the Government has no right to propose, and Par-
liament will never pass, a bill the only object of which will be
to shut as many as possible in the borough in the one case,
and not interfere in the other, thus diminishing that great
variety of suffrages and of interests which it is desirable
that every member in this house shall represent. The
noble lord the Secretary of State for India said with regard
to the great measure of disfranchisement that it was a mis-
take, and that he was sorry the clause was not originally
introduced into the bill which was afterwards laid on
the table of the house by his right hon. friend. Again, the
Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he was charged
with the faulty character of the clause which extended the
£lO franchise to counties, made a rather staggering admis-
sion that that was also in the nature of a mistake, and if it
was wrong that we could likewise go into that question in
the committee. (A laugh.) But I find everything that has
been done has one direction, and one only. (Cheers.) I
cannot understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he
speaks of the painful anxiety with which this bill has been
brought forward, that he should not in all that anxiety and
deliberation have discovered that he was going to dis-
franchise 50,000 of the best electors in the kingdom. Now,
what is the main object of this measure ? It is evidently
to make the representation of the counties, if possible,
more exclusively territorial than it is at present. (Cheers.)
I ask the house to consider whether that is a desirable
object for us to attempt ? Ask Lord Lyndhurst—long a
leading statesman, acting with gentlemen opposite—ask
Lord Aberdeen ; Sir Robert Peel is not here, and you can-
not ask him ; but you can ask the right hon. gentleman the
member for Carlisle, and the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer could add his impressive
testimony whether it has not always been the chiefest
difficulty of the Cabinet sitting on thkt side of the house—
I mean with gentlemen opposite—for many years, far
longer than I have been a politician, that they were sup-
ported by 159 or more gentlemen, representing the counties,
and elected very much in the way described by Lord Derby,
and, being supported by that party, whether they have not
found it utterly impossible, without doing that which was
very unpleasant to them, or without ruining themselves,
which is unpleasant to a Government, to propose or carry
any kind of measures which were made necessary by the
opinions and demands of the country. (" No, no," and
counter cheers.) Do not let gentlemen opposite believe
that I am finding fault individually with any ono of them
in this matter. From 1842 to 1846 what was the difficulty
which the Government of Sir Robert Peal constantly found
in its way P Of that, I dare say, the right hon. baronet the
member for Carlisle, could give us a graphic and instructive
description. What became of that Government of 1846 P
There was a disruption which resulted in years of anarchy
in this house. But go back to the experience of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer in 1852. The then Government
was broken up by a majority of 19 votes in this house after
a general election, because it was necessary, in order to satisfy
the expectations and demands of that same party sitting be-
hind them, to propose a bill with regard to the malt-tax, for
which, on the whole, the country certainly made no demand,
and to which the house was not willing to consent. I was
then very sorry for Lord Derby, and I never, except once,
gave a vote which I more regretted to have to record than
on that occasion; but the Government could not alter or
withdraw their proposition, because the 150 gentlemen
behind them thought it necessary that such a measure
should pass, and now we find the right hon. gentleman in
the same position. Does any man believe that this is the
sort of bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks best for
the country ? Does any one suppose that a man with his
intellect, and who understands all the bearings of this ques-
tion, believes—l will not say the " deplorable rubbish," but
the grievous and fatal mistakes to be found in the clauses
of this bill ? He knows that this bill in its present shape is
a bill framed to satisfy the prejudices, the scruples, the con-
victions, if you like, and thefears of the 150 country gentle-
men who sit behind him. (Cheers.) I should think it a
great misfortune to have 150 gentlemen here representing
only ironworks, or only ships, or onlythe cotton and woollen
factories of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I believe it is essen-
tial almost to a good member of this house, so far as it de-
pends upon external circumstances, that he should .have
among his constituents a variety of what the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would call " interests," persons of various
classes, occupations, and opinions. I think they keep him
better to his duty, modify his opinions, and make him a
more valuable member of the house than he is likely to he
if he represented only some special interest. I must say one
word about that charming-part of our institutions of which
the right hon. gentlemaif(Mr. Walpole) has spoken in such
affectionate terms. I mean the small boroughs. They are
the jewels of our representative system. (A laugh.) Putting
the case now in the shortest number of words, you will say
they take in men who cannot get in anywhere else. (A laugh.)
In one a boy was put in at 19. That is considered a great
,argument for perpetuating such a system. (A laugh.)
These boroughs form in point of fact, a refuge for the po-
litically destitute—(laughter)—and all that I have heard in
their favour is that the persons who find shelter in them are
what would be called " deserving objects." (Renewed
laughter and cheers.) Now, the right hon. gentleman, I
dare say, reads the papers as well and as studiously as I do;
and he will perhaps recollect a case or two which I will I
state to the house. There was an election at Harwich the
other day. It is not long since there was an election there,
and I recollect a statement made at the time. It was said
that Mr. Bagshaws—not now a member of this house—had
discharged a drunken gardener. There were two free-
traders who had carried out their principles further than
the law sanctioned, 'and were imprisoned for smuggling.
(Laughter.) A respectable parson of the parish, who had
not been out of his room for two years, was brought down
by the aid of cordials, stimulants, and a sedan chair—(a
laugh)—to the poll, and those three individuals influenced
the result of the electioa. Now go to another borough. I
recollect an election for the borough of Carlow. There were
two troops of dragoons, two companies of infantry, and 150
police; the whole of this force having, during the period
of the election, been engaged in keeping the peace in a
town which comprised only 200 electors. (Cheers and
laughter.) Now, notwithstanding the picture which I
have drawn of this small borough, I must not be under-
stood as saying that virtuous elections do not take place
in some of its class, and. that they do not still retain some
remnant of freedom. But if there be, the right hon. gen.
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not content with
corrupting and maltreating them in every way, defaces
the fair form of your county representation, and lays his
sacrilegious hands upon those very spots about which
everybody but myself just now speaks in such very high
terms. I should like to give the house an instance of the
justice of what I state. There has been an election at
Banbury. It is but the other day that the hon. gentleman
who represents that place took his seat in :this house.
Now, Banbury is a borough which I do not propose
to disfranchise, but it is one which everybody who knows its
size must admit to be possessed of singular independence of
action in political affairs. (Hear, hear.) I believe the hon.
gentleman who at present represents it will admit that to
be the fact. Now, just imagine what the proposition of the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will
lead to in the case of Banbury. Imagine, if you can, the
people of that borough making speeches, canvassing, ex-
plaining their political views, and resolving upon the pro-
per fulfilment of their political duties. Well, all this is
taking place, but at the critical moment you may see a man
—for aught I know he may be the concoctor of this bill—
(laughter)—for it appears to me to be not so much the bill
of a statesman as of some party electioneering agent—
(cheers)—you may see, I repeat, a man of this descrip-
tion, emerging after dark from the Carlton Club, proceed-
ing to a pillar letter-box which stands quite near it upon
the opposite side of the street, and dropping into it—unless,
indeed, he should find it necessary to go as far as Charing-
cross for the purpose of registering them—some 10 or 20
letters about 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening, while the un•
fortunate people of Banbury are labouring under the delu-
sion that they are carrying on a great constitutional con-
test. Unhappy men, they little know that the restless
locomotive engine has been set to work; that it is bringing
down through county after county ; and that they will
awake the next morning only to find out that, through the
instrumentality of a leathern bag, which has just been de-
posited at the post-office,, Someody is returned as their
representative who has not the slightest eympathy with
their interests, (Cheers.) But this is no now thing. If
anybody will turn to the report of the Municipal Corpora-
tion Commissioners in 1834 he will there find a statement
made by Mr. Austin in reference to the borough of Car-
marthen ; and he gives the number of resident and
non .resident freeholders not of the value of 405., but
of £4, and in addition the number of £lO occupiers. The
number of burgesses in the borough he sets down at
646; resident in the borough, 178; outside the borough,
but still within the county, 257 ; in the county of Pembroke,
108 ; in Glamoresati, 31 ; in Cardigan, 25 ; in Brecon, 12 ;
and outside the limits of Soath Wales altogether, 35; so
that while the number of resident was 178, the number of
non-resident electors was 468. (Hoar, hear.) Mr. Austin
then gives the list of voters at a contest which hast taken
place for the election of sheriffs, when 131 votes were re-
corded in favour of the corporation candidates, against
them, 51; thus giving a majority in their favour of 80, of
which majority 75 were non-resident electors. (Cheers.)
The commissioner then goes on to say, "In effect, therefore,
the constant majority is a majority of non-residents who,
with rare exceptionS, are supporters of the corporation
party." Now, let 'me ask if this system prevailed in the
ease of a £4, is it not likely to do so in the case of 'a £2 free-
hold ? (Hear, hear.) It must also be observed that in the
former instance the votes could not be recorded by letter.
The voter had to appear in person at the place of election ;
but if this system of voting papers be adopted in addition
to non-residence I know of no limit whatever to the amount
of corruption which it may occasion. (Cheers.) You can-
not, therefore, in my opinion, too strongly express your
sense of the entire extinction of freedom which it is calcu-
lated to produce in all the small boroughs of a county.
(Hear, hear.) Now, there is also another point which a
large portion of our fellow-countrymen regard as of the
utmost importance, and to which I may be permitted briefly
to refer, I allude to the borough franchise. I have en •