Commons Sitting of 22 March 1859

MINUTES
. PUBLIC BILLS.— 1° Poor Law and Medical Charities Act (Ireland) Amendment; Weights and Measures Act Amendment; Titles to Land (Scotland).

JERSEY.—ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
COLONEL FORESTERbrought up the Queen's Answer to the Address presented for a Commission to inquire into the laws and Customs of Jersey.
Answer to Address [17th March] reported, as follows:—
I have received your address, praying that a Ropal Commission may be issued for the following purposes, namely:

1. To inquire into and report on the Civil, Municipal, and Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs now in force in Jersey, including the Laws relating to the tenure of land, trusts and uses, and also the rights of the Feudal Lords in the said Island:

2. To inquire into and report on the constitution of the Tribunals by which those Laws, Customs, and rights are administered, and into the practice and forms of procedure used by them respectively:

3. To inquire into and report on al defects in and abuses of the said Laws and Customs in the constitution of the said Tribunal, and in their practice and form
528
of procedure, and to suggest remedies for amending the same:

4.To inquire into the present state of Prisons in Jersey, and the mode of classifying Prisoners:

5. To inquire into and report on the administration of the several public Charities of the said Island:

And, having taken your Address into consideration, I have directed that a Commission shall issue for the several purposes mentioned in the Address.

DESPATCH TO LORD CANNING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SALISBURYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the Despatch No. 5, 1858, dated the 9th December, having been submitted to the Indian Council for consideration before its transmission to Lord Canning, had met with the sanction and approval of that body or otherwise?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that he had stated on the previous day that the Despatch in question was sent out in the Secret Department; that was to say, it was sent upon the responsibility of the Secretary of State alone. It was communicated to the Council for information; that was to say it was shown to the Members of the Council before it was sent out, but it was not submitted to them for consideration, nor did they express any opinion upon it.
  MR. SALISBURY: Did not the Council protest against the Despatch before it was sent out?
  LORD STANLEY: No protest was ever made against it.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, if his despatch to the Governor General of India, dated the 9th day of December, 1858 (which has lately been presented to the House) was sent under the 27th section of the Act for the better Government of India (21 & 22 Viet. c. 106), by which the power of the Secret Committee is continued. He was not quite certain whether the noble Lord had not already answered this question; but what he wished to know was, whether this despatch, not relating to war or to the Foreign relations of our Indian Empire, had been sent out in conformity with the statute?
  LORD STANLEYsaid the former correspondence having passed in the Secret Department, this Despatch, as he had already stated, had also been sent out in the same Department.

ORDER OF THE MEDJIDIE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAURIEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is likely to be a further distribution of the order of the Medjidie to the Naval Officers, and if those whose names have been inadvertently omitted are to be furnished with them.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not aware that it was the intention of the Turkish Government to issue any more medals of the order in question among the Officers of Her Majesty's Navy. The medals previously issued by the Sultan's Government were distributed by the late Board of Admiralty, and he had every reason to believe that, though their number was limited, they had been awarded with fairness, and with as great a regard as was possible to the claims of those entitled to receive them.

POSTAL REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any alteration has been made in the charges or other arrangements of the Inland Book Post; and when the alteration will take place by which an additional penny will be charged for the transit through Egypt of newspapers sent viâ Southampton to India or Australia.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that no alteration whatever had been made in the arrangements of the Inland Book Post, but curious statements had appeared in the newspapers from time to time to that effect. Most certainly, nothing had been done to restrict the circulation. With reference to the second question of the hon. Gentleman he had to state that the only alteration which was in contemplation would take place on the 1st January next: and it would have no effect on newspapers going through France, because the postage was already deemed sufficient; nor would it have any effect on newspapers sent round the Cape. But, as the Pasha of Egypt had come to the determination to charge a rather higher sum for papers sent through his territory, it would be necessary for the Government to make a corresponding increase of postage.

MARRIED PERSONS (SCOTLAND).

  LEAVE.
  MR. MONCREIFFmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Scot-
  530
  land on the relationship of husband and wife. He would only state at present, that the object of the Bill was to assimilate the law of Scotland to the new law of England, with regard to the separate property of wives deserted by their husbands, and to regulate the jurisdiction of the two countries with regard to marriage and divorce.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Law of Scotland in regard to the relationship of Husband and Wife, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONCREIFF and Mr. DUNLOP.

CHURCH RATES.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYmoved that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Church Rate question.
Motion made and Question proposed— "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreminded the hon. Baronet, that Gentlemen whose Motions had the precedence of his had given way for the discussion on the Reform Bill; and he was sure from the well-known courtesy of the hon. Baronet, that he would not stand between the House and this subject. If he allowed the debate to proceed, he should be happy on some future day, as he had already done, to afford him facilities for proceeding with his Bill.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYfelt himself placed in some little difficulty. The question of Reform was rather of a speculative kind, and men of advanced opinions did not seem to agree very well with respect to it. He was anxious, therefore, that the House should make some progress in this question of church rates, which was a practical subject. He should also like to know what wore the opinions of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil), both of whom had Amendments to propose, which perhaps the House might be inclined to adopt. If both sides of the House insisted that he should give way, he would not persevere, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to get him another day, but he would not give up his position at the request of one side of the House only.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhoped the hon. Baronet would not persevere with his Motion, on the understanding that the Chan-

531
cellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to find him another day.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was not in the House, as he could not imagine that this question would be brought on to-night.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYthen agreed to postpone his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  SECOND READING —ADJOURNED DEBATE. SECOND NIGHT.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [21st March], "That the Bill be now read a second time; and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "This House is of opinion, that it is neither just nor politic to interfere, in the manner proposed in this Bill, with the Freehold Franchise as hitherto exercised in the Counties in England and Wales; and that no re-adjustment of the Franchise will satisfy this House or the Country, which does not provide for a greater extension of the Suffrage in Cities and Boroughs than is contemplated in the present Measure,"
  instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that in rising to address the House upon that occasion, he owed them some apology for venturing to interfere in a question of a class with which he very seldom meddled. But differing as he did from many of the Friends with whom he usually acted, and the course which the Government pursued yesterday having materially altered his view, and therefore he felt he should not give his vote without expressing to the House the grounds upon which that vote would be given. He could assure the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) that neither he nor any one else in that House could feel more deeply than he did the responsibility which rested on every Member of the House on that occasion. He had regarded this question for a long time past as one which it was desirable should be settled as speedily as possible; and he could only say he should have been most happy had the Government introduced a
  532
  measure—which he thought, if they had followed the advice of two of their colleagues, they might have done — which they could have carried through the House and which would have given satisfaction to the country. But the measure; they had introduced was one which, in his opinion, was radically bad, and subversive of what he had always understood to be the constitution of the country—a measure radically retrograde, and not progressive—and he for one could not vote for its second reading. He was aware it had been said that something might happen before they approached the second reading of this Bill which might enable them to consent to the second reading, in the hope that the measure might be so improved in Committee as to make it acceptable to the House and the country. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud did not intend to monopolize to himself the sole credit of pursuing a conscientious course in reference to this Bill—because, to judge by the tone of his observations last night, he seemed rather to regard every one who took an opposite course to what he look himself as taking such course through party motives. He (Mr. Wilson) at nee disclaimed any such motive. On the contrary, nothing would have satisfied his mind more than to find that the Government had produced a Bill which would have enabled the House to go into Committee, and which would have been satisfactory to the House and the country. Since it had become known that the Government intended to deal with this question of Reform, hon. Members had been warned by their constituents, by public opinion, and by the press, to be on their guard against anything like what might be called a pretended reform; and he begged the House to call to mind that it was not because a Government brought in a Bill altering the constitution of the country, that that Bill was necessarily a Reform Bill. On the contrary, he believed that this Bill, so far from being a reform of the Constitution, or an amendment of the Act of 1832, was a step entirely in the opposite direction, and would bring the country into some of the worst conditions in which it stood before that period. There were three classes in the community who took a more particular interest in this Bill. One, a small class, who would not perhaps object to go backward; another and perhaps a very large class, who would be satisfied to remain where they were; and a third,

  533
  and perhaps the largest and most influential class, because it included all the leading statesmen of the day, who thought we could not remain where we were, but that we ought to go forward. Then, he asked, did this Bill fulfil this latter requirement? That House was committed to some progress in the matter of reform, and he asked did this Bill go forward in that progressive course? What were the objects which public opinion and the leading statesmen of our day had stated as those for which a further Reform Bill was wanted? Those objects were clear, plain, and simple. Amid several minor diversities all were agreed— first, that the franchise should be extended to those classes who, not being judged fit for that privilege in 1832, might now be fairly admitted to it; secondly, that the franchise should be extended to those towns which had grown up since then into important constituencies; and thirdly, to deal with those small constituencies which could be no longer said to represent public opinion, but were rather the private property of individuals. Now in no one respect did the present measure deal with these questions; and now that they had arrived at the second reading, the real question for the House to consider was, could they or could they not read this Bill a second time? If it was a Bill which went in the direction in which he thought the House ought to go, even although he might think it did not go in that direction far enough, he should at once consent to the second reading, and take the chance of amending it in Committee. But what were the principles of this Bill? Its first principle—which he must say was fairly, frankly, almost ostentatiously, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was a principle which at all events had the merit of novelty, but which, until that night when he introduced his Bill, was never before proposed in this country. That principle was for affirming the uniformity of the franchise in boroughs and counties, that he thought was a sufficient reason to induce any one to vote against the second reading, for it was subversive of the whole of our recognized principles of representation. The principle of maintaining the borough franchise at its present amount was not novel, but it was entirely at variance with the demands of the public; while, instead of offering an extension of the franchise in boroughs, this Bill offered a contraction of it, so far as regarded the right of voters living in boroughs to vote in counties. Where were
  534
  the supporters of those principles to be found? Not in the House; because every individual who spoke last night, from whatever side, objected to the disfranchisement of the freeholders in towns and to the uniformity of franchise. Did they, then, find any support out of doors? Not in public opinion, so far as that opinion was represented in the press. How, then, could they agree to support the second reading? Were they encouraged in the slightest degree by the Government to hope for any real alteration in these principles? It was true that a week after this proposition was before the House, when it had been well canvassed in the country, and hon. Gentlemen who sat behind the Ministerial Bench had had time to form their opinions and express their views, the Ministers took this matter into serious consideration, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, anticipating the action of a Committee on this Bill, thought it his duty to announce that he was ready to make certain alterations in the Bill. If that modification had gone the entire length of an abandonment of that principle of the Bill he should not have been prepared to vote against the Government, but should advocate their going at once into Committee on the Bill. But he found that the proposed change would not go by any means that length. The Government, instead of withdrawing it, proposed to save existing interests by reserving to those borough freeholders for life the franchise which they at present possessed, with an option of exercising it either in the counties or the boroughs. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had the previous night said that he was sorry that that provision had not been originally introduced into the Bill, but to his (Mr. Wilson's) mind it did not in any way mend the matter. On the contrary it introduced new objections, for nothing could be more objectionable than to keep the constituencies for the next sixty years (as those freeholders who were at present twenty-one years of age might, many of them, live to the age of eighty) in a fluctuating state between the county and the borough franchise. But the noble Lord said, that that was already a principle recognized in Parliamentary legislation; but he would not tell the House that in 1832 Parliament saved the existing rights of the voters in the disfranchised boroughs. He would ask him, when had Parliament provided for the preservation of such rights in a confused system extending over a

  535
  long series of years? Did the noble Lord and the Government of which he was a member propose to save the existing rights of the dockyard officers and workmen? He found that, on the contrary, the Bill proposed to disfranchise them not only in reference, to the borough franchise but also in reference to the county franchise, which they might enjoy in virtue of their freeholds, although they had, he would venture to say, exercised it as independently and as fairly as any body of men in the Kingdom. This modification appeared to him of still greater importance, from the fact that it showed that Government had considered the subject, and was determined to take its stand upon a principle that the House would never agree to. If, then, they were to sift the Bill of these two objectionable provisions, what had they? It was true the Bill gave them a £10 occupancy franchise for the counties. But that concession was made in the worst possible shape, for the franchise was attached not to a £10 residence but to a £10 occupancy. It would enable the landowners to cut up their fields into £10 tenements, and would, therefore, virtually place the borough representation in their hands. The Bill also proposed certain new franchises for the boroughs, and to that he did not object, as far as it went. There was the £60 savings' bank clause; but he considered it a gross inconsistency to give a vote to a savings' bank depositor for £60, whereas the fund holder was not to have the same right unless he had £300 invested. Did the Bill, however, stand on that feature he should gladly vote for the second reading of it. But what was the effect of the measure as a whole? They were, as he before observed, to have the £10 voters in counties; but as a set-off to that, they would have 100,000 freeholders disfranchised; and to that number they would have to add all the county freeholders in the new towns which they proposed to enfranchise. To it, too, should be added all those freeholders residing within what were to be the new boundaries of the existing boroughs; and as a further addition, they would have the dockyard officers and workmen, whom it was now proposed to disfranchise; and in course of time, whenever it was proposed to enfranchise any new town, they would take away from the county in which it might be situated the most popular element of its administration. What did the Bill propose in return for all that disfranchisement? It proposed the addition of
  536
  200,000 voters according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli), or of 103,000 as calculated by Mr. Newmarch. Mr. Newmarch, he thought, had made a mistake, and that his estimate was not sufficiently high, and he would take the increase at the number stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, even if that estimate were correct, there were to be deducted from the number all the £10 householders in the new boroughs, and within the new bounds of the existing boroughs; and if they added to the 100,000 disfranchised freeholders the amount of these deductions, they would find that there would be as many persons disfranchised in the boroughs as would be enfranchised in the counties. They would, at the same time, deprive the county constituencies of their most popular and independent element, and put in their places a class, above all others, the most dependent and subservient. That was how they proposed to treat the counties. What did the Bill do for the towns? It left the £10 occupancy franchise where it was, but it gave them the small freeholders—men who, however good as county electors, were precisely the class of men who should not have the franchise in boroughs; for though the 40s. freeholders formed the most independent portion of the county voters in the towns, he feared they would be open to treating, and would not prove the best materials for a borough constituency. The system, moreover, opened the door for an indefinite multiplication of fagot votes. This was the first time since 1833 that an endeavour was made to reverse the Reform Bill, one of the main objects of which was to put an end to out-voters, for by the system of voting papers a man would be able to manufacture any number of votes he might require; and nothing was better calculated to carry out the designs of those who would put the privilege of the franchise to an unfair use. Under such a system, if they did not bring the voter to the poll they would have to bring the candidate to the voter, and that would be a source of much expense. It had been said by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) that it was impossible to enfranchise the working classes without swamping all the other electors. It might be so, if the proposal were for universal suffrage: but this was a question of degree rather than a matter of fact, for, as was at present the case, the half of the constituency which contained within it the most responsible

  537
  members of the community would largely influence the other half. He could scarcely think that the noble Lord was of opinion that the elections were influenced by numbers, and that property did not exercise a larger influence than a numerical majority. The noble Lord mentioned an ingenious scheme for the preservation of especial constituencies, in which the working classes alone would be represented; but the day was passed when it was possible to carry out any such scheme. Such constituencies might have been preserved in 1832, but were now impossible. The introduction of a £5 or £6 franchise, such as had been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), would operate to give the working classes a decided majority in some particular towns. But this would not be the case in all towns; and the influence of the working classes in particular places would serve to create that diversity of representation which was so essential and important a feature of our constitution—a diversity under which no particular class should be under-represent ed nor over-represented. The Bill of the Government, ns it appeared to him, was an ingenious scheme for destroying as much as possible class legislation — a scheme which, if carried out to its legitimate end, would make that House the representative of one or two classes; and these were consequences which he would never assent to. He would not support the second reading of any Reform Bill which would lead to such a result, unless opportunity were offered of making such Amendments as would remedy these fatal objections.
  He now came to the question of small boroughs. The best part of the Bill, in his opinion, was that which dealt with the double seats of existing small boroughs, and giving one of them to certain large constituencies; but the extent to which this was carried was not satisfactory to his mind. He was not an enemy to small boroughs; he believed they had peculiar and most important functions to perform in our representative system. What was required was, that every class should be represented in that House; and the existence of small boroughs greatly contributed to the attainment of that object. But he wished to make a clear distinction between small boroughs and nomination boroughs, he believed that small independent boroughs were productive of a great amount of public advantage; but he had the greatest objections to small boroughs in which elec-
  538
  tions were carried by the will of a single individual. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been peculiarly unhappy in the illustrations he had selected as a proof of the value of maintaining small and independent boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that Arundel sent to that House the only English Roman Catholic Member, who might be regarded as the representative of nearly 1,000,000 of his co-religionists in this country. But he (Mr. Wilson) recollected the time when a most estimable and respected Member of that House—the present Duke of Norfolk, we believe—had been compelled to resign his seat for Arundel because he had been opposed, upon a certain religious question, to the nobleman who had the disposal of the representation of that borough. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to the case of Calne. Now, he (Mr. Wilson) believed that the House and the public were satisfied with the mode in which the noble Lord who was supposed to influence the electors in that borough had used his power; but he also felt persuaded that the hon. and gallant General (Sir William Williams), who at present represented that borough, could have been returned at the time of his election by the largest constituency in England. Nevertheless, it was not satisfactory that the small boroughs should be under the dictation of a single person, without any guarantee for the manner in which that influence would be used. He did not desire to see the great bulk of the small and middle-sized boroughs disfranchised. He did not believe in the principle of representation of numbers—he was an advocate of the representation of classes. He believed that the two great classes—the landed and the mercantile—were well represented in that House; for, whether he looked to the great agricultural or to the great commercial interests, they were fully and ably represented by the counties and large towns and boroughs. But, besides these two great and marked classes, there was another large and influential class, belonging to neither of those great classes, but equal in the aggregate to them both, that required to be represented, and the small boroughs served that purpose. At least one-third of the people of this country belonged to neither of those two great classes, and he believed that if the smaller borougli3 were disfranchised this important class would be wholly excluded from any share in

  539
  the national representation. It must be remembered that they had the interests not of this country, but of this great empire, to look to, with its numerous colonies and dependencies. There was the great empire of India; there were the railway and the mining interests; there were the other numberless interests, distinct from the great mercantile and agricultural interests, which must be represented; and that could only be done through the medium of these small or moderate-sized boroughs. He was, however, an eager advocate for making them free avenues to that House for public men, and not for the mere nominees of particular individuals, he should be glad to see the system introduced into England which had been adopted in Scotland and Wales, of grouping together two or three small boroughs, so as to neutralize local interest while it secured the proper representation of the people; but the uniformity of suffrage which the Government Bill proposed to introduce between small boroughs and the counties was utterly inconsistent with true principles of reform. If they had uniformity of suffrage it would be impossible to maintain the small boroughs separate and distinct from the counties by which they were surrounded. He wished to ask himself what was the whole tendency of the Bill? It was to give influence to land, to give influence to property, to take away influence from trade and commerce, and from all the progressive pursuits of the country. With that feeling of the tendency of the Bill, as it at present stood, it was impossible for him to support the second reading. He objected to the principle of the Bill, and he objected to its details. He therefore asked himself this question, how was he to find a solution? It appeared to him that the Resolution of the noble Lord offered a solution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had also put a Resolution on the paper, and he should be prepared to vote for either of those Resolutions, because it appeared to him that both offered a fair prospect of enabling them to deal with the Bill. He would have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been prepared to accept the Resolution of the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman. When he came down to the House last night he felt—and his impression was justified by the very admirable advice given yesterday morning by a great public organ—that there was a
  540
  road open by which the Government might have escaped from their difficulty, and he had hoped that they had intended to have availed themselves of it, and gone on with the Bill. But the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) said, in so many words, "You must accept the Bill as it is, or reject it altogether." [Cries of "No, no."] He would read the words of the noble Lord—
  "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."
  The noble Lord, therefore, was well aware of the effect of the Resolution upon the Bill. The noble Lord continued—
  "I say, then, I am expressing the feelings of my colleagues and those who support the measure, when I say that the adoption of the Resolution of the noble Lord must necessarily be fatal to the Bill."
  Then they were agreed upon that point. ["Hear, hear," and "No, no," from the Ministerial side.] At any rate they were agreed as to the words of the noble Lord. Up to that time he had certainly entertained the sincere hope that the Government would accept the principle of the Resolution of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) when there would have been no difficulty in going into Committee and moulding the Bill into a good measure; but he considered that the declaration of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had now-closed the door against any such expectation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) suggested that they might make amendments in the Bill, and he pointed out many ways in which the Bill might be amended. But those who listened to that right hon. Gentleman must have felt that the Bill, as amended by him, would have little of the original left. It would be something like the Highlander's fowling-piece, which he mended by a new stock, a new lock, and a new barrel. He asked his right hon. Friend, when last night he was pointing to the simple mode by which this Bill could be amended in Committee, what guarantee he had that his Amendments would be agreed to? To carry Amendments in Committee was a very different matter to carrying Resolutions on the Motion for a second reading. His right hon. Friend was dissatisfied with the Bill he would have the first clause entirely abrogated, and others very materially altered; but what guarantee had he that the Amendments carried in Committee would he such as would meet his views. Would not the shorter

  541
  and surer mode of attaining the end he had in view be that of inducing the House and the Government to accept this Resolution as the basis of future action in Committee? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought down an Amendment which he (Mr. Wilson) conceived represented the matured opinion of the cabinet as to the extent to which they were prepared to give way; but he thought no one who objected to the original Bill was at all better satisfied with it in its new form. Unless, therefore, the Government were prepared to recall all they had stated, and to alter their course altogether, he for one could not vote for the second reading. However he might regret that result, he had no alternative left him, as the question now stood, but to vote for the Resolution. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might think no one but themselves were really anxious to settle this question; but he for one regarded it as one of the gravest the House had ever had to consider, and the present the greatest crisis in which the House had ever found itself. He should be conscientiously pleased if he could see his way to a speedy settlement of the question by the present Government, and, whatever hon. Gentlemen might think to the contrary, he had no desire to take a factious course in this matter. As it now stood there was no course left open to him but to support the Amendment, unless the Government were prepared to retract all they had said upon the subject. He accepted the responsibility held out by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who had endeavoured to frighten them into accepting the Bill, by enlarging upon the responsibilities which its rejection would involve. He readily accepted the responsibility of refusing a second reading to a Bill which the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had declared would settle nothing, and might unsettle everything. In the course of the debate the House heard much of the probability of a dissolution if this measure was rejected; but he would not be deterred from doing what he considered to be a public duty by any such threat as that. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government conscientiously believed this Bill was necessary for a settlement of this question, or if he believed that by dissolving he would secure a majority who would vote for uniformity of franchise find the disfranchisement of the 40 s. freeholders, and the maintenance of the borough franchise at its present
  542
  amount, of course he would be justified in resorting to a dissolution. But he would ask the House to hear the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel as to what were the circumstances which entitled the Ministers in a serious political crisis to ask for a dissolution. In 1846 that right hon. Gentleman addressed a memorandum to his own Cabinet in which he said that a weak Government, unable to carry its own measures, or unable, through the want of constant attention and cordial support, to conduct the indispensable business of the House of Commons, or in constant fear of being in a minority from the combination of parties, was a great evil. It had a tendency to lose, not to gain, strength, and to add discredit to its party. A Conservative Government, he said, ought to have the entire support of a Conservative party, and should not be dependent upon sections of parties; support obtained from the disunion and confusion of its enemies was hollow and unreliable; and that no Minister ought to advise the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament without feeling a moral conviction that the country would respond to his appeal and would enable him to carry on the Government by giving him in Parliament a perfect working majority: those were the opinions of the late Sir Robert Peel upon the expediency or advisability of a dissolution; and if the noble Lord could justly expect the support of the country upon this question he would be quite justified in resorting to a dissolution. It would, however, be the bounden duty of the present or of any other Government this year and at once, after the decision of the country, to use their every influence, their most strenous efforts, to bring this question at the earliest possible time to a satisfactory conclusion.
  SIR E. BULWER LYTTON:* The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Wilson) has employed in vain much subtlety of argument and great variety of detail. Despite his undeniable talents, despite his industry in collecting, and his dexterity in combining materials whether for attack or for defence, he has failed to obscure the; question so clearly put before the House by the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman). That question is, will you take into consideration—I say into consideration, for this is all that is now asked — a moderate measure of reform, which is offered by a powerful Conservative party with a large concession on their part; or will you rather wait for that other mea-

  543
  sure which the hon. Gentleman says should be immediately proposed, which should be a satisfactory solution to every problem, but which, unhappily, is not before you, of which there is not a glimpse either in the Amendment or even in the speech of the noble Lord, the Member for London, and for which you must calculate the odds that its provisions will be such as to satisfy those gentlemen who profess what they call Radical principles, and to satisfy also those other gentlemen who have spent the last six and twenty years in decoying Radical votes and in abjuring Radical opinions? Of course, if you cannot take the mere principle of a moderate measure from us—if, as you say, the country will not accept it—then the question of Reform passes out of the hands of Lord Derby's Government. But into whose hands will it pass? Noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who are at this moment so carefully bridging the gangway with a rope of sand [Sir W. Hayter, who was seated in "the gangway," rose up hastily at this allusion, and left the House amid great laughter] may, by the aid of that experienced personage who has so abruptly vanished from his place, patch up the quarrels of years for the division of a night. But grant that they triumph. Grant that the solemn lecture which has just been addressed to Lord Derby by the hon. Gentleman has its effect, and that no appeal is made to the country. Grant that you are in Downing Street to-morrow, will not the quarrels of years be in Downing Street also? But where will be any Reform Bill? As my noble Friend the Secretary for India justly said last night, this Resolution will answer the noble Lord's purpose much as the Irish Appropriation Clause answered a similar purpose in the hands of the same unrivalled destroyer of Governments; and it may then leave the English suffrage much as that famous clause loft the Irish Church. And, indeed, it must have struck all who have listened to this debate that, however hon. Gentlemen may agree in disapproval of our Bill, they have shown so little agreement as to any other, that some have even taken pains to imply that there ought to be no Reform Bill at all. The hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) said last night that rather than take our measure he would wait—he did not say how long. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who is always the frankest of men, was somewhat more explicit. He said, a few weeks ago, that in order to have a good Bill, he would con-
  544
  sent to wait five years. Well, then, why not move an Amendment which would get us all out of the dilemma, and which, I am sure, is at the bottom of the hearts of half the Reformers opposite? Why not propose as an Amendment to this Bill that a good Bill should be read a second time this day five years? For my part, speaking frankly, I have no superstitious dread of any of those questions which are raised by the more ardent Reformers opposite. Some of those questions I espoused myself many years ago. One or two of them I still individually favour, and if on others I have since modified or wholly altered the opinions I then held, I have done so with no uncharitable prejudice against those who believe now what I myself once believed, or may even believe a little more than my political creed ever permitted me to do. But from me, at least, advanced Reformers are entitled to respect, and I know that in arguing the case with them I argue it not with the mob leaders of fifty years ago. I argue it with gentlemen of refined education, and some of whom have proved the independence of their character by the loss of their seats, rather than yield to what they held to be the mistaken judgment of their constituents. I will be fair to them. I ask them, in return, to be fair to me. We will enter on the question not as enemies but as reasoners. Now, when a Government undertakes a Reform Bill it is impossible to discard the question—what party does that Government represent? Conservatives are free as other men to undertake financial or administrative reforms; and there may be points, both in the management of business and even of policy, in which there is more sympathy between Conservatives and advanced Liberals than there is between advanced Liberals and Whigs. But when it comes to great organic changes your own good sense and your instinct of party honour must tell you that a Conservative Government could not give the same kind of Reform as a Government which represents your views and is supported by your constituents. An hon. Gentleman who spoke last night said, with great anger, that this Bill was a compromise. Of course it is. We could only deal with this question as men offering a compromise, in which we tender concessions on our side and ask concessions upon yours. What you lose in amount of Reform you gain in the expedition and ease with which some Reform at least may be effected. This is not all; a violent party battle upon Parliamentary

  545
  reform, to be fought throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom, is in itself a great calamity. I remember what it was before. Life-long friendships are dissolved, families are divided. In each town or county, in each section of the community, society is embittered for years; trade and credit are seriously injured. The metropolis was said to have suffered in its trade to the amount of £2,000,000 by the agitation of the great Reform Bill. All those evils, according to your views, may be counterbalanced by some large triumph for popular Government such as you would propose. All those evils are counterbalanced by the Amendment of the noble Lord. All those evils are prevented, and some advantage even to your views is obtained, if, by passing the second reading of this Bill, you will meet the spirit in which a Conservative party offers to you the grounds for a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, in the course of his weighty and impressive speech, put our position on grounds I at once accept. He said a Government, in dealing with Parliamentary Reform, has these two questions to determine:—first, what will the temper of public opinion enable us to carry —what does public opinion require? Second, what is the amount of acknowledged evil—what is there for a Government (and I must here add a Conservative Government), to admit and to remedy? Sir, I think few will deny that when we undertook the question of Parliamentary Reform pulic opinion was extremely apathetic. Doubtless, nine out of ten said loudly, "We must have a Reform Bill;" but eight out of every nine whispered to each other, "Does any body want one?" Is there a reason why public opinion should have changed on this subject since last year? Look to the state of Europe. During the latter date of our deliberations on reform, war seemed inevitable. True, it is peace to-day; can any man say there will not be war to-morrow? Is this the precise moment suddenly to transfer political power from the middle class, with which, on the whole, it now rests, and by which, on the whole, it has been liberally and usefully exercised, to the wider area of a class, however honest and respectable, still not yet educated up to the mark which England should require in a constituency, that is, to enable her to confront foreign Powers, not with the force of numbers, but with the majesty of disciplined intellect? Mr. Pox once uttered words to this purpose—"What
  546
  gives England her power in Europe? It can never be numbers; it must be always intellect." Can England represent intellect in Europe if numbers are to make the law of representation in the House of Commons? And now, Sir, when I hear the Government accused of a want of earnestness and sincerity in dealing with this question, I must venture to ask if no insincerity, no want of earnestness, has been shown by many eminent persons opposite? When it was supposed out of doors that we intended to propose a sweeping and comprehensive measure, many of those eminent persons actually became anti-Reformers. Articles appeared in Whig journals that might have been written by Mr. Croker. Speeches were addressed to their constituents by Whig Members that might have been uttered by Lord Liverpool. I appeal to our own social experience. Were not Gentlemen on this side besieged with confidential whispers by Gentlemen on the other side, "I hope your Reform Bill will be a very moderate measure; in fact, it cannot be too moderate for public opinion." And now, Sir, because this measure is brought forward by a Government they oppose, those same eminent persons, not contented with censuring its details, declare that it falls far short of their expectations; when if it had gone but a few feet further, if it had but touched the corner of that bench which the noble Lord the Member for London now adorns as a reluctant visitor, they would have said that it left Church and State behind it. Sir, that is very naturally the voice of party. I do not think it is the voice of public opinion, and if public opinion had a glass window to its bosom we should there see among the better educated classes, on the whole, a preference to our Bill, with all its shortcomings, rather than to any Bill founded upon the principles which have been set forth in the only public meetings in which our Bill has been denounced. Principles against which I say nothing. If you want to know what is to be said against triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot, I refer you to the speeches of the noble Lords the Members for River-ton and London. Well then, in answer to the first question, what was the temper of public opinion? And when we undertook this Bill what did it require? I say the temper of public opinion was listless. I say that it cither required a measure quite as moderate as we propose, or, if you tell us that public opinion has been lately represented in local public meetings, then I say

  547
  it requires something which is not to be found in the Amendment of the noble Lord. It requires something which no Whig Government could propose, and no conceivable Government at this time could hope to carry. I turn to the second question, put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud,—what was the amount of acknowledged evil? What was there that asked a remedy? Why, Sir, it could not be very large, for the right hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir George Lewis) with all his scholastic acuteness, did not, in addressing his constituents, appear to discover any evil at all. The evil could not be one very popularly felt, for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, with all his masculine eloquence, failed to get up an agitation commensurate to his talents and proportioned to his zeal. Still, there were these defects, which candid men upon all sides were disposed to admit. First: some large constituencies were unrepresented. Secondly: some large classes did not possess the franchise. We addressed ourselves at once to these. As to the first, we found that the really large towns unrepresented were extremely few. To all those with populations approaching 20,000, we have given members; if we have omitted some that should be represented, prove the case, and it is a fair question of Committee; but reject the Bill on account of that Amendment, and you leave the towns we enfranchise still unrepresented. Secondly: there were large classes that did not possess the franchise. Now, should we really best obtain the remedy by the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment, the lowering of the borough household franchise? No; for we should then equally exclude some of the intelligent and independent persons who live in lodgings, and have no house at all. We believe we have adopted a fair rental at 8s. a week. Is the rental too high? prove the case—it is a fair question of Committee; but reject the Bill — on account of that Amendment, and you leave those intelligent persons unrepresented. We desired to extend the principle of representation by admitting personal property of all kinds. We wished to bring that qualification down to a scale that might include the artisan if he has given proofs of thrift and foresight by investment in a savings' bank. Have we made the amount of that investment too high? prove the case—it is a fair question of Committee; but reject the Bill—on account of that Amendment, and you reject
  548
  the principle that was honestly meant to include the superior artisan. We found it loudly complained, especially by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that in counties there were many respectable persons living in towns and villages not represented, and excluded from a vote as residents in the county; these we resolved to enfranchise. We took the £10 occupier, and we gave him a vote for the county. We did so with large concession on our side—why, I am not ashamed to say, because our object, if possible, was conciliation. Do you object to the nature of that proposal as between lands and tenements? prove your case—it is a fair question of Committee; but reject the Bill—on account of that barren Amendment, and I ask you whether this £10 occupier is to be enfranchised by the mere Resolution of this House, or whether he is to wait for that other Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) tells you a Liberal Government could not carry against the consent of the Conservatives, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud tells you it is more than doubtful whether you could carry at all. I decline to accept the noble Lord's invitation, in the earlier part of his Amendment; I decline to allow the whole scheme of this measure to be judged piecemeal, by a clause which you can alone thoroughly discuss in Committee, Take but one single instance of the unfairness into which we are led, if we are once distracted from all that belongs to the broad outline of the Bill on such a subject, into the investigation of details which can only be sifted at a later stage. The Member for Devonport who preceded me, is an authority in facts and figures. He is a master of detail—yet even he seeks to prejudice you against the second reading of the Bill by an inaccuracy he would not, I am sure, have incurred, had we been in Committee on the clause; for he said that our mode of dealing with the borough freeholds would create a fluctuating constituency between town and country for the next sixty years. But only allow the Bill to go into Committee, and I think we shall be able to show that there will be no such floating constituency, as a voter must select between the two at the first registration. Again, the noble Lord says, "By with- drawing the borough freeholders from the counties, we withdraw the commercial element those freeholders represent." But he forgot to state that we give to the counties more than double the votes by occu-

  549
  piers of the votes withdrawn by the freeholders; and if these occupiers should be for the most part the inhabitants of towns, they are more likely to be in trade than even the freeholders; and thus the commercial element is not withdrawn, but probably it is doubled—more than doubled, if you add those who will obtain either the lodger franchise or that derived from personal property. Thus, I say, you cannot judge the whole Bill by a single clause. You must compare one part with another. And to analyse the clause you object to would require a debate to itself. Meanwhile, I am contented to leave that part of the general measure to the able defence of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India. I go further, and say that, granting all the force you like to the noble Lord's objections, those objections apply to details you can consider in Committee; and unless you say it is nothing to enfranchise the large towns now unrepresented— nothing to improve the registration—nothing to enfranchise new classes—nothing to admit the £10-occupier to a vote in counties, you ought not to reject the second reading of the Bill on account of a clause you have a later and a fuller opportunity to discuss. I pass on to the latter part of the noble Lord's Amendment, which involves a more important question—I mean the lowering of the borough franchise. The difference between us is, that he would suddenly lower the borough franchise, and we would extend the general franchise of the nation: while in admitting the principle of lodger franchise, of investments in a savings' bank, of education as it advances becoming a qualification in itself; we not only extend the suffrage, but we open vistas for gradual reduction, according to the views to which some of the most thoughtful Reformers have inclined more than they have done to the coarse substitute of a £6 or a £5 for a £10 house qualification. Surely, education and independence ought to be the characteristics of a liberal suffrage: surely, you gain those much more through the educated persons who hire lodgings than you do through the persons who are struggling with poverty in a £5 house. Take no very uncommon example—a retired servant, or a broken tradesman, hires a house and lets lodgings; in those lodgings may live an artist, a banker's clerk, a man of letters, a superior artisan. The one retired servant or the broken tradesman alone has a vote; the four educated men who lodge with him have none. Will
  550
  you tell me that their four votes would not be of more value to the constituency in the right choice of a Member than the votes of four £5 householders if you added them to the constituency instead? Now, Sir, so far as regards the mere interest of the Conservative party in this House, I have always said, and I still think, that the lowering of the borough franchise would be no disadvantage to us, and might indirectly be of advantage. No disadvantage, because I take it for granted that the disposition of all the larger towns will be to return candidates of the opposite party. Whether those candidates are returned by a £10 or a £5 constituency, could therefore in no way affect the balance of party in this House. Indirectly it might be an advantage to us that Gentlemen opposite should be chosen by a £5 constituency rather than a £10. And why? Because a party does not depend on its numbers alone; it depends on the dignity, the independence, the education, and, on the whole, the moderate good sense of its representatives. I believe you gain all those qualities better under a £10 constituency than under a £5. I believe the worst enemy an upright Reformer can have is not a Conservative gentleman; it is a demagogic adventurer. Once adopt a very low suffrage in your towns, and are you sure that in the present state of popular education the upright Reformer would not be often displaced by the demagogic adventurer? That would be your loss; indirectly it would be our gain. Our gain, because you would no longer be the same formidable candidates for power. Violent politicians may make a troublesome and unscrupulous Opposition, but they could never unite to form the Queen's Government. If we wanted to destroy the moral power of your party, we would give you the lowest suffrage you like to ask; because, lower the franchise beneath £10 in counties, lower it to £5, and you would bring our own village labourers into the franchise, and thus place numbers under the influence of property. That would be our gain. But in towns it is different. Lower the franchise in towns, and the lower you go the more you place numbers under the control of ignorance and passion. That would be your loss. But, far from wishing to destroy your party, I consider it essential to freedom that the Liberal party in this House should be always strong; and if I ask you to pause before you lower too much the borough franchise, it is because I am con-

  551
  vinced you cannot be always strong if you create a constituency that does not secure to Liberal Members the same high standard of integrity and culture. But do not let gentlemen who represent the smaller boroughs credulously believe that you can by any political logic lower the franchise in boroughs without also destroying the smaller boroughs; the two principles must go together. For why lower the franchise in boroughs except to take population more into account, and except to enfranchise a larger number of the superior part of the working class? You cannot, therefore, by your principle preserve the smaller towns to the exclusion of the larger; you cannot pass over the artizans of larger towns, where intelligence is most diffused, in order to enfranchise the artisans of smaller boroughs, with a less rate of wages, and probably a less degree of education. Therefore, you cannot separate the two. To lower the borough franchise is to annihilate the smaller boroughs. Are there any Members for such boroughs so guileless and lamblike as to be caught by the noble Lord's ensnaring Amendment and seductive tongue! Yes, Sir, there is one, the Member for Sandwich—
  "Pleased to the last he crops his flowery food,
  "And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood."
  But when those smaller boroughs are destroyed, what then? To what constituencies will they be transferred? Do not think we did not carefully examine that subject. We might have given what is called a more comprehensive, and might have been a more popular measure. We might have swept away 80, 90, 100, 120, boroughs. But, had we done so, it appeared clear to us, as it does to my noble Friend who spoke so well last night (Lord Robert Cecil) that the majority of the seats taken from the boroughs ought to be given to the counties. The noble Lord in his last Reform Bill arrived at the same conclusion. If we had done this, you would have said, "We undertook a Reform Bill in order to serve our party." We did not do this. We would not, in the present state of Europe, provoke that town and county quarrel which renders always so difficult, and at this time so dangerous, the question of any large redistribution of seats. Having resolved that our measure should be moderate, we resolved that, as between party and party, it should be fair. But whenever you open that question of a wide redistribution, then on every ground of justice the counties will ask a larger pro-
  552
  portion of seats than they now possess. But grant that you put aside our pretensions; grant you get the kind of Reform Bill you require, and that this House is swayed and this country governed by a largo preponderance of great urban populations with a very low franchise. Sir, let us face that question fairly. It is one far more important than the party battle which the noble Lord's Amendment presents to the ardour of some, and forces on the distaste of many who support it. This question, namely, a preponderance of large urban constituencies with a very low franchise, has the deepest interest to us all as well-educated men anxious for the dignity of our councils and the continued power of the House of Commons. Pause for a moment. Reflect. What do you seek? What is your object? The increase of popular freedom? Be it so. Popular freedom is not secured by the machinery that returns representatives; its security is in the power the representative assembly will exercise over that highest class of minds which first guide and then consolidate the public opinion of a civilized state. That power must be intellectual, or it has no duration. That power all reforms must tend to increase, or they are worse than worthless. Fatal mistake, if in augmenting the constituency we lower the character of the assembly that represents it! From one end of Europe to the other freedom is strengthened or enfeebled not by the numbers which bear her into our Councils, but in proportion as, once installed amongst us, we preserve or endanger her attributes to confidence and respect. Well, then, the power and dignity of the House of Commons! That is the object, and all reforms are but as means to maintain it. Sir, first let us see what the House of Commons really is. It is not merely a popular assembly, it is a deliberative assembly. It arrogates inquiry and decides upon all the most complicated questions of policy both at home and abroad. It is this in which it strikingly differs from our free colonies, to which we may accord the most popular suffrage. A colonial legislature is little more than a vestry on a great scale. It docs not provide even for its own military defences. It does not touch upon foreign affairs. All those matters belong to the Imperial Government. It is this, too, in which the House of Commons differs from the popular Assembly of America. In that Assembly foreign affairs are seldom discussed, except when they relate to tariffs or the disposition

  553
  of public money. Foreign affairs belong by right to the Senate, when they escape from the select Committee of the Senate to which they are more habitually consigned. And the Senate itself, in discussing the ratification of treaties and public appointments, becomes an executive body, excludes reporters, and sits with closed doors. Even in in domestic matters the debates in the American popular Assembly never excite the same interest nor carry with them the same weight as the debates in the Senate do. The guiding intellect of America is in her oligarchial Senate, not in her popular Chamber. And why? Because the American House of Representatives is what you would make this House of Commons—so popular in its constituent elements—so brought down to the level of the masses—that even the masses have small respect for its wisdom; and it is to the Senate that the grand republic look for deliberate judgment upon the graver matters which involve its honour and affect its national interests. It is not so as yet in England. The brain and the heart of England are still in the House of Commons. The wisest of our people have still a paramount interest in our debates; the greatest potentates of Europe have still a reverence for our decisions. But once Americanize the House of Commons and you would lose more in the intellectual attributes that create your real power than you could obtain by all the popular vigour you could get through manhood suffrage and electoral districts. One reason for the moderation and dignity which pervade our councils is to be found in this—that we have not as yet, on the whole, lowered our suffrage beyond the fair standard of education which ought to be required from an English voter. I grant that in all the very large towns, oven under the present franchise, the suffrage is practically so low that democracy may be said to prevail. But it is the retention of those small boroughs where the franchise, though apparently the same, is really higher, which gives us that calm wisdom and fair intelligence which interposes, as the Member for Devonport has well said, between rival interests — between the agricultural classes on the one hand, and the great urban populations on the other, I do not say that this or any other argument would avail to save those smaller boroughs in proportion as the larger towns grow up in wealth and importance. But, in the meanwhile, you need not be in a hurry to get rid of a
  554
  machinery which adds to the power of this House by insuring the varied accomplishments of its Members and increasing the number of competitors for the Government of the country. This advantage I do not think is to be counterbalanced merely by transferring the seats taken from smaller boroughs either to counties or to towns already represented, and thus diminishing the number of Members who have nothing but the business of the State to think of. And I do fear, that whenever that transfer be effected, whenever the smaller boroughs wholly vanish out of our system, you will realize the same evil which America has long felt, which our free colonies, such as Canada and Australia, begin to feel already—namely, that when only very popular constituencies exist, Members become rather delegates than representatives; men of large property, of refined education, of independent character, decline to enter into political life, and the popular Assembly ceases to represent, what this House now does, the highest and noblest elements of the general community. Sir, in the curious correspondence between Mirabeau and the Count de la Marcke, in which the Count was engaged in obtaining Mirabeau's aid to save the monarchy, Mirabeau said (I forget his exact words, but they are to this effect): "You have adopted from aristocracy the most dangerous of its elements—namely, the influence of money; you have adopted from democracy the most fatal of its properties— namely, the influence of great towns over rural districts." Mirabeau was right. Of all aristocracies, that of money is at once the most corrupting to popular virtue, and the most timid in defending institutions. Of all democracies, that of great towns is most fickle in the choice of its favourites. Freedom has no surety in popular favourites; they may begin as the demagogue—they may end as the tyrant. Freedom has no enemy so fatal as the favourite, who may push its advancement one inch beyond the boundaries of order. Mirabeau was right. The monarchy went. What went with it? Did not liberty go? Monarchy, in one shape or other, was soon restored; monarchy reigns still. Has liberty been restored as well? What killed liberty? The democracy of large towns, and the terror which that democracy itself had of its own excesses. But democracy in France still exists—a democracy of universal suffrage and vote by ballot. Pardon me if I prefer the freedom of which this

  555
  House, with its tempered suffrage, is still the guardian — a freedom safe, because education controls and property does not fear it. Hon. Gentlemen ask, "Are you afraid of the working man?" Certainly not; we country gentlemen, by the nature of our pursuits, by the habits of our lives, are brought of necessity into an intercourse with the village workmen around us, more familiar, more friendly, than can well exist between the employer and the operative in great towns. We are not likely to fear the working man. And for my part, I am proud of the English workman, whether he he the simple village peasant, with his homely virtues, or that more agitated, but, amid all his faults, that noble human being, the skilled mechanic of our manufacturing towns, with his thirst for knowledge and his dreams of some polical Utopia, quite as rational as Plato himself had dreamed before him. But it is one thing to admire the individual, to respect the class he belongs to— one thing to devise modes by which every individual amongst it, who gives proof of intelligence by forethought for the morrow, or who by the investment of earnings, however modest, wins a stake in the preservation of order, shall come welcome and honoured into the franchise—and it is another thing to say that to that class you will entrust all the destinies of England. I would entrust the destinies of England to no single class whatever; but if you admit the working men, as a body, their numbers alone give them a large majority in every constituency, and thus all the education and property of the other classes must be borne down by that class in which education is of necessity the least diffused, and by which all the intricate laws that, if only through political economy, affect the interests of property must be the most imperfectly understood. And here, Sir, I do complain of the dangerous want of candour with which hon. Gentlemen opposite have made their appeal to the working class—the noble Lord the Member for London and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) both say that the fault of the Bill is that it does not admit the working class; they dwell on this objection; they inflame the working men with the belief that they shall come into the franchise not by threes and fours, but by hundreds and thousands, and then in the same breath they declare that they have no idea of admitting the numbers whose expecta-
  556
  tions they so cruelly excite. No, you do not admit the numbers, but you lay down the principle by which they must he either admitted or deceived. You would lower the suffrage on the express principle that it ought to include the working class. Does it do so by the mysterious franchise which the noble Lord would give, but declines to divulge? then the evil is accomplished. Does it not do so? then you have equally conceded the principle that must accomplish the evil; for the workmen excluded by the suffrage you restrict will never rest till they are admitted by the principle you allow. And I venture to predict, when you talk of our releasing the elements of democracy — and upon this subject I have heard some of the most deplorable rubbish that ever was talked by educated men — that whenever the noble Lord and the Member for Halifax bring forward their measure, and the workmen as a class find that they do not pour in their countless multitudes through the door, those gentlemen will keep ajar with a chain across it, there will be among them one cry of angry disappointment. But I maybe asked, "Would you never lower the borough franchise at all, or do you mean to say that the working class are to be everlastingly excluded?" To both these questions I answer, "I make no such assertion." With regard to the borough franchise, I can but place before you, in no hostile spirit, the reasons why I think you should pause before you insist on any great reduction; but I do say, it is your duty to tell us to what extent you would go. Show us the numbers below the present £10 constituency which your franchise would give, and then clearly ascertain whether your constituents desire you to swamp them. As to the future admission of the working class, I ask not the noble Lord to give us all the details of the Bill that he would propose; but I do say, that when a statesman so eminent invites the agitation of the working class against the measure proposed by the Queen's Government, he incurs to that working class a very solemn responsibility, and he owes it to them, he owes it to his country, to make clear whether that for which the working class are to agitate is or is not that which he is prepared to concede. For myself, I cannot but think that at heart I go farther than the noble Lord; I go farther than most of the great republican writers, ancient and modern: I go in theory as far as Mr. John Mill, and I

  557
  would not object to the widest possible suffrage, if you can effect a contrivance by which intelligence shall still prevail over numbers. If that be impossible, then, I say, at least, the first step towards anything that approaches to universal suffrage should be something that approaches to universal education. But this I repeat, that when you invite the agitation of the working class against this measure, you should not only toll us what you refuse from us, you should make it distinct and unequivocal what you would give, and then let the country decide between the two. Sir, Lord Plunket, in one of his great forensic speeches, said— "Time is represented with the hour-glass as well as the scythe." True, with the scythe he mows down—by the aid of the hour-glass he metes the duration of that which he intends to destroy—let me add to Lord Plunket's grand image—by the aid of the hour-glass Time also must reckon the moment for that which he designs to construct. You would borrow from Time the scythe; have you consulted his hour-glass? You would mow down this Government and this Reform Bill. Granted. Look at the hour-glass! What Government and what Reform Bill will you reconstruct? So far as this Government is concerned, I will not defend at this moment its alleged faults—I will not at this moment ask if it has had no merits; nor will I, even now, when Gentlemen opposite are arrayed against it, ungratefully forget the patriotic countenance it has received amidst its earlier but not its greater difficulties. All I would say is, our intentions in this Bill, amidst the general state of England and of Europe, are not such as to merit the censure of any high-minded Liberal. I grant the Bill is not one which Gentlemen below the gangway would give if it were their task to make one; but, so far as the Government is concerned, I ask those very Gentlemen, as men of honour, if Lord Derby's Government had passed a Bill according to your models, though you would have accepted the Bill, would you not have despised its authors? Should we not have been traitors to those we represent? We should have come into your camp, not as now, with a fair flag of truce and overtures of mutual compromise, but with standards trailed in the dust, and offering up the keys of every fortress which the loyalty of our partizans had confided to our charge. No! If a Reform Bill, such as you desire, must be carried, it is for you to propose
  558
  it; it is not for us. But, before you raise the scythe to mow us down, look again at the hour-glass! What is to be the next Government? Can it last if the Member for Birmingham and the noble Viscount, if the Member for Sheffield and the Member for London, do not sit on the same Treasury bench? Can it last if they do? In either case the sands in the hour-glass will be violently shaken. So much for this Government. One moment more to this Bill. It is said not to be final. No Reform Bill can be. The fault you allege is its merit. It is its merit if it meets some of the requirements of the day present, and does not give to-day what you may regret tomorrow that you cannot restore. Democracy is like the grave; it perpetually cries "Give, give," and like the grave, it never returns what it has once taken. But you live under a constitutional monarchy, which has all the vigour of health, all the energy of movement. Do not surrender to democracy, that which is not yet ripe for the grave. Gentlemen employ much sarcastic cavil in the dispute as to what is the main principle of this Bill. I say, as Lord Macaulay said, in the debate on the old Reform Bill, I care little for technical definitions on that score. I would not base the defence of this or of any Reform Bill upon an abstract dogma on which special pleaders may differ. I would take that which was our main object for the backbone and life-spring of the Bill. That main object, so admirably stated by my noble Friend the Secretary for India, was, irrespectively of party interests, to confirm and extend to the middle class the political power which, during the last twenty-seven years they have exercised, so as to render liberty progressive and institutions safe; but at the same time, to widen the franchise the middle-class now enjoys, so that it may include all belonging to the class who are now without a vote; and, instead of bringing the middle class franchise down to the level of the workmen, lift into that franchise, the artisan who may have risen above the daily necessities of the manual labourer by the exercise of economy and forethought. The Bill, therefore, I own it, is emphatically a Bill for the middle class. The cause is theirs: it is not the cause of the aristocrat; it is not the cause of the Conservative country Gentleman, who, of all parties concerned, now tenders the largest concession. The cause is that of the middle class, down to the verge at which the influence of that class

  559
  would melt away amidst the necessities of manual labour and the turbulence of concentred numbers. If they of the middle class like to abandon that cause, they abdicate their own power, and with it all which has hitherto made the resources of England unshaken amidst the vicissitudes of commerce and the calamities of war. If they honestly think the time has come when it is safe to accept the counter principle which you advance; namely, that political power should descend to the working class—not knowing, so far as I can judge by the language of popular meetings, where that principle, once adopted, can stop till it reaches manhood suffrage, then I say with the middle class the responsibility must rest. Meanwhile, you in this House will determine whether it is your duty thus abruptly to sign away the influence of that class of which you are still the representatives and trustees—whether you really secure the title-deeds of their commerce, and take solid guarantees for the safety of their old English freedom, by accepting an Amendment which commits you to a pledge to the working class—a pledge which you can never redeem to their satisfaction until you have placed capital and knowledge at the command of impatient poverty and uninstructed numbers.
  MR. BYNG MR. BYNG, whose first observations were lost, was understood to express his admiration of the eloquent speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, and the diffidence he felt in rising after him to offer some observations upon the Bill under discussion, and also upon the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for London. He did so as an independent county Member; and he firmly believed that the Bill of the Government was neither founded upon principles of justice nor of progressive liberality, and therefore it was not likely to meet with much support amongst the majority of the House or in the country at large. In his opinion Her Majesty's Government had missed a golden opportunity of settling a long-vexed question. But if they had adopted—not any fanciful scheme of symmetrical regularity—but somewhat of that policy with regard to the extension of the franchise in counties and boroughs, which was so well shadowed out the other evening by the two right hon. Gentlemen their late colleagues, he believed that the Government would have commanded and obtained not only the votes of their supporters, but of those who sat on the Opposition benches;
  560
  and he for one would certainly have supported them. He did not think it wise that this question of Parliamentary Reform should be roughly and perpetually banded about from party to party; and he should have been very glad to give his cordial support to any measure calculated to satisfy the country. But the present Bill was deficient in many essential particulars. On looking at the provisions, he was met at the outset with what he considered to be a fatal point, namely, the uniformity of the franchise. If they carried out that theory as applied to the borough and county franchise they must carry it out also as it regarded the places represented, and that would lead to electoral districts and equality of representation. On what principle had such a proposal been made to the House by a Conservative Government? Was the principle of uniformity sanctioned by those who, upon such a question, had the greatest weight in that House? The noble Lord the Member for London last night read the words of the Earl of Derby of five years ago condemning any Reform Bill which should contain such a principle —words so remarkable that he could add nothing to them. For himself, he admired the manly decision to which the two right hon. Gentlemen, recently Members of the Government, had come. He found in the Bill another new principle which he was unable to understand. That principle, if carried out, would involve the disqualification or disfranchisement of 100,000 of the borough freeholders, and such an extinction of the electoral right would not be either wise or politic. But such a step was either right or wrong. If it were right, why should the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) and afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer, promise the House a great modification of that scheme? If it were wrong—and he believed it to be wrong —why did not the noble Lord last night, the Secretary of State for India, or the right hon. Baronet this evening, the Secretary for the Colonies, tell them plainly that the Government had wholly relinquished that part of the scheme? He believed that last year, in the month of March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to an observation from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne) said that the Reform Bill to be introduced by the Government would not be a Bill destined to prop up any political party, or to uphold the interests of any particular class, but that it would be founded upon principles of general justice,

  561
  and he hoped it would give universal satisfaction. Now, as to the universal satisfaction, he (Mr. Byng) would pass that by—for if the present Bill had been framed upon principles of general justice, no doubt universal satisfaction would have followed. But when he found that South Staffordshire, South Lancashire, the West Riding, Worcestershire, West Kent, East Sussex, Surrey, and Middlesex, where the Liberal interest preponderated, would be the counties which would suffer the most, he could not but believe that the Bill had been deliberately planned as a counterbalance for the reduced franchise, and to give a "sop" to the country party. To the other qualifications, as the £60 in savings' banks and that respecting lodgers, he should offer no objection; but it would be a question in Committee whether the former qualification should not be reduced to a lower amount. But the Bill proposed to give the franchise to other classes of persons who certainly deserved to have it; but in all probability they possessed it already, such as graduates of the Universities, medical men, and certificated schoolmasters. There was another class who might fairly have been included in the Bill, and who had not the franchise at present. Great as were his objections to the disfranchisement of the borough freeholders, his objection to withholding the franchise from the intelligent and wealth-creating artizans of the country was greater. Then as to the dockyard artificers, he believed that class to be distinguished by intelligence and loyalty to an eminent degree; and what did the Government propose to do in their case? Why, while these men were employed in Her Majesty's dockyards, receiving pay from public works, and showing by their good be have our that they were entitled to the franchise, they were then to be disqualified; but the moment they loft their work and became idlers, then they might resume their electoral rights. So far, then, from enfranchising the working classes, the Bill really disfranchised a large and important clement among them. Then the House had been told that the reduction of the county occupation franchise to,£10 was a great improvement. He accepted it as such, but it was not the Government, but the hon. Member for Surrey that was to be thanked for that. It should, too, be remembered the House had sanctioned more than once that amendment of the electoral law, but the boon was now offered in such a shape as that there would be no
  562
  real safeguard against the creation of faggot votes, which might be manufactured to a very alarming extent. Then with regard to the boroughs, the franchise was not lowered, but a non-residential franchise was created, which would materially affect the interests of small boroughs by the introduction of voters having no particular connection with them. With respect to the re-distribution of seats, he thought that one of the greatest difficulties with which any Minister had to contend; but, so far as the Ministerial schedule went, he believed it was a good one, though individually he thought he had some cause to complain of the way in which Middlesex had been treated, for while Croydon, with from 15,000 to 20,000 in-habitants was made a Parliamentary borough, the large districts of Chelsea and Kensington, containing 66,000 and 56,000 inhabitants respectively, were entirely overlooked. If the Bill went into Committee, he trusted he should be able to obtain for these places their fair rights. There were three points in the Bill, namely, that which would provide greater facilities for registration, that for enabling the electors to vote with greater comfort to themselves by the increase of polling places, and that for making payment of travelling expenses illegal, which should have his support, because he believed they would assist in doing away with those largo expenses which now had to be borne by candidates. But here, again, he must observe, that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had already submitted a proposition with respect to the latter points, for which therefore the Ministers could not claim any credit on the score of originality. If he were told that these were matters of detail, and might be dealt with in Committee, be had then to consider whether he could vote for the second reading of the Bill. He deemed not only the details of the measure bad, but the principle vicious, and he wished, from the bottom of his heart that the second reading had been met with a direct negative. Then the question arose as to whether he could agree to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. He (Mr. Byng) felt he could, because that Amendment affirmed two things—principles in which he agreed, and in which he believed a large proportion of that House agreed— namely, that it was neither wise nor just to interfere with the constitutional rights of county voters, resident within the limits

  563
  of a Parliamentary borough, and that no Bill which did not contain a larger extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs would be acceptable either to the House or the country. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) last night, he (Mr. Byng) remembered reading once that, "To those who think, life is a comedy; but to those who feel, it is a tragedy;" and he believed that most of those who heard that speech would ad-admit that it was a caricature of the state of parties in that House, and though some might have laughed at the moment, thinking merely of party jealousies and private intrigues, there were others in the House who could not but have felt, considering how deep and solemn were the obligations of the House on such a question, that there was something of tragedy in those remarks. The right hon. Gentleman told that (the Opposition) side of the House that they were a disunited and disorganized body. Disunited and disorganized they may have been, but they were no longer so when they opposed a Bill faulty in principle and vicious in detail, and desired to affirm the Resolution brought forward and supported by the high authority of so old and consistent a Reformer as the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. The noble Lord the Secretary for India had told the House that the great middle classes of thi3 country had been the source of its greatness; but the noble Lord must surely have borne in mind through whose humble aid they had been enabled to accomplish that greatness. The right hon. Member for Stroud had drawn a gloomy picture of the working classes in a time of commercial distress, clamouring at the doors of that House for concessions. He hoped that picture would not be realized, but the best way to prevent its realization was to affirm the Resolution, which at least told the working classes that the House was not neglectful of their wants, and that those wants should be remedied in a just and temperate spirit. He believed there was a great difference between Americanizing our institutions and giving the working classes a fair share, and no more than a fair share, in their just rights; and he believed, if they affirmed that portion of the Amendment of the noble Lord, they would do more for the benefit of all classes than if they supported a Bill which he believed could never be carried in its present shape, and which, were it to be-
  564
  come the law of the land, would be only the signal for that very agitation out of doors towards which the right hon. Member for Stroud drew their attention. For these reasons, he should vote for the Amendment, and fearlessly, but he hoped honestly, were an opportunity offered him, against the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. J. H. PHILIPPSsaid, that in accordance with the reluctance he had always felt to affirm anything like an abstract Resolution, he should now vote, with a perfect confidence that he was voting rightly, against the Amendment of the noble Lord. The disfranchisement of freeholders in towns was much objected to; he did not think the proposition was the most judicious that could have been made, but the term "disfranchisement" was not appropriate to the case — the more proper term was a "transference." Let him cite his own case. He was himself one of those hundred thousand persons whose champion the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Dorsetshire professed to be, and they might think him very ungrateful when he said that as far as he was concerned he was not obliged for their advocacy. Although the greater part of his property was in Wales, he had a small freehold in the heart of the City of London, and he must say that of all the franchises and rights he possessed there was none upon which he set a lower value than the privilege of voting for the county of Middlesex. Certainly his interests, as far as London was concerned, were much more mixed up with the City than with the county, and if he had any grievance to complain of he would apply to the City Members rather than the representatives for the county; and, be sides, he thought that a farmer at Hendon or at Harrow might with justice complain of his vote being neutralized by that of a person coming from the City. Therefore, while he regretted that the Government had meddled with this subject, because it formed an admirable stone for the Opposition to pelt with, still the language used against it was of the most aggravated description, for, let hon. Members opposite say what they would, there was an enormous inequality between the representation of counties and towns. According to some Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) the rateable property in counties was £60,000,000 while the rateable property in towns was £40,000,000. The population in the counties was 11,000,000, the population in

  565
  towns 8,000,000; while the representation of the counties in proportion to towns was not one-half. He gave the hon. Member for Birmingham the advantage of stating that the income tax paid in towns was 58,000,000, while that paid in counties was 56,000,000; but putting the income tax and the rateable property together it still appeared that the larger amount of taxation was paid by the counties. He thought, therefore, when a measure was proposed which did not profess to redress the existing inequalities between boroughs and counties, it was not unreasonable for the county electors to say, "If the boroughs have so much larger a proportion of Members than we have, do not interfere with us in the exercise of our franchise, and not let the large towns send in to the counties freehold voters which will completely neutralize the franchise of the rural constituencies." He could not refrain from expressing his regret respecting one or two points in this Bill. In the first place he was of opinion that a Reform Bill ought not to have been brought in by a Conservative Government at all. He had always been of opinion that great measures were most safely carried by their original advocates. That they could with less suspicion of insincerity introduce the proper restrictions and limitations; while its original opponents, oven though they might have changed their views, were bettor employed in watching and, where necessary, in checking the action of its promoters, than in undertaking its conduct themselves; and he lamented that the present Government bad thought it right to deal with the question. Since they had taken it up, however, he could not avoid expressing his regret that it had not been thought advisable to connect the representation more with taxation than it was proposed to do. There might be a difficulty in persuading a man who lived in a house of £8 rent that he was less fit to exercise the franchise than his neighbour who lived in a =£10 house; but, in his opinion, there was nothing invidious in saying to every one that he must pay a certain tax before he was entitled to vote. He thought the most fitting tax for such a purpose was the house tax, and he was much surprised to find that only £700,000 was raised from that tax, the half of which was paid by London alone. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had used, in his good, homely Saxon, an expression which he had no doubt would
  566
  become classical—that if we drew an arbitrary line of exclusion he feared there would some day be an "ugly rush" across it. Now he (Mr. Philipps) could conceive no better means of preventing that "ugly rush" than to connect privilege with responsibility, and with some degree of sacrifice. If persons saw nothing but the unmixed good of the franchise, it could not be expected that they should deny themselves the advantage, but if they found that the rush was to be not merely into the pleasant pastures of privilege, but into the thorns and briars of taxation as well, depend upon it the "ugly rush" would be converted into a march as deliberate and solemn as if they moved to the strains of the Dead March in Saul. He might quote the opinions of a man who was at the head of the advanced Reformers of his day, Mr. Horne Tooke. He said,
  "Justice and policy require that a share in power, and contributions to power, should be proportionate to each other."
  But, instead of this, every day the gap between taxation and representation was becoming wider and wider, and how it was to be reduced he did not know. Reserving to himself then full liberty as to his future conduct, if the Bill should ever pass its second reading, he should vote against the Resolutions of the noble Lord, because they raised an issue which was neither generous nor just to persons who were not disposed to assent to them, and created a precedent that might prove very injurious in future to fair and free Parliamentary discussion.
  MR. FORSTERsaid, he should not have ventured to address the House were it not for the wrong interpretation which the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) had put upon the speech which he made to his constituents at Walsall. As to the degradation of being a "whip," he should leave to the hon. Member for Wells (Sir William Hayter) and the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin (Captain Taylor) to settle that between them; but he thought that the meaning of what he said was sufficiently clear to escape misrepresentation. He spoke of it being a matter of notoriety that there was a perfect agreement between the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Birmingham as to the manner in which the Government Bill should be met, and he added that they would both be found sailing in the same boat—by which he of course meant voting in the same lobby. When the noble Lord

  567
  the Member for Stamford so misrepresented him, he forgot to tell the House that the whole assembly held up their hands against the present measure. There was a matter to which, as a borough Member, he wished to draw attention. There was in Walsall, as there was in many other large towns, a freehold land society, through the agency of which small mechanics had been able to raise themselves to the rank of voters. These the Bill at first proposed to sweep off the county registry; and he thought the clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not at all remove the objection which he felt against these men being deprived of a right which they had purchassed for themselves, and fondly hoped they should transmit to their descendants. With regard to the option of voting in either a county or a borough constituency, he saw no justice in that, as it would enable men living miles away from the towns in which they held their freeholds, but which they were unconnected with either by residence or sympathy, to come in and swamp the voice of the residents. Of a piece with that was the proposal that the new borough limits should be settled by the Enclosure Commissioners; and with regard to the voting papers he looked upon them as an attempt to stave off the ballot. The only liberal feature of the measure was the £10 household franchise in counties; but so many were the objections on the face of the Bill that he thought the House would stultify itself by going into Committee on a measure with respect to which they would have to strike out everything and insert everything. With the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex he should have preferred giving his vote on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, but he should vote for the Resolution, as the Government would accept it as tantamount to a rejection of the Bill.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, the Resolution of the noble Lord placed Members in this curious predicament, that unless they explained their votes they could hardly vote either for or against the Resolution without exposing their opinions to misconstruction. He hoped, therefore, that the House would permit him shortly to express his opinion upon the Bill, and upon the general subject of reform. There were two points in it which especially concerned county Members, the 40 s. freeholders in towns and the £10 occupiers in counties. He agreed with the hon. Member for Haverford west (Mr. Philipps), that far too
  568
  much had been said on the subject of the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders. He was glad that existing claims were to be respected: but that being so there was one question he wanted to ask, to which, often as he had put it in private, he never got a satisfactory answer. On what principle was it that a person who lived in a certain place which they chose to call a borough was to be permitted, if he lived in one house, and had a separate property in the same place, to have one vote for the borough and another for the county; while another man, who lived in a place which they chose to call a county, though he lived in a large house and owned besides nearly the whole of the district, was only to be allowed one vole where the other had two? He saw neither justice nor expediency in this. There was another point. A person who occupied a £10 farm might be as fit to exercise the franchise as a person who occupied a £50 one, or he might be as well qualified as a person occupying a £10 house in a town. But this was not a question of the fitness of individuals. They must look to the general principle on which you were going to found the representation of the people. He assumed that on this point they were not to be guided by old party ties, or by the old cry of ins and outs, or by the question of what in each particular county or borough would give the representation to this or to that party. There were two principles on which they might found their representative system. They might, in the first place, establish it on the basis of property and of population combined. That principle had been most eloquently advocated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright); but he (Mr. B. Stanhope) felt persuaded that if it were enforced it could lead to only one result—namely, that property must eventually give way to mere numbers; and then results would inevitably follow from which the advocates of the principle would shrink with dismay. But there was another principle which might be adopted, and which had, he believed, up to the present time been acted upon in our representative system. He meant that principle which secured a fair representation of the various classes of which, independent of the great agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests, the community in which we live was composed. Now there were a number of small boroughs which, although they might seem to be an anomaly in our poli-

  569
  tical system, served as a medium through which members of the various classes to which he referred, but who were not included within either of those great interests which he mentioned, might hope to obtain a seat in that House which they could not otherwise procure. By means of the small boroughs, for instance, a man of talent might be returned to Parliament whoso chance with the larger constituencies would be extremely small. Those boroughs, therefore, had their use in providing for the representation of interests which would under other circumstances have no voice in the Legislature. Upon the principle then of providing for the adequate representation of the several classes in the country our legislators had hitherto proceeded, and he would ask hon. Members in what position we should be if we were to depart from that principle, and adopt that which was advocated by some hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters? He would say but a few words upon the merits of the Bill itself. He believed that it contained some very valuable provisions; and he approved in particular of the clauses which would give what were called the ''fancy franchises," and which would ensure votes at the elections of Members of that House to those persons who had shown by their prudence and their self-denial in making deposits in savings' banks that they were qualified to exercise such a privilege, and of that which gave the educational test under which men of respectability and worth who, because they did not happen to possess & certain amount of property, were excluded from the franchise would be admitted to its exercise. That could not be regarded otherwise, he thought, than as a good provision, which would enable the parochial schoolmasters throughout England to enjoy the privilege of a vote; these were men who occupied a very important provision and whom it was desirable to surround with every mark of public respect. But he had to confess with much pain that he could not approve of that proposed assimilation of the county and the borough franchises, which seemed to form the main feature in the measure; and that provision was, in his opinion, open to so many objections that he should find it impossible to support the second reading of the Bill. At the same time, he would be no party to any proceeding for getting rid of the measure by an Amendment of the indirect and equivocal character of that which had been brought forward by the noble Lord the
  570
  Member for London by a proceeding which had lately become too prevalent in that House. It was so general in its terms that he would defy anybody to tell what it meant; it was calculated to catch anybody, while it did not commit the person who ought to be responsible for it. What did an extension of the franchise mean? Did it mean a £9, an £8, or a £5 franchise; or household suffrage or universal suffrage? If the noble Lord and his followers objected to the principle of the Bill they ought boldly to move its rejection, and not endeavour to prevent its further progress by moving at that stage Amendments which might easily be introduced in Committee. He repeated that it was with great regret he should find himself unable to support the second reading of the Bill; and in the course he should feel it his duty to take upon the subject he would be influenced by no personal motives, but would act solely from a regard for the welfare of the country, and from a conviction of what was due to the honour and safety of the party to which he belonged.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that only two hon. Members who had spoken to-night on the Government side had expressed admiration of the Bill; but their praise was of that diluted kind which was generally supposed to carry with it rather more of condemnation than approval. The Opposition had been asked how they could vote against it when they did not know what measure was to succeed it. His answer to that was a plain one: the Bill was a bad one, and he should vote against it; and if the one that succeeded it was no better, he should treat it in the same way. They were told alternately that the Amendment meant nothing, and everything; that it was a dextrous and a clumsy move; that it would carry the noble Lord who had moved it to power, and that it would sink him to a still lower depth. He would say nothing as to what its effect would be in that direction; but this he would say, that the Resolution presented a clear and simple issue for the decision of the House. To his mind the two points involved in it were so important that they ought to be affirmed without delay; and even if the Bill were allowed to be read a second time it should only be done after an express declaration on the part of the House that the county franchise, as affecting the 40s. freeholders, should not be interfered with, and that the right of suffrage in towns should be extended further than was contemplated by the

  571
  Bill. Rather than be viewed in the light of a party move, the Amendment should be taken as an act of kindness towards the Government, because it afforded them a loophole to escape from the difficulties in which they had involved themselves by committing themselves to these two points. After the course pursued by them with respect to the India Bill, the property qualification of Members, and the admission of Jews into Parliament—after the very consistent manner in which they had turned their back on themselves since they had been in office, he thought it would be mistaken pride on their part if they did not avail themselves of this Amendment to avoid their present difficulty. It had been asked why property in a borough should confer a vote for the county. The reason was simple. A town was a component part of the county in which it was situated, and did not cease to be so because it constituted a Parliamentary borough. A certain portion of its inhabitants had therefore a right to throw their weight into the scale of the county elections. It was remarkable that a Conservative Government should propose to do away with the old constitutional distinction between the county and borough franchises. He knew not whether this part of the Bill sprang full-armed and equipped from the brain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 25th of January last, or whether it had undergone a longer period of gestation by the Cabinet. Certainly it was totally at variance with the principles which that right hon. Gentleman had laboured to impress on the bucolic mind at Newport Pagnell in 1857, when he said that no measure of Parliamentary Reform could be safe or satisfactory which extended the £10 franchise to counties, or which did not considerably increase the franchise in boroughs and cities. Now could it be said that this Bill was framed in the spirit of that opinion? It appeared to him that the ultimate object of the scheme was to draw a sharp line of distinction between town and country, so as to get as much as possible trade and manufactures on one side and agriculture on the other. It was of great importance, no doubt, that classes should be represented in Parliament, but the representation should not be direct, as the Bill proposed to make it, but indirect, as it had always been hitherto. At present the Members of the House represented localities, but this Bill would convert them into representatives of class interests
  572
  only; one would represent trade, another manufactures, another agriculture, and by that direct representation of classes the British Parliament would be lowered to the position of some of the "Estates" in Continental countries. Members would come to Parliament as the advocates of a single class, and the House would cease to be a national assembly representing the whole empire. It would be converted into an arena of strife between contending interests.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid that, with reference to his own feelings, and in justice to the petition which he presented yesterday, numerously signed by his friends and supporters at Windsor, he would rather not give a silent vote upon the present occasion. He had listened very attentively to the speech delivered by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, in the hope of hearing some justification of the very mischievous Amendment he had moved to this momentous national question, which Her Majesty's Ministers, evidently regarding it as a lapsed legacy bequeathed to them by past effete Governments, had had the manliness to take up and bring under the consideration of that House. He could not allow his better judgment to be entrapped by the noble Lord's specious arguments and plausible sophistries, for it struck him that the noble Lord, still smarting under the recollection of his unsuccessful efforts to pass a measure of Parliamentary reform in 1854, was now anxious to prevent his opponents, and more particularly a Conservative Government, from carrying one. What the House had to do, was to consider the propositions embodied in this Bill as a whole, and not to reject it, or withhold their consent to its going into Committee, simply because some of its provisions might be objectionable. Many hon. Members professing extreme Radical opinions, and over whom the noble Lord was so anxious to preside as their acknowledged leader, clung with the greatest tenacity to the long-cherished desire of arraying town against country, by transferring all political power! from education, wealth, and social position to the tender mercies of one class which had hitherto been represented by its rulers, its leaders, and its paymasters. These gentlemen would carry their injustice to such a degree as to destroy at one fell swoop eighty-six boroughs from among our rural market towns, coolly consigning to perdition 130 Members, without a chance

  573
  of political resurrection. Having disposed of them in this offensive manner, they would give 104 of our scats to the cities and towns, and only twenty-six to the counties, and thus not only effectually deprive the agricultural, rural, and territorial classes of all hope of being able to contend on fair terms against the influence of cities and towns, but destroy the existing balance of interests in that House, seriously weaken the Constitution, and remove the long-established landmarks of this great and glorious country. It was consolatory to find that this Bill avoided these fatal evils, for he had always wished to see this subject dealt with in conformity with the increasing requirements of the country and the spirit of the age. With reference to the apathy and listlessness throughout the country on this question, he ventured to say the public mind was totally opposed to any great, sweeping, democratic changes, and that all it desired was such a re-adjustment and moderate extension of the existing Parliamentary and electoral system as would render the House of Commons the full and fair representative of the advancing intelligence and property of the community. With regard to a sweeping disfranchisement of the small boroughs, as he was not prepared to admit that the representatives of the small boroughs were less intelligent or possessed less administrative abilities than the representatives of the monster boroughs, and as he considered that the provisions of this Bill were amply sufficient to enable them to act in harmony with the growing wants and intellectual enlightenment of the people, he should give his cordial support to the second reading of this Bill, and oppose the insidious Amendment of the noble Lord. He wished he could prevail upon the noble Lord at the eleventh hour to withdraw his Amendment, and no longer to allow this sacred question to be made the football, the shuttlecock of political strife, of party feeling, and of personal aggrandisement, but to consent to its going into Committee, substituting there such Amendments as he might deem necessary; and then he ventured to say the Reform Bill of 1859 would last as long as the Reform Bill of 1832— namely, for upwards of a quarter of a century; and when they were sent back to their constituents in the approaching autumn they would be enabled to say—
  "I was not the product of a day,
  But the well-seasoned fruit of wisp delay."
  Hon. Members might depend upon it this
  574
  was a better course to pursue than for the noble Lord to fall into the snare laid for him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, by postponing all legislation on the subject until after a dissolution of Parliament; for he could not and he would not believe the Earl of Derby would resign without availing himself of the great constitutional right of an appeal to the people. He would ask any sensible man which was the more advantageous course to pursue, that this great question should be settled by the calm deliberation, the wisdom, and the freedom from excitement and passion of the present assembly; or should be decided by a House of Commons red hot from the hustings, and when men's minds had been temporarily—for it would be only temporarily—lashed up into a state of frenzy by the wild appeals of unscrupulous agents and fiery demagogues. A return had been furnished to him by his friend Mr. Wright, the director of the Windsor and Eaton Savings' Bank, from which he found that the franchise would be extended to the depositors in that bank at the rate of 20 per cent. He had wished to draw attention to the defective, faulty, and costly machinery connected with the registration; and, lastly, he desired to point out the baneful influence exercised by the collectors of rates and taxes in counties, cities, and boroughs at the time of an election. He brought forward a clause last year to meet this evil, and, had it not been for that old worn-out cuckoo cry of being opposed to hit-by-bit or piecemeal reform, raised by some hon. Members opposite, he should have carried it. As it was, he was only defeated by a small majority of thirteen. He would add no more, but reserve any further observations until they got into Committee on the Bill, which he trusted would he the result of their deliberations.
  MR. F. CROSSLEYsaid, it had been stated that Bill after Bill had been introduced on this subject and withdrawn, and that the present was the only measure since 1832 that had been proposed for a second reading. Now, he thought it possible for the present measure to be read a second time, and even to pass into law, and yet leave the question unsettled. Who was it that called for Reform? Was it the higher or the middle classes? He thought not. It was that class who were left out of consideration in the Bill of 1832—the working classes. The noble Lord the Minister for India had said it was necessary to define who was a work-

  575
  ing man, and what was meant by "the working classes." It was allowed, he believed, that the hardest worked man in the country was the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Taunton defined the working classes to be those who received wages, and he said that one-eighth of his constituents were of that class. The Prime Minister received wages; but he was not considered to belong to the working classes. The servants of mercantile firms, who ran their own carriages, received wages, but they were not considered as of the working class. The working classes, then, were those who depend upon the labour of their own bands for their livelihood. Now that was the class which had been left out of the Bill of 1832; and this was the class left out of consideration in the Bill of 1850. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Sturt) had made a regular good speech against the Bill, he denounced it in every possible way; yet he stated he should vote for this bad Bill. The other hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer) also supported the Bill, but he said he would not give the working classes the franchise because they were ignorant, and he pointed as an instance to the case of the shoemakers in a certain district opposing the introduction of machinery. But he (Mr. Crossley) could point to a very different picture—one under his own observation. When the great Exhibition opened in 1851, the firm with which he was connected employed 700 men upon one particular kind of work by hand. Since that time the whole of that hand labour had gone out; and now, by the aid of steam power, one man was doing as much work as six men did in 1851. During this Revolution in that trade, what had those working men done? Had they opposed the introduction of the machinery? Had they broken it? On the contrary, they used every means to assist and promote its developement, for they understood the principles of political economy. They knew that in a limited country like this the way to succeed was to endeavour to make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before; that we must so develope our manufactures as to compete with the whole world, and if we could not surpass other nations, at least be sure not to be left behind them. He had stated on the introduction of the Bill that out of the 1,300 men in their employment, living in a Parliamentary borough, not one, who was not a foreman or something more
  576
  than an ordinary working man, had at the present time a vote for the borough, and that this Bill would not give it to them except by taking it from the county. Some of these men were 40 s. freeholders, and they would be disfranchised as to their votes for the county, though they would receive them for the borough. A good deal of stress had been laid upon the savings' hank clause as to what it would do for the working man; but he could not think that a working man with a family could afford to keep £60 in a savings' bank at a low rate of interest. It was dictating to him how he should deal with his savings. The man might be of opinion that he could use his money in a better way without putting the country to any expense for the country had lost millions by the payment of more interest upon deposits than it had made by those deposits. Besides this provision would open a loophole for abuse. A man of capital could easily deposit money in savings' banks in different names, and the pillars and posts would then vote as he wished. With regard to the franchise, he thought the Government would have done well to hare taken the advice of the two right hon. Gentleman who had seceded, and have reduced the borough franchise so as to admit working men, among whom he (Mr. Crossley) thought there was as much honour and integrity as among any other class in the country. Many hon. Gentlemen who yet entertained good feeling towards the working classes, but who had not had the same opportunity of judging of their deserts as he had, were afraid of trusting them, but their fears were groundless. They must admit that whatever ability a man might possess, and whatever plans he might form, he was dependent upon the willing arm of the working man to carry out his ideas, or they would fall like waste paper to the ground. Why then tell those people that they were an isolated class who should pay the taxes demanded of them? Why tell them when they asked to have a voice in deciding what was to be done with those taxes, that they wore too numerous a class to have a voice in the matter? If they were the most numerous class that was no argument for shutting them out altogether; why not admit a portion, if not the whole? He had been very much pleased with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had exhibited great industry in office, and great attention to business. He also approved of the mode in which they received gen-

  577
  tlemen who came to them from the country. They were quite alive to the interests of the country, and he was exceedingly sorry to be obliged to give a vote that would turn them out of office. He did not perceive that they had, on the opposition side of the House, men who were qualified to lead the Liberal party. Where were they on last Tuesday? They had been voting for twenty years to have church rates abolished; but where were the two noble Lords (Palmerston and Russell) on Tues-day, who should have been at their head? They had been leading their followers into the wrong lobby until they had not a follower left, and then they fled from the conflict. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, voted like an upright man, for the total and unqualified abolition of church rates, and he (Mr. Crossley) should have been very glad if the noble Lord had not got into such Conservative company. It did not require ten times seven years service to be a Prime Minister. He rather preferred to have a Prime Minister half that age. He would rather buy a horse with the work in him, than a horse which had had the work taken out of him. He was exceedingly sorry to give a vote to disturb the Government of the country, but he could not vote for the second reading of any Bill that did not, on the very face of it, admit the working classes.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, the most important clause in the Bill, that of giving the right of voting to the £10 occupiers in counties, resembles the gold and silver shield in the fable—it presented a totally different aspect when viewed from opposite sides of the House; for instance, when the noble Lord the Member for the City was in office in 1851, he resigned the post of First Minister of the Crown, because he was unable successfully to resist the introduction of that measure; yet in 1857, and again in 1858, when he was in opposition to the late and to the present Government, he strenuously supported the very measure he had before opposed. Then, again, the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton; in 1857 he made an able speech in opposition to that measure; yet in 1858, when he had crossed over the House, both spoke and voted for it, and the whole of the late Government, with a subordination or over unanimity which was wonderful, gave in one short year two diametrically different votes on precisely the same subject. He had no sort of objection to extension of the franchise to the £10 occupiers, as
  578
  was proposed by the Bill of the Government, for he thought them quite as intelligent a class of men as the £10 voters in boroughs; but he also held that you should not enlarge the county constituency unless you at the same time enlarged the county representation. The fact was that the counties had never yet had their fair share in the representation. With a population of 10,000,000 they were allotted 159 Members, while the boroughs, with 7,000,000, possessed 337 Members. It was, therefore, perfectly clear, that if you wish to be just you must take away 130 Members from the boroughs and transfer them to the counties. When this argument was brought forward in the preceding year, the noble Lord the Member for London met it by saying that the counties were compensated by the Members for the small boroughs, who might be looked upon as county Members; but he (Mr. Knightley) denied the soundness of that argument. What consolation would it be to the yeomen of South Devon, who complained of his infinitessimally small share in the representation, to be told that the Duke of Bedford returned two Members for Tavistock, and that he was represented by the nominees of that nobleman? Here was a constituency of 10,000 electors completely neutralized by the nominees of Tavistock and Totnes. It was bad enough that this should be done by Exeter, but in the case of the two nomination boroughs he had named it was positively monstrous. He was not prepared to go the length of the hon. Member for Birmingham in disfranchising these small boroughs; but still he thought that the schedule A of the Government Bill might have been considerably enlarged. Neither could he admit that numbers alone were to betaken as the basis of representation, but if they were, he was yet to learn why a certain number of individuals, simply because they were congregated within the limits of a borough, were to reckon for more than the same number scattered over the more extended area of a county. But whether they took population or property, or the number of inhabited houses, it was perfectly clear that the counties were entitled to a greater number of Members than the boroughs. The hon. Member for Birmingham was quite aware of this, and attempted to wriggle out of the difficulty, by saying that the counties were represented by the House of Lords. Why, he (Mr. Knightley) might as well say that the

  579
  boroughs ought not to have so many Members because they were represented by the Queen. The statement would not be a bit more illogical in the one case than in the other, nor would it exhibit a more utter ignorance of the first fundamental principles of the British Constitution. He trusted that the hon. Member would not consider what he had just said discourteous, seeing that he had himself frequently admitted that he had never seen the British Constitution, and did not know where to find it. As for the Resolution of the noble Lord, he understood the noble Lord's wish to be that the borough freeholds should remain untouched. But what was the present state of the law in this respect, and how did it operate? If a man in a borough had two small houses, worth £12 a year, he had out of them two votes, one for the county and one for the borough; while another man, his neighbour, might be worth £1,000 a year, and have only one. This arrangement operated heavily against the country interest. Take Middlesex for instance. In that county out of 14,000 electors, 8,000, or more than one-half, voted for property within represented boroughs. In Lancashire, out of 20,000, 12,000 held similar qualifications. It was, therefore, quite obvious that in those counties, the towns, as well as their own Members, returned also the Members for the county. He did not mean to say that Manchester, and Liverpool were not entitled to more Members—he thought they were—but that formed no reason why the suburban population of Middlesex and of Lancashire should be deprived, as they now were, virtually wholly deprived of any share whatever in the representation of the country. But the noble Lord the Member for London was perfectly shocked at the idea of overturning a franchise which dated back to the time of Henry VI., as if that argument would not apply to all attempts at reform. Why, that was the argument used by Sir Charles Wetherall against extinguishing Gatton and Old Sarum, but certainly he had never expected to hear it from the noble Lord, more especially as the disfranchisement now objected to was only what the noble Lord himself proposed to do when he introduced his first Reform Bill in 1831. The noble Lord then said:—
  "I have only one tiling more to say with regard to there presentation of England. In all those new towns to which we propose to give the right of sending Members to Parliament, all persons who are by their property entitled to vote, are to be
  580
  excluded from the right to vote for the representatives of the county by virtue of the same property. At the same time, that the towns will have themselves a proper share in the representation, we do not intend that they shall interfere with the representation of the counties. It is not intended to interfere with the franchise of those freeholders who are at present entitled to vote."—[3 Hansard, ii., p. 1076.]
  In support of the same argument, he could quote the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who following up the argument of the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, said:—
  "The plan proposed went to restore to the landed interest that influence which he thought indispensable to the safety and the prosperity of the country, by giving fifty-five Members to the counties —and still further, by conferring votes on copyholders, and not permitting those who had votes for towns to enjoy the same privilege in counties. He looked, indeed, on the increase of the Members for counties as the surest and most stable basis of representation; for, without meaning to disparage the manufacturing or commercial interests, he must say that he considered the soil to be the country itself."—[3 Hansard, ii., p. 1329.]
  With regard to the proposition of the noble Lord for extending the franchise amongst the working classes, the hon. Member who had just sat down urged it on the grounds that they were not generally addicted to the breaking of machinery. That might be true, but the right hon. Gentleman below him the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) knew that the breaking of heads was a pastime which they sometimes indulged in. However, that branch of the subject had been so completely exhausted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, that he should not further detain the House by discussing it. He should only say— "If you recognize the right of labour in the towns, by what parity of reasoning do you ignore it in the counties?" He observed, that the noble Lord the Member for London, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, between whom there existed such a community of opinion on every subject, both agreed in placing the county franchise at £10, but the latter proposed that in boroughs it was to be reduced to a rating, or what was, in fact, an universal suffrage. Upon what principle of justice or expediency could they refuse to the counties the privileges which they gave the towns? Did they mean to say that the working classes of the counties were persons of less intelligence than those of the towns? Upon this point he would quote a few lines from the work of one who was the highest possible authority on the other

  581
  side—he meant that great political economist and father of free trade, Adam Smith. Adam Smith said, that next to the liberal arts, there was no trade which required greater intelligence or experience than that of farming. ["Hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite were sacrilegiously scoffing at the Bible of the free traders. Adam Smith went on to say, "How much the lower ranks in the country were superior to those in towns was well known to every one whose business or pleasure made him conversant with both." To refuse the working classes in rural districts, therefore, any privileges which were enjoyed by their brethren in the boroughs, would be an injustice so gross and so monstrous, that if it were perpetrated it would, ere long, lead to that "ugly rush" which had been prophesied by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire. Under these circumstances he (Mr. Knightley) should support the second reading of the Bill, though he would frankly own that the Bill was not at present in a form of which he could wholly approve.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT:—I am almost lost, Sir, in the speeches which I have heard from the different sides of this House during this discussion. If one were blinded it would be difficult to imagine that the orations which have been delivered from that (the Ministerial) side of the House had not been spoken on this side, or vice versâ. I do not go the length of some of my Conservative friends. I am not prepared for electoral districts. I am not ready to argue the whole question of the representation upon the numerical calculation of aliquot quantities. I listened, as every one must have listened, with admiration and delight to the speech which was delivered by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies; but in the midst of that splendid declamation—I use the term in no hostile sense, for no man who heard the speech could fail to be impressed by it—I listened in vain for words from which I could derive some comfort— some indication of a course on the part of the Government which might afford facilities to those who are bound to no party objects for extraction from those difficulties in which we find ourselves. The right hon. Baronet spoke to us of what might be done in Committee. He said, "Why do you move Resolutions? Why should any one even vote against the second reading of the Bill?" He said, "There are questions of savings' bank value—£50 or £60. Prove your case. It is a question
  582
  for Committee. There are other questions as to the franchise—for instance, as to lodgers, whether so many shillings be too much or too little. Prove your case. It is a question for Committee. Do you prefer or do you dislike the system of voting by voting papers or that of voting openly at the hustings? Prove your case. It is a subject for Committee." Well, of course, these are subjects for Committee. Nobody questions that. You may entertain any opinions you like upon them and the alteration of a few words in Committee—the negativing of a clause or of half a clause— will meet the objections of those who are dissatisfied. But there are other principles in the Bill of which the right hon. Baronet made no mention. We are asked to vote for this Bill under very peculiar circumstances. We object to the principle upon which the measure is constructed. The Government told us one night, "We are going to make a change in a principle which appears to cause dissatisfaction on the part of some hon. Members." The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Stanley) told us—"There is an error and an oversight; we mean to save vested interests in the ease of freeholders in boroughs." I am not disposed to admit that there is any case of vested interests with regard to that particular franchise. It is something higher than an interest; it is a right. But the noble Lord says it is an omission; he regrets it; it is to be remedied in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announces the remedy, which he says is in no respect to militate against the principle of the Bill, and the principle of the Bill is—"We disfranchise no man. We disqualify some. We disfranchise no place. The principle of this Bill is uniformity of the franchise." The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India told us that the Amendment of the noble Member for the City (Lord John Russell), if it were carried, would be fatal to the Bill. What is fatal to the Bill? Is it that part of the Amendment with regard to the freeholders which was accidentally omitted, and which is supplied most sagaciously by the hon. Member for Somersetshire—for all county Members are not such as were described last night by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire? Is it the second part of the noble Lord's Resolution that is fatal to the Bill? We cannot tell. If it be, then it is true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that uniformity is the principle of the Bill, and that anything that touches

  583
  that uniformity is fatal. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that "it will be open to any hon. Gentleman to move amendments in Committee. I hope the Government will not be debarred from pursuing the same course." In one sentence we are invited into Committee; in another we are repelled from Committee if we hold opinions against the principle of uniformity of the suffrage. I want to get at the real facts and merits of this ease, and not to enter into minute discussions upon questions as to what differences of opinion exist upon either side of this House. I do not deny that there are differences. I think the best policy is to speak out and to tell the truth upon these points. There is the greatest difference of opinion upon almost every question upon this (the Opposition) side of the House. Let us face our difficulties. Let us see what we can do and what we cannot. Looking to the benches on this side I see differences upon church rates, differences upon the ballot, differences upon disfranchisement, differences as to the advisability of an extensive democratic change. I admit these differences fairly. But are these differences confined to this side of the House? I look to the other side. What do I see there? Differences upon church rates, differences upon the ballot, differences upon the disfranchisement of boroughs. ["No, no!"] To which is objection made? ["The ballot!"] The ballot! Is it in this House only that these differences exist? Are there not differences upon these questions in the Cabinet? I really do not wish to say this in any hostile sense. I want to show you that it is useless to bandy accusations about differences of opinion. The other night I heard the noble Member for North Leicestershire (Lord J. Manners) make a strong appeal, calling upon this House and the Government to resist the Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) for the abolition of church rates. Many Members of the Government supported the noble Lord's views; but the noble Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) voted—as he had done before—in opposition to the appeal of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire. I believe the noble Member for King's Lynn never conceals his opinions. I believe he entertains an opinion in favour of the ballot. ["No, no!"] Am I wrong? My authority may be slender. I will tell you what it is. I read in the winter an invitation to the noble Lord to attend a dinner of the
  584
  friends of the cause of the ballot to celebrate, I think the arrival of some person from Australia; and my noble Friend sent a very polite answer, but an answer which speaking of a prior engagement, and so forth—did not imply to my mind that he had any very strong objection to the ballot. I must say that a refusal couched in these terms does not usually imply any rooted aversion on principle to accept the proffered hospitality. I take it that if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdogate) were invited by Cardinal Wiseman to attend the celebration of high mass he would couch his refusal in terms somewhat stronger than that he "regretted a prior engagement prevented him from accepting the invitation." I hope we shall be enabled to arrive at something like a sound conclusion before long, as to what is really the meaning of the Government with respect, not to the Resolution of the noble Lord, which they look upon as a hostile attack on the Treasury Bench, but upon the two principles contained in it—principles upon which not only great numbers of far more important persons than myself on this side of the House, but upon which I will venture to say that no small proportion of Gentlemen opposite sitting below the gangway, entertain opinions identical with those which I now express. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies says that the Government stands as a shield, as the only bulwark, between the constitution of the country and those extreme demagogic adventurers who meet in Hyde. Park, and who are for annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, equal electoral districts, and vote by ballot. Well, if that wore true—though, fortunately, it is not—I confess I should look with great alarm upon the prospect which awaited our institutions. But is the fact so? The right hon. Baronet made a speech—perhaps one of the most eloquent that I ever heard—in defence of our mixed institutions, our limited monarchy, our tempered liberty. But in listening to it one would have said, "This is a defence of a Bill which makes no invasion on the constitution, which starts for the first time no new principles, but which gives a firm adherence to that which we have hitherto preserved." Now, I wish the House to listen for a short time while I ask this question. We are a mixed body in this House to an extent that I never knew before. The noble Lord the Secretary for India says that the Go-

  585
  vernment is in a minority, party Government is a thing of the past, the House is divided into sections, and Ministries must for the future depend not upon the organized machinery of party, but upon the measures which they may submit; if good, he adds, those measures will be carried; if bad they will fail; but all must be tentative, and all that Ministries can henceforth rely upon is a clear insight into the wishes of the people, and of the House which represents the people. Now, I confess I have come to very much the same conclusion myself. I believe the old system of party Government to be pretty well at at end. The change of policy which it will entail will be a very difficult one. It will require in the Minister who is leader in this House all the tact, all the ability, which I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer displays in the leadership of the House. But the phase through which we shall have to pass will be a very difficult and a very dangerous one, and Governments will be unwise who refuse to listen to the voice of large numbers in this House, bound together by no party ties, who try to lead them in the direction in which they believe that the safety of the country lies. Recollect that when you speak of differences upon this side of the House, and use this as a taunt against those who support my noble Friend, not only do I admit the existence of differences, but I urge them upon you as the very reason why you should listen to our representations. If this were to be a party division, a mere proposal to turn out the Government, I say frankly that I should greatly regret to see such a change. I notice a laugh on the face of two Gentlemen sitting opposite, who, I presume, doubt my sincerity. I can truly say, however, that the outward appearance of office conducted under present circumstances has very little temptation for me; and I hope that those Gentlemen will also believe that men can be animated by some higher motives than by love of place, I can assure them that I should be the last person to impute to the Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury bench that, in bringing forward this measure, they are animated by any undue wish to retain office; and I trust they will do me and other Gentlemen who sit near me the same justice, and will believe that in discussing this grave and weighty question we feel there is something more important than the mere transfer of parties from one bench to
  586
  another. Now, what is it we want on the subject of Reform, and what is it we do not want? If we can ascertain these things, the question then comes—What is the best way of attaining the object we have in view? Speaking generally, we want, I apprehend, an extension of the county franchise, and we want an extension of the borough franchise. From what has this cry for Reform arisen? The right hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton) says that men whisper to one another, "We must have reform; but who wants it?" I hope that sentiment has not pervaded the bench which is producing the Reform Bill. I want reform, and I will tell the right hon. Baronet why. During five or six years I have seen this question used in a manner which I think does not tend to the stability of our institutions. I think that, coming into office, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not only justified, but were compelled to produce a measure upon this subject. At the same time I cannot conceal from myself the inconvenience of having a question of organic change in the hands of Gentlemen who are traditionally opposed to it, while those who would naturally advocate such a change are in opposition. The proper and natural course of events—the course most for the benefit of the country—would have been that the Whig party should have brought in a Reform Bill, that there should have been no bidding against them for extreme support by those who are professedly Conservative; but that the Conservatives, acting as an Opposition, should have checked, and possibly have modified the measure. As matters stand, however, be the Bill as just as possible, it becomes a political necessity on the part of those who are now in Opposition to outbid Gentlemen in office. We have lost the value of an Opposition in the sense in which an Opposition should exist, and we have lost the value of a Government in the sense in which a Government should exist. But, at the same time, I admit that circumstances are stronger than us. We have to discuss a Reform Bill proposed by Gentlemen opposite, and I say again, frankly, I shall in no way blame them for undertaking the task. But now you say, "We have met your wishes with regard to the county franchise." Well, you have met our wishes on that subject; but I confess I do not know what has actuated the right hon. Gentleman in adopting the measure of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Locke

  587
  King). What has been the history of the county franchise question in this House? A great deal of misunderstanding has prevailed on this point. It has been said that the Government adopted the measure because it had been carried over and over again by Mr. Locke King, because the House of Commons had virtually settled it, and the Government had no option left them. Is that the case? The first year in which the hon. Member proposed a Bill to assimilate the county to the borough franchise it was carried. My noble Friend the Member for London (Lord John Russell) was at that time Prime Minister. It was a small and a snapped division; only 152 Members in the House, and there was a majority of 48 or 50. The noble Lord took that as an indication of revolt among those who sat behind him, and he resigned. But then the hon. Member for East Surrey brought forward the question again in 1852, his Bill having the same object and the same title. What was its reception? It was thrown out by a majority of fifty-three, the numbers being 202 to 149. During the war the hon. Member very properly abstained from reproducing his Motion; but in 1857 there was again a Bill to assimilate the county and borough franchises. On that occasion, it was opposed by the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) who objected to it on the point of identity of suffrage, and said that it would lead to equal electoral districts. It was also ably argued against by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli). I do not mention this by way of an attack upon his consistency, because upon this subject since it has been in this House we have most of us considerably modified our opinions. Nevertheless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a great many excellent things against identity of franchise, and almost the only thing in which he was wrong was in saying that it was quite impossible he should ever bring in a Bill of that description. What happened in the following year? I may remark, although it may seem presumptuous to quote myself, that in that debate I took the same objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and said that the great fault we now found with the authors of the Reform Bill of 1832 was that they had brought us nearer to uniformity of suffrage, and that society not being uniform, uniform suffrage could never represent its varied state. In the following year, so little was the con-
  588
  fidence of the hon. Member in the reception of his proposal, that being a keen observer of the feeling of the House on the question he actually altered his Bill. The first was, as I have stated, a Bill which proposed to make the franchise in town and country identical; that of which I am now speaking bore the new and vaguer title of "a Bill to amend the Franchise in Counties," and had a blank left which was to be filled up by a certain sum to be decided upon in Committee. Well, my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton when it was introduced said, as he had done the year before when he alluded to the qualification of £20 for a juror as being the proper minimum to fix for the franchise in counties, that he should vote for the second reading of the Bill under its new title, and that he should move in Committee the insertion of a higher franchise. But what did the hon. Member for East Surrey do? It was not late in the Session. It was early in June. He never moved the committal of the Bill, because he knew from the temper which had been evinced by the House on the second reading he could never carry his proposal for a,£10 suffrage. I mention these circumstances because I wish to ascertain why it was that the Government have assented to the adoption of a £10 franchise. They did not do so in deference to the will of this House. It must have been, then, with a view of securing that uniformity upon which the whole principle of their measure is said to be based. I have said that the object of this House is to arrive at a franchise moderately extended in boroughs and largely extended in counties. Those who are for extending the suffrage in boroughs have been described to-night by a high authority as "demagogic adventurers." For my part, I should desire no better thing than to see a Bill framed on the basis laid down by those two "demagogic adventurers" the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. I dispute the merits of the principle of uniformity put forward as it has been this evening as the great safeguard against an indefinite extension of the suffrage. I altogether deny that it gives you any sound resting place from which to defend yourselves against extreme legislation on the subject. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies says that, if once you adopt this magic £10 to which he brings down the county

  589
  franchise, maintaining the franchise in the towns at its present rate, you are safe from all those dangers which attend any attempt to Americanize our institutions. But where, let me ask, does this uniformity of suffrage come from? Is it not itself a product of foreign importation? Those, the right hon. Baronet contends, who oppose identity of suffrage are clever men, but he never heard such "deplorable rubbish" talked as was talked by clever men. But who, let me ask, are they who talk this "deplorable rubbish." Rubbish, though it may be, it has been the language of the constitution for the last 400 years. It is the language which has been used by the ablest of our statesmen, by the most far-seeing of our philosophers, by the most public-spirited of the citizens which this land of freedom has produced. Rubbish indeed! I must say when I heard the words, that the reflection which occurred to me was that in the interchange of sentiments and opinions in the Cabinet that borrowed phrase must be attributed to my noble Friend the Secretary for India, because the noble Lord has not that traditionary respect for the English constitution by which the right hon. Baronet may be supposed to be distinguished. The mind of my noble Friend is less poetical and more philosophic. He reduces things within the crucible of his reason, whence, no doubt, he drew last evening the argument that the theory of variety which is the theory of the British Constitution, was open to objection, while upon that of uniformity the utmost reliance was to be placed. But, be that as it may, the theory of variety appears to me to have been the immemorial practice of the English constitution, while the opposite theory is one which is now for the first time laid before the country for its adoption, after a few weeks of deliberation. Now, I do not stand here to speak the sentiments of hon. Gentlemen near me (Mr. Bright and others.) God forbid I should attempt to do so. I respect them for their honesty and I admire the ability with which they advocate the particular opinions which they entertain; I trust, therefore, they will not suppose that I mean to offer them any offence in speaking plainly my mind. I am no democratic Reformer. What I want is a measure of Reform which will give us stability. I seek for a measure, not framed, as my noble Friend the Secretary for India said last night this was framed, to pass. I want a Bill that will
  590
  last. I have no sympathy—I say it frankly —with the sentiments expressed here; neither have I any sympathy with the measure which has been introduced there (the Treasury Bench). I occupy a middle position — a position which I believe is occupied by the great mass of the people of this country, who are attached to our ancient institutions, who look upon them as sacred traditions handed down to them from their ancestors, and which it is their duty to maintain inviolate. Enlarge them if you like; improve them if you can; but still keep them unimpaired in their vitality. Such would be my policy; and, entertaining those opinions, I cannot refrain from speaking them frankly, notwithstanding that their expression might give to some hon. Gentlemen temporary offence. Does, then, this Bill, with its principle of uniformity, meet the requirements which I have specified? For my own part, I must confess that looking beyond the morrow and into the future I regard it with the greatest alarm. It sacrifices everything to uniformity, a principle which is unknown to our constitution. It may, for aught I know, have been plucked from one of the pigeon-holes of Abbé Sieyés, who could manufacture constitutions faster than one could write down his plans upon paper. On what principle does it disfranchise the freeholders within boroughs? My noble Friend the Secretary for India has got a complete answer to his question. He says it does no such thing—that in the case in which a man has one vote he does not lose it at all; it is merely transferred from the counties to the boroughs. Then he went on to contend that a vote is of greater value to a man who exercises the franchise in a constituency of 500 than if be were to form one of a constituency of 5,000 persons. I hope the noble Lord did not mean that the vote would get a larger price for it. "After all," said the noble Lord, "what is the difference between voting for a town and voting for a county?" But the noble Lord is mistaken if he imagines there exists no preference in favour of a vote for the county as compared with one for a borough. My experience leads me to directly the opposite conclusion upon the point from that at which the noble Lord seems to have arrived. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, with that oratorical skill which he possesses in so high a degree, never alluded to the (disfranchisment of those freeholders in boroughs. He discussed the second part

  591
  of the Resolution without having touched upon the first. He knew better. I take occasion to point out the circumstance to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. G. H. Sturt), and thus to prove to him that the county Members were not deficient in sagacity, as he seemed to think them last night. But to return to the argument of the noble Lord the Secretary for India. He contends that if you give the freeholders in boroughs who now have a vote for the county, a vote for the borough, they will be satisfied. Now my experience of that class of men leads me to think that of all classes of voters they are the most independent. An observation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), that while the 40 s. freeholders were the most independent of voters for the counties they would be the most dependent for the towns excited a laugh; but the reason of what the hon. Gentleman stated is plain. The employer of the 40 s. freeholder has generally a vote for the borough and not for the county. His vanity, or what may be called his amour propre, is involved in carrying the man of his choice in his borough, and he naturally does his best to induce his servants and work-people to vote for him. But he has no concern with the county election, and therefore he says to his men, "Oh, as to the county do as you like." And they do as they like. There is moreover implanted in the heart of this class of men, a strong desire to posess land. He is proud of such possession, and be says to himself, "There is the Duke of Devonshire (or some other noble Lord) an owner of land, and so am I." There is then something in the freehold franchise that elevates the voter above the mere occupiers, and that elevating influence ought not to be lost sight of, and I cannot therefore agree with my noble Friend that the Bill will not operate unfavourably in his regard. But my noble Friend reserved his most extraordinary argument upon this point for the last. He says, it will in the future greatly facilitate the extinction, one by one, of the small boroughs. I ask the hon Gentleman opposite if that is the object to which the Bill is directed. The right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) did not speak so of the small boroughs; he spoke of them with great respect; he says, with perfect truth that they stand between the counties and the great towns, and preserve an advantageous equilibrium, and send to the House
  592
  men of education, independence, and business habits. I have examined a return made in 1854 of the population of the represented and unrepresented boroughs of the kingdom. Now, it was urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and with great ability, that if you once alloted representation according to numbers, the representation of London would equal the representation of all Scotland; and at the statement a shudder ran through this assembly, marked of course, with the deepest respect for the Metropolitan Members. I recollect, too, that when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) moved the Reform Bill of 1852, he said, on the whole, and looking at this House, he did not think it advisable to increase the number of the metropolitan Members. That announcement was received with loud cheers. I never heard a proposal more popular— not that the House has any disrespect for the metropolitan Members, for there are among them men as cultivated and as intellectual as any in this House. It was not then out of any objection to these hon. Gentlemen, but because the House dislikes the principle of numbers being made the basis of representation; and it also recollects this, that the metropolitan Members, if ever they do agree, it is invariably on some question of the payment of rates, on which they always unite against the payment. Now for the Return. The Return of 1854 states that there are 16 borough constituencies with above 100,000 inhabitants; 17 with between 50,000 and 100,000; and there is not a single borough of that size unrepresented. There are 51 boroughs with between 16,000 and 50,000 inhabitants; there are no boroughs of that size unrepresented, and everyone of these boroughs represents itself alone, and, virtually, no other in the country. There are 46 boroughs with between 8,000 and 16,000 inhabitants; and there are 29 towns of the same size un-represented; lastly, there are 55 boroughs with between 2,000 and 8,000 inhabit- ants; and do these represent themselves or something else? Why, there are 232 towns of the same population which are not represented. All these boroughs have the same kind of society; they are formed on the same principles, and have the same hopes, feelings, and prejudices. Now, I wish to ask, does not the constitution of these small boroughs give them some claim to be preserved? They stand on an argument strong in this House though not out

  593
  of it. The privilege they enjoy is indisputable; they enjoy the privilege of sending to this House men of moderate opinions and cultivated minds, who make politics, not a trade, but a profession; who train themselves, from their first appearance in Parliament, to habits of business; and acquire a knowledge of public affairs, and that tact so necessary in a public assembly like this; they thus constitute men who are looked to when Governments fall, or Oppositions want leaders. If these men by any summary disfranchisement of the small boroughs were withdrawn from the service of the country, it would be very detrimental to our future welfare. But I must do justice to Her Majesty's Government in one respect—I think they have broken the spell of disfranchisement. These small towns, after all, have been of enormous use to this House. What is the object of representative Government? Does it mean the selection of the best men for the Great Council of the nation, or is the object that largo numbers must be gratified by the possession of votes and the sense of citizenship? Elections, and hustings, and polls are necessary to our constitution, but they are only to be considered as the means of obtaining a certain result; they are not the end itself. The first end is to bring the best men into this House; the second, the importance of which I do not undervalue, is, that the mass of the population should have the sense of contributing to the common welfare. But we must not sacrifice the first principle to the second; we may reconcile both, and yet extend the suffrage; this is what I want the Government to do. What I complain of is, that the Bill only affects one object and ignores all the rest. What is this principle of uniformity of the franchise? It is new. By what is it recommended? By symmetry. But is any man in this House so sanguine or so blind as to believe that after the lapse of a few years you will be able to maintain the borough franchise at £10? Then the same turn of the screw that brings down the county franchise will bring down the other. I wish to read a passage from the writings of one of those clever men who have "talked rubbish about the constitution;" it is worth reading; it is a passage from Sir James Mackintosh on universal suffrage. He says: —
  "A variety of rights of suffrage is the first principle of the English representation, … An uniform qualification, in short, must be so high as to exclude true popular election, or so low as to
  594
  be liable to most of the objections which we shall presently offer against universal suffrage. It seems difficult to conceive how it could be so adjusted as not either to impair the spirit of liberty or to expose the quiet of society to continual hazard. Let the reader seriously reflect how all the sorts of men who are necessary component parts of a good House of Commons could on any other scheme find their way to it. We have already sufficiently animadverted on the mischief of excluding popular leaders. Would there be no mischief in excluding those important classes of men whose character unfits them for success in a canvass, or whose fortune may be unequal to the expense of a contest? A representative assembly elected by a low uniform qualification would fluctuate between country gentlemen and demagogues.
  And those who stand between these two extremes will be swept away. When it comes to a conflict between them on opposite sides of the House, which will ultimately prevail? Will it be the more inert body, possessing good and great qualities, that contribute to the stability of the State, or those active and energetic men who would soon overbear all the qualities and virtues of the country gentlemen? I am a country gentleman myself, and en whichever side of the House I sit I shall consider the due representation of the land is necessary to the welfare of the State. I look with horror at such a division of classes as shall divide this House into Members for Birmingham on one side and Members say for Warwickshire on the other. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) is, perhaps, the best instance I could cite, from his capacity, his eloquence, and also from his want of traditional respect for the constitution that has existed for ages. I impute no blame to him for it; if he believes in his own views he has a right to advocate them. But they are opinions opposed to those of the more inert mass who are contented with our well-being, but who cannot make the same efforts in defence as their opponents can as assailants; and from the moment the country gentlemen are pitted against the demagogues, from that moment the constitution is overthrown. It is difficult to specify the differences between classes in this House, or in the country. But at any rate on neither side are the divisions coterminous in religion, property, education, or feeling; and you have a large number of men whose influence and power enable them to mediate between parties, and alleviate the bitterness of party disputes. Having expressed my objections to the system of uniformity of the franchise, I hope the House will allow me to touch on

  595
  another question of great importance in this discussion. Many Gentlemen agree with the opinions I have endeavoured, however feebly, to express. But it is said that there is something in the position of parties in this House which makes it wrong in my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) to propose his Resolution. I have stated, and I repeat, that I have no party object or intention in voting for the Motion of the noble Lord. I see great danger in this measure. I want, if I can, to get some substitute for it. I would be very well content to take the Reform Bill sketched out by the shrewdness of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. I say frankly—and I am bidding for no support in making the assertion—that the nearer I could got to that the better I should be pleased. I believe further that with that the great majority of this House also would be better pleased. I do not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite, the warmest supporters of the Government, have been suddenly enamoured of the new doçtrine of uniformity. I. believe they would like to stand by the ancient ways of the constitution. I would sooner go too far upon them than go altogether out of their track. It is the safer risk of the two, for in that course you would, at any rate, have on your side the innate good sense and good feeling of the English people. But get upon the wrong track—which leads you to the edge of a precipice—and you are told that it is Conservative, because it does not pitch you over; get upon that, and I say that no man can tell to what end it may bring you. Now, I want to get at some measure of the kind indicated by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire. How am I to do it? I had a lecture last night, in common with many others, from the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) on political morality. I am always glad to receive advice on such subjects. But what are the several proposals, one of which that right hon. Gentleman advocates? One of them is to vote against its second reading if you dislike the principle of this Bill. Another is, if it be not the principle, but the details to which you object, then go into Committee and discuss its provisions there. A third is, not to vote against the second reading, but to vote for this Resolution. If you vote against the second reading, you throw out the Bill contumeliously, and do not even specify to the country what you object to and what you approve. If you want to turn out the
  596
  Government, then vote against the second reading. That is intelligible and according to precedent. Precedent is a great thing in these matters, and I ought perhaps to apologize for not taking notice of this argument. Yet this species of Parliamentary red-tapism really does not require much reasoning to dispose of it. I see a bad Bill before me. I want to get rid of it. And I think the weapon that comes to my hand is about the best I can use for the purpose. I wish to destroy this Bill, and to get another in its place, founded on a different principle, and I should like the Government, if they could be induced to do it, to bring it in. We are told to vote for the second reading and go into Committee, inasmuch as there cannot be a more convenient assembly to undertake the framing of the details of a measure than the 654 Members of the House of Commons. Why, when a Cabinet of fifteen or sixteen Members want to construct a Reform Bill they find themselves too many for so delicate and difficult a task. They therefore appoint a Committee of throe or four out of their number to frame a measure for them, and then the Cabinet discuss it. But is it so easy to alter this Bill? You have only to begin, we are told, at the beginning of the first clause, and, omitting all the words after the word "That," to substitute something of your own, and so go on expunging and adding throughout the whole of the measure. Mind you, we have not yet had it clearly stated to us what the Government hold to be the principle of the Bill, and we don't know which of the two parts of the noble Lord's Resolution they think would be fatal to it. But we are to go into Committee, not to modify the details, not to insert £6 instead of £10, or to alter the proposed system of voting papers, but to remodel the entire structure of the measure. In truth, what we want is to gut the Bill — to take the whole inside out of it, and replace it by something else. There is nothing easier than to pull down; but if you gut a house, and wish to substitute some different interior arrangements, do you not send for the original architect? or, if you do not do that, would you think of turning 654 workmen loose into it, and telling each of them to try and rebuild on some plan which he thinks most conducive for its improvement? It might not be difficult for my right hon. Friend, with his cleverness and acuteness, to frame an excellent Bill if he

  597
  were left alone; but would he be the only man to make proposals? There are many Gentlemen behind me—above all, there are many Gentlemen whom I sec opposite —who are bent on "improving this Bill off the face of the earth." Do you believe it would be possible to do it? Let me say this:—I, for one, would not subject the Government to the humiliation of such a proceeding. But is it faction in us to ask that the Government should withdraw a Bill constructed upon a principle distasteful to that (the front Opposition) part of the House—distasteful, also, to this (the Opposition benches below the gangway) part of the House, and—if we are to judge from what we have heard here—not very palatable to some of their own friends behind them? I ask the Government publicly, as some of their warmest supporters have asked them privately, to withdraw this Bill, and introduce one based upon simpler, older, and safer principles. I have stated, inefficiently it may be, but I believe fairly, the views of the moderate and, as I think, the larger portion of this House, as to what they want and what they do not want in respect to reform. I have stated the objections we entertain partly on Liberal and partly on Conservative grounds against the new scheme of representation proposed by the Government. I have said I lamented that this subject should have been brought forward by a Conservative Government. At the same time they have proposed it, and I think they are now the proper persons to carry a measure of reform through. I have stated that the very discrepancies of opinions existing on these benches ought to prove to any rational man that we are not seeking party advantages or party objects. I have told the Government humbly for myself what sort of a Bill I would support, and I say that, coming from them, I will give it as ardent a support as if it came from the warmest political friend I possess. I have no intention of thwarting or embarrassing them if they produce such a measure: I shall give them, on the contrary, every assistance in my power. I cannot say whether the Government may have other reasons for declining this task. They may find their position irksome from the loss of two of their most valuable and honoured colleagues. There may be differences of opinion among them, and considerations that may make it desirable for the comfort of individual members among them that they should retire. These things
  598
  I can't know, and I make no guess. But I should deeply regret if they allowed feelings of that kind to interfere with higher duties and considerations of a public nature, and prevent them from endeavouring to carry what they have themselves proposed to effect—a moderate and safe reform—and to pass it through this Session. This Resolution is aimed, no doubt, against what I apprehend is a great principle of their Bill— namely, the uniformity of the county and borough franchise. I do not inquire what may be admissible in the way of amendment of details. I say your principle is new to this House, new to the country, and new to the Government themselves. They cannot have any great affection for a scheme which has been familiar to their minds but for a few weeks. They have not hit the public wishes, nor the wishes of this House. I ask them again, therefore, to look upon this Resolution as an indication of what it is that this House objects to, and what it is that it wants. When you speak of the two sections of a great assembly like this, there must, no doubt, be many men on both sides occupied with party objects, and animated by party spirit; but the great majority of this House, I am persuaded, think it of far more importance than any change of Ministry that the country should be satisfied. I am not one of those who attach so much importance as many do to the formation of particular Governments or to changes of Government. I have seen many changes of Government, and small change in the conduct of public affairs. But of this I am certain, that even if you impose on us a change of Ministry, very inconvenient and much to be deprecated as that may be, we have a stronger attachment to the constitution of the country than to allow personal feelings, and considerations of convenience, to influence us in the settlement of a grave question like this. Some years hence what man will ask "Who was Prime Minister in 1859?" But who will not ask "What is the constitution under which we are living? Is it one which secures to us the benefits which our fathers enjoyed? Is it one which will enable us to hand down to our children the blessings of liberty which we enjoy ourselves?" That is the question that will be asked; and I support this Resolution because it is a clear, unmistakable notice to the Government that the proposal they have now made will, in our opinion, conduce neither to the one nor to the other.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: If I were to say, Sir, of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London that it tends to confuse and embarrass the House as to the issue upon which it is to decide, I should perhaps only be saying that the Amendment accomplishes the object for which it was designed. But that it has this effect, a more signal proof could not be given than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. If the question which you, Sir, have put from the chair means anything, it means this—that the House of Commons thinks it expedient to pass by and supersede the question of the second reading of this Bill in order to affirm an abstract Resolution upon two isolated provisions of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman is going to vote for the Amendment; but what has been his argument? We have heard from him a very interesting treatise—everything which falls from the right hon. Gentleman is interesting—upon the precise manner in which you ought to reply to an invitation to a ballot dinner; upon the still stronger terms in which you ought to refuse to hear high mass; upon the principles of party government; upon the history of the Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Locke King); upon the principle of uniformity which he says is contained in this Bill; and upon the advantages which he thinks are to be derived from the existence of small boroughs: but not until the close of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman did we hear one single argument why all this might not have been said, and said just as well, upon the second reading of the Bill, or why the ordinary forms of the House should in this case be departed from. And then, when we come at last to know why the right hon. Gentleman was about to vote for the Amendment, what was his reason? He wishes us to reject the Bill and not to go into Committee; and he wishes to inform the country at large of the grounds upon which he rejects it. The right hon. Gentleman, who throughout his speech deprecated the departure from established practice, is about to do that for which no single precedent can be found in our Parliamentary history—he means to vote in such a way as not only to reject the Bill, but to show by the Motion made the reasons for rejecting it. But the chief objection of the right hon. Gentleman is to the principle of uniformity. He therefore wishes to inform the country that it
  600
  is upon that principle that the Bill is rejected. But does the Amendment of the noble Lord contain one word about the principle of uniformity? Certainly not. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that, in order to inform the country of the principle upon which he opposes this Bill, he will vote for an Amendment that is entirely silent with regard to that principle.
  I desire, if the House will allow me, to consider the propositions contained in the Amendment of the noble Lord, passing by, for the present, the motives which may or may not have led to its introduction. That Amendment naturally divides itself into two parts—that which relates to the question of the freeholds in boroughs, and that which refers to the lowering of the franchise in boroughs. As to the first, the Amendment of the noble Lord denies that it is just or politic to deal with it as proposed in this Bill. We may consider the question of justice first, because if it be unjust I will admit that it certainly cannot be politic. I disembarrass the matter for the present of what may be called vested rights, or the feelings of existing freeholders; and in the first place I ask the House this question—Where is it natural and just that a vote for a freehold situated in a borough should be given? What is the reason that you have boroughs returning members separate from counties? Why, it is this—that a borough has an interest to be represented separate from that of, the county. Of what does the interest of the borough consist? It consists, first, of the personal interest of the inhabitants, and, secondly, of the interest of property within the borough. And if it consist in part of the interest of property in the borough, I want to know why freehold property within the borough is abstractedly to be dealt with on a principle different from that applied to any other property in the borough. Suppose I possess a freehold in the town of Liverpool and live in London. So far as that property is concerned are my sympathies and interests involved in the welfare of Liverpool or in the welfare of the county of Lancaster at large? In every question of Imperial legislation which may affect Liverpool that freehold must be more or less interested. It is in questions which affect Liverpool, and which the Members for Liverpool will have to consider as affecting their town, that the freeholders of Liverpool are interested. This may

  601
  be familiarly illustrated by what occurred in this House not many years ago. A measure was introduced affecting the local dues of Liverpool. I need not. argue the merits of the question, but if the Bill had been carried its effect would have been seriously to add to the burdens on property in Liverpool by the withdrawal of the local dues from the exchequer of that town. What was the other town that was most interested in that question? It was the town of Manchester, and its interests were strongly antagonistic to those of Liverpool. The property in both these towns, the freeholds in both these towns, were more or less interested in that question which was debated in this House. Both these tows are in the same county, and the same county Members represented the two boroughs, and it was to the Members for the two boroughs to whom, and necessarily to whom, the defence of the interests of the property within the boroughs was delegated. I ask this further question upon the same subject—What would be said if it were proposed that either a freeholder or an occupier outside a borough should vote for the Member for the borough in respect of his freehold or occupancy outside? We should all recoil from the proposition as one which was unjust and unnatural; but I want to know what difference there is between these two cases. Is it more unnatural and more unjust that you should allow the holder of property outside a borough to vote for its Member, than that you should reverse the process, and permit the holder of property inside to vote for a Member outside the borough? I go a step further, and ask how, in the case of counties, do you deal with the owner of a freehold who is at the same time the occupier of a £50 house, and may, likewise, have other franchises, such as copyholds, within the county? You tell him that he, has only one vote for the county. But how do you deal with the owner of property in- ' side a borough who has got a 40 s. free-hold and a £10 house, and may have other qualifications? You tell him, as you do not tell the man outside, "You may vote first for the borough in respect of your occupation, and then for the county in respect of your freehold." We are still upon the question of justice, and I ask, supposing you were for the first time considering this question, would any one stand up and say that this is fair and equitable? But that is not all. What did you
  602
  do in the Reform Bill? The noble Lord is in the habit of referring to the Bill of 1832 as one founded in this respect upon every principle of justice; but what did that measure do with regard to the freeholds in boroughs which were above £10? Up to 1832 every one of those freeholds gave a vote for the county; but by that Bill you said that a freehold above £10 in value inside a borough, which was occupied by its owner, should lose its county vote, and merge into the borough. Therefore, after all, your principle of borough freeholders voting for counties only comes to this: those of between 40 s. and £10 value are to vote for the counties, but if they are above £10 in value they lose the vote for the county even although the owner is not registered for the borough, because you say he may be so registered. We are still upon the question of justice only, and I ask if that question were now brought before the House for the first time would any one affirm that it was just to make this distinction between the two classes of freeholds? But I go further,—I want to know how it was that in the Bill of 1832 the provision with regard to the 40 s. freeholders in boroughs voting for counties came to be preserved? Any one who will lake the trouble to look back to the debates of that time will find that this occurred —it was uniformly protested against by Sir Robert Peel—it was frequently protested against by many eminent Members on the Liberal side of the House, among others by Mr. Cutlar Ferguson. What did not Lord Althorp say in defence of the proposition? He admitted that it was a. very difficult question, on both sides of which a great deal might be said, and he defended the provision only on the ground that the Government desired to have for counties a representation of nothing but property, and for boroughs a representation of nothing but occupation. This was the only argument by which Lord Althorp could defend this serious anomaly, and this defence, of course, fell to the ground the moment the Chandos clause was introduced and it is further weakened now that every one admits that you must go beyond that clause, and admit in counties a still lower qualification from occupancy So much, therefore, with regard to the' justice of the case. Now let us come to its policy. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. S. Herbert) have both given us their reasons in point of policy. The noble

  603
  Lord's reason is this—he says that it is very convenient that these freehold voters should mix with the county voters, because they contain a very liberal element which you are about to take out of the counties. That might very well have been said in the way of accusation against the Government if such had been the result or the object of our Bill, but the very reverse is the case. I pass by the fact that the rights of existing freeholders are preserved, at least of such as desire to preserve them; but, I ask the House, is it not the effect of our Bill confessedly to put into the counties, for the first time, 200,000 voters, with respect to whom the noble Lord himself said, in 1857, that they comprised a body of men highly liberal, and whose insertion in counties would be productive of the greatest benefit? What is the argument of the right hon. Member for South Wilts upon the point of policy? He uses a most singular argument, for he says the freeholders are a remarkably independent class of men, and one proof of their independence is, that where they have double votes their employers make a bargain with them by which, in return for their borough franchises, they are allowed to do what they like with their county votes. The right hon. Gentleman also says—and here he speaks from experience on the subject— that they have the greatest pleasure in exercising their franchises in counties. I can understand, if I were a freeholder in South Wilts, that I should have great satisfaction in voting for the right hon. Gentleman; but I want to know if the intrusion of borough freeholders into counties be unjust in itself, how the personal desire of their owner can be a reason, when you are readjusting your franchise as a whole, for abstaining from doing what is right and proper? Nor, I contend, is there anything impolitic or harsh in the way in which we deal with existing interests. It is a principle well recognized in this House that when you introduce a measure which will have the ultimate effect of altering franchises you take care, whenever you can do it safely and consistently with your scheme, to preserve the rights of existing holders. Are there no precedents for that proceeding? The noble Lord well knows there are, for that is exactly what was done in 1832 in the case of what were called reserved franchises, and a precisely similar course was adopted in connection with the Irish Bill of the same date. We, in like manner, propose to preserve to all who de-
  604
  sire to continue to vote in counties a right which the right hon. Member for South Wilts says they value so highly, as long as they enjoy the property to which the qualification is attached. But the noble Lord asserts that our proposal falls short of the exigencies of the case, because there are persons who have possessed their freeholds from the time of William the Conqueror, and who desire to continue them in their families; and yet, when the freehold devolves upon the son, the son will not have the right arising out of the same property. I certainly was surprised to hear that argument from the noble Lord, for at the time of the first Reform Bill he stoutly denied that there was anything in the franchise in the slightest degree in the nature of property; and, in one of his most celebrated speeches, the same position was maintained by Lord Macaulay. "I deny," said Lord Macaulay, "that the elective franchise is of the nature of property. I believe on this point I have with me all reason, all precedent, and all authority. This at least is certain, that if the proposed disfranchisement is founded upon robbery, the representative system which now exists is founded upon robbery." I take that as a sample of the arguments used during the whole of the reform debates by the noble Lord and his friends with respect to there being right of property in the franchise; and therefore I say, when we preserve to existing holders the right to their votes in counties we do all that precedent, or authority, or principle requires, and we fully satisfy the exigencies of the case. The noble Lord, however, objects to what he calls the principle of disfranchisement, and asks the House to affirm his Amendment upon that ground; but, let me ask, what has the noble Lord himself done in this matter? What did he propose in 1854? He proposed by one stroke of the pen to disfranchise some 45,000 freemen in towns and boroughs; persons of whom it has been said by an eminent Member on the other side of the House that they comprise some of the most meritorious, most hardworking, and most deserving and independent electors in the country. What did the noble Lord propose to do in the same Bill with the voters in the boroughs which he intended to disfranchise? They amounted to between 40,000 and 50,000 persons, and wherever they possessed votes such as we are now dealing with, they were deprived of them by the Bill of the noble Lord, The noble Lord made no apology;

  605
  he preserved no rights—neither the rights of the freemen, which had been respected in 1832, nor the rights of the double voters; and yet he now calls upon the House, merely because he says the freeholders will be deprived of their double votes, to affirm his Amendment to the second reading of our Bill. But I trust the House will remember that, although in following the argument of the noble Lord I have used the term "disfranchisement," there is a marked difference between the cases I have mentioned and that which arises under the present Bill. In the cases I have mentioned the votes were put an end to, and were not to be revived; whereas in the present instance the votes are not extinguished, although I admit they are transferred from counties to boroughs, and the question whether they can be used will depend upon other considerations, just as the question whether you can exercise your right in respect of a freehold in a county depends upon whether you have another vote for that county. Let me here say a word upon another point, closely connected with what I have already stated—I mean the question of the residence of freeholders in boroughs as a condition precedent to their votes. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) said last night that if we introduced the system of non-resident freeholders voting in boroughs and also the system of polling-papers, the result would be that the resident electors would be swamped by votes sent down by non-residents. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, if I am right in saying that there is nothing unjust in making these freeholders vote for boroughs, the rest of his argument is only an argument against polling papers? Now, no person ever said that polling papers were an essential part of our Bill, or that they did not form one of those subjects which the House might fairly and properly consider in Committee. Every one admits that they are convenient, many see difficulties in the way of working them out, and the question, upon the whole, is eminently suited for consideration at a subsequent stage. But, apart from polling papers, let us see whether there is any probability of freehold votes for boroughs being turned to an improper or illegitimate use. Is there at present any considerable manufacturing of votes in this country? When I say "manufacturing of votes," I take the term used by the right hon. Member for Halifax; but what I mean to ask is, is there to any considerable extent a planting
  606
  down of voters In the hope that they will exercise their franchise in a particular way? Everybody admits that up to the present time that has not been done to any extent worth mentioning. There is one way, and one only, in which the manufacture of votes used to be carried on. It consisted in taking extensive premises in some borough, and granting rent-charges upon them in such a way as to get a number of votes out of one tenement. The present Bill provides against that case, and if further checks can be suggested they ought to be proposed in Committee. I have said so much upon the first part of the Amendment because the right hon. Member for South Wilts, with some unfairness, said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who had occupied the attention of the House for a considerable time, had not gone into it; but, having answered the arguments advanced on the other side, I must close with the remark that every one of the points which I have been considering ought to be discussed in Committee upon the Bill, and not upon the Motion for the second reading. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) say that my noble Friend the Secretary for India had informed the House that they must take the Bill as it stands, and that no Amendment could be accepted by the Government. My noble Friend said and meant nothing of the sort. What he said was, that if you pass the second reading and put the Bill into Committee, the Bill would then share the fate of every other Bill that went into Committee; and if Amendments should be proposed it would be for the Government to consider whether they would accede to them or modify them. But it is not possible for the Government, until those Amendments are proposed, to state what course they will pursue with respect to any one particular Amendment. What my noble Friend also said—and what I repeat—is, that this Government will not, and I do not think that any Government which values its honour would, consent to take on the Motion for the second reading of a Bill, and not on going into Committee, an instruction as a pledge of the terms on which the second reading is to be passed. I say that the course of raising every question that can be legitimately raised in Committee is open with respect to this Bill; and to ask the Government to give pledges to the House before approaching the second reading is a step which has never been taken with respect to any Government in

  607
  the history of Parliament, and I hold any Government tolerating such a proceeding unworthy for one minute to sit on these benches.
  Now I come to the second part of the Amendment of the noble Lord—the part which relates to lowering the franchise in boroughs. Before approaching that subject I must observe that the Amendment of the noble Lord clearly admits that the noble Lord is perfectly satisfied with the extension of the suffrage outside the borough boundaries; and that has an important consequence. We all know perfectly well the nature of large and populous towns. There is a magic Parliamentary circle, and outside of that there is a considerable amount of building. There is a desire to escape municipal taxes by removing outside the boundary, there raising manufactories and building houses of a somewhat better kind, in which clerks and skilled workmen are found to live. Now, the noble Lord's Amendment admits that what we propose with respect to occupations outside the boundary is a fair and proper franchise; but if there be introduced with inside that magic boundary—it may be on one side of a street—the franchise proposed by the noble Lord, be it £4, £5, £6, or any other sum, I want to know how the noble Lord is to satisfy the man living on the other side of the boundary, to whom you give, and the noble Lord admits rightly, only a £10 franchise? All the eloquence of the noble Lord will not persuade the man living on the wrong side of the street that he is dealt fairly with in the distribution of the franchise. As long as men are endowed with common sense they will never rest satisfied at seeing those residing on one side of a street in possession of a £5 franchise whilst those on the opposite side of the street have the £10 franchise. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that we were now touching the constitution of the country; that for 400 years this constitution had continued to take its present course, and the innovation now proposed had never been practised before. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of the terms my right hon. Friend used, said the reasons he had heard he could designate as nothing but rubbish. It would be very unbecoming on my part to speak disrespectfully of any right hon. Gentleman, but when be speaks of the history of this country for 400 years, and its mode of representation during that time, I ask how
  608
  long back does he date the right of voting in counties in respect of occupation? It is vain to tell us about freehold rights of voting prevailing from Henry VI. down to the present day, when at the time of the Reform Bill you swept away the freehold right as the sole test of county voting, and added to it the right of voting in respect to occupation. I could understand the argument if we were discussing whether it was right or wrong to continue freehold voters in counties; but that is not the question, and we have nothing to say to the history of the last 400 years, but only to the last twenty-seven years, and still more to the history of the last seven years, during the whole of which the cry has been for a reduction of the county franchise. Can you assign any reason, in principle or common sense, why the occupation on one side of the boundary should be more valuable than on the other? I tell you how this matter will work, for we have the light of experience to guide us. By the Reform Bill of 1832 you established an occupancy qualification of £10 in boroughs and £50 in counties, and the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down has given us the history of what he calls the Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey. Is there any doubt that for some eight or nine years you have had a continual agitation with the object of lowering the county occupation franchise to £10? The principle of the first Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey was founded on the desire to assimilate the franchise in counties to the franchise in towns. In a division on the Bill, whether taken by surprise or not, the hon. Member succeeded, and in another year he renewed his efforts, when the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was in office, and on that occasion he failed. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) had told a most singular story. He said that he voted against that Bill and communicated with his constituents, who were surprised at what he had done; but he explained the case, and showed them what would be the effect of the£10 county franchise, and they were perfectly satisfied. I do not doubt the powers of pursuasion of the right hon. Baronet, but still I doubt whether if he satisfied his constituents he satisfied his own conscience, because next year, when he had left office and sat on the Opposition side of the House, the Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey was renewed, the title was altered, but the contents were the same,

  609
  and the right hon. Baronet voted for it. I was amazed to hear the flimsy pretence alleged to-night that there were blanks in the Bill; for he well knows that, these blanks were Parliamentary blanks only, and were filled up with "£10" in italics, and there was nothing in the Bill, good, bad, or indifferent but this—that a man might vote for the county in respect of a £10 occupation. But it may be said that the Bill might have been amended in Committee. Does the right hon. Baronet adopt that defence? Because if he does, I think it is fatal to his consistency in voting as he is going to vote on the present occasion. There was nothing in the Bill then before the House, but that one point, to which he had objected; and yet it is said that Bill might be altered in Committee. But the Bill now before the House is as capable of Amendment in Committee. The right hon. Baronet says he approves part of it, and yet he will not vote for the second reading, but will support the Resolution of the noble Lord. Now, Sir, I will not stop with the right hon. Member for Halifax, but I will also claim the vote of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who, I find, said, with regard to the Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey—
  "Gentlemen may say, and with truth, that although the Bill is a different one, and though it does not propose an assimilation of the borough and county franchise, yet the manner in which the blanks are filled up will attain that object. No doubt that is the state of the case, but those who, like myself, adhere to the opinion that it is undesirable and objectionable to assimilate the be-rough and the county franchise"—[May do what?] —"may vote for the second reading, with the intention of proposing alterations in the franchise that is intended to be established for county voters."
  Well, that could be done with this Bill. The noble Lord went on—
  "And therefore, any one who contemplated a reduction in the rate of the county franchise may well and consistently vote for the second reading, reserving to himself full liberty of proposing in Committee the particular amount of qualification which he may think is best."
  The question could not be raised in a better form, because the noble Lord, like the right hon. Baronet, objected to the whole of the Bill, but they voted for the second reading, intending to turn it into a different Bill in Committee. The right hon. Gentlemen no doubt satisfied themselves that was the proper course, but if there is such a tiling as consistency I claim their votes for the second reading of his Bill. That was the course taken with regard to the agita-
  610
  tion for the reduction of the £50 county franchise to a level of £10. It succeeded eventually; it was carried in this House. Not only was it carried in this House, but the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) in 1854 proposed to reduce the county franchise to £10. Well, now it is said, "You may reduce the county franchise; but you must not have the same franchise in boroughs as in counties." What, then, is the consequence? We have seen one agitation bringing the county franchise down to £10. Apply the principle of not having a uniform franchise in boroughs and counties, and you must lower the borough franchise below the county franchise. Shall I say what will happen next? The next thing will be a repetition of that process. When the borough franchise is at £5, and the county at £10, you will have an agitation to bring down the £10 to £5. It may not succeed in one year, nor in two; but, after a time when right hon. Gentlemen have first voted against it and then for it, that proposition will be carried. But then will step in the objection against uniformity, and you will have to lower the £5 borough franchise. And thus we shall go on, after the fashion of what is called a Dutch auction, auctioning the counties against the boroughs, the boroughs against the counties, always adhering to this cardinal principle, and to that only, that the franchise in boroughs must be lower than that in counties. Where that will end I can imagine, but I am surprised that such a system should find favour with some hon. Members, who seem to approve it. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred us to Sir James Mackintosh, who looked to a variety of rights of suffrage as one of the safeguards of the English Constitution. I accede to every word of the opinion of Sir James Mackintosh upon the subject. I also desire to see a variety of rights of suffrage; but that question is a wholly different question to whether the same occupation in counties shall confer the right of voting as it does in boroughs. If you want to see a variety of rights of suffrage, take the Bill of the Government, which, I find, contains no less than eleven varieties of suffrage. Surely that would satisfy even Sir James Mackintosh. But did Sir James Mackintosh say one word in. the extract which has been read to us of there being any impropriety, any offence to the constitution, in providing that the same franchise in regard to occupancy should confer

  611
  the right of voting in counties as it did in boroughs? [Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT: Different franchises in different places.] I accept that, and I say that will meet the franchises here laid down, because they are franchises which from their nature must be in different places. Some spring from freeholds, some from leaseholds, some from copyholds, some from occupancy; some represent personal property, some educational tests. That is what Sir James Mackintosh points out; because, of course, he did not mean mere difference of locality; he meant different franchises which by their nature would introduce different classes of the country to the right of voting: and that is what this Bill provides. The right hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke say that this is a system which must lead to electoral districts. I will tell the House my opinion upon that subject. I need not say that I desire as little as any man to see that system adopted here. I believe electoral districts are utterly at variance with and would be destructive of the system of representation in this country; but I also believe they are utterly repugnant to the tastes and wishes of any considerable body in this country. In my opinion that which preserves us, and long will I trust preserve us, from electoral districts, is that they are repugnant to the wishes of the country, and not because of any fancy difference between a £20 and £10 occupancy franchise; and if the right hon. Gentleman could convince me that the only protection against electoral districts was the maintenance in boroughs of an £8, or £6, or £5 franchise, and a £20 or £25 franchise in counties, then I say that will not save us from electoral districts for a single year. A bad fence is worse than no fence at all. If we are to have any protection against electoral districts, let us have one with a principle upon which we can argue, and not a mere difference of a few pounds.
  Passing from that subject, I wish the House to allow me to consider the question of lowering further the borough franchise. I will put to the House this point, although it does not cover the whole argument, yet it has not been much touched upon and it is worthy the consideration of the House. A £10 franchise, or any particular number of pounds, appears at first sight an unbending and unvarying franchise; but is it so in point of fact? The noble Lord has told us that since 1832
  612
  the working classes of this country have increased in intelligence, in education, in everything which we all desire to see in conduct and manners. I entirely agree with that; but have the working classes altered their condition in no other way? No one who is not blind to what has been going on not within the last twenty-five, but even within the last fifteen years, can have failed to see that the working classes of this country have been not only growing in intelligence and education, but they have also been increasing in material prosperity. Wages have increased, employment is more regular, food is cheaper, taxes are lighter; and all these circumstances together have brought about this state of things,—that houses conferring a £10 franchise are now occupied by a class of men by whom they were unattainable at the passing of the Reform Bill. Although I do not desire to carry the argument to any unreasonable length, yet I say that the lapse of twenty-seven years, to which the noble Lord has referred, if accompanied by a progress of prosperity in the country, must naturally bring the franchise within the reach of a greater number, just as the recession of the country in prosperity would diminish the number entitled to the franchise. Now, it has been often asked of the Government "Why can you not trust the working classes, who you see and admit are advancing in intelligence and education?" My answer, which I give unhesitatingly, is this,—I trust the working classes fully, I trust their loyalty and patriotism; and I venture to think I trust them even more than the noble Lord shows that he trusts them, for it is somewhat singular that with all the boasted trust of the working classes I find that all who propose a diminution in the borough franchise come to some limit at which they say they are desirious of stopping, at least for the present. Now, I make no such limit. I do not trust a man in a £5 house and withhold my confidence from a man in a £4 house. I say I trust the working men of this country. I trust their loyalty and patriotism; but is it a reason, because I trust their loyalty and patriotism, that therefore I must give them all votes? ["Oh!"] The hon. Member signifies dissent. I have seen some publications, in which, among many other proposals, was one that women should be admitted to the franchise. Beyond doubt, thoroughly advanced Radicals and philosophers say there is no reason why a woman should not be admitted to a share in the representation

  613
  of the people. Now, I have no wish to see the franchise conferred on women; but if we are to lay it down as a rule that wherever you can trust loyalty and patriotism there you are to give the franchise, I do not see what argument you can raise against the admission of women within the electoral pale. I say, therefore, that you may allow to the working classes the possession of loyalty and patriotism, and yet at the same time may fairly say that the franchise ought not to be extended to them indiscriminately. I acknowledge no principle but this—namely, that we are bound to make our representative system one which will to the greatest degree preserve an equal, even, impartial balance between all classes in this country. I am perfectly willing to admit the working classes to their fair share in the representation, though not to more than their share; but if you lower the franchise considerably below £10—and I say "considerably" because, if there is to be merely an inconsiderable diminution, it is not what we are talking about—you introduce a body of men who by their very numbers are able to outweigh, to outvote, and practically to disfranchise every other class of voters in the kingdom. Now, I decline to do this, but not because they are the working classes. There is no class in the country to whom I would allow this undue share of power. I would not extend it to employers any more than the employed—to dwellers in counties any move than to dwellers in boroughs. I would not give it to merchants, tradesmen, or any other class. And I say, therefore, when once it is ascertained that the proposed alteration in our representative system would enable one class by force of numbers to outweigh the class above it, I feel bound, without further consideration, to reject any such proposition. These are my reasons for contending that the principle of the Bill which will make the occupation franchise the same in the boroughs and the counties is a sound one, and these are my reasons for declining to effect any considerable alteration in the borough franchise. But now allow me to ask this question,— Although we do not propose any alteration in the amount of the borough franchise, do we not in point of fact admit a very large number of the working classes to the enjoyment of the franchise? I desire to put this fairly before the House and the country, because it is much too serious a question to allow of any misunderstanding with regard to it. In the first place, when we admit the
  614
  occupants of £10 houses in the counties, we admit not less than 200,000 electors. I do not say that these will all belong to the working classes; but when you remember the clouds of small houses on the outskirts of all the Parliamentary boroughs of this kingdom, when you remember the number of voters who will come from unrepresented towns, you will then perceive that a largo proportion of these 200,000 electors will be more or less perived from the working classes. But, Sir, we do not stop there. As regards the borough franchise itself, by this Bill we open the borough franchise as it has never been opened before, and in a way which I think will prove of the greatest importance to the welfare of the working classes and to the extension of our representative system. Observations have been made on what is called the savings' bank clause, and upon the clause relating to the 40 s, freeholders. Well, we provide two means by which any member of the working classes who is able to realize and save a small sum of money may procure the franchise; if he either makes a permanent investment in a small freehold or if he lodges his money in a savings' bank he may obtain a vote. We have no precise statistics as to the number who would derive a vote under the savings' bank franchise, and I confess I was lately much surprised to read the report of a meeting at which the right hon. Baronet the 3Iember for Marylebone (Sir Benjamin Hall), when commenting upon this Bill before his constituents, was represented as saying "that the Bill was one of the greatest political frauds ever attempted to be perpetrated." Now, I know it is usual, especially when you are speaking to very popular constituencies, to use very broad and emphatic language in attacking an opponent; but I was anxious to know what was the ground for this very serious accusation, made by a gentleman of such gravity as the right hon. Baronet; so I read the rest of his speech, and the only point in the Bill to which he was reported as objecting was this savings' banks clause. The right hon. Baronet said he had sent to Newport, he had had a calculation made, and it was found that sixty people in Newport had £60 in the savings' bank, but that with one single exception all of them were either women or else had the franchise already, the result being that only one person in the place would be enfranchised under this Bill. Now, while reading these remarks I could not help thinking it would have been better

  615
  if the right hon. Baronet had taken the case of the borough which he represents, and in which he was speaking, and had endeavoured to find out the number of depositors there. I dare say, though, he had some good reason for taking the borough of Newport. But I wanted to discover what there was about this measure, although, perhaps, it may not enfranchise as many as were expected, which should render it "one of the greatest political frauds ever attempted to be perpetrated,"—because the House will allow that this is rather strong language. I looked back, therefore, to see what had been proposed before on this subject, and I found that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), in 1854, proposed a savings' banks qualification. The person entitled to the franchise was to have £50 in the bank, but he was to keep it there for two years, and was to reside one year more in the place where it was kept, so that after three years he would have the privilege of voting. Well, I thought if ours was a great political fraud, the scheme of the noble Lord would deserve still harder language. But cm looking back I found that the right hon. Baronet took part in the debate. He was not a member of the Government at the time, but joined it a very few months afterwards; and he thanked the noble Lord very much for introducing the measure, his only objection to it being that it did not give half-a-dozen additional Members to Marylebone. Not one word did he say then about a great political fraud. I am sorry the right hon. Baronet is not here. [Sir BENJAMIN HALL: I am here.] I beg his pardon. I see he has changed his place. He has now taken his seat beside the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and I leave them to settle the question of the difference between a £50 or a £60 savings' bank franchise, as creating or not creating a great political fraud. So much for the objections of the right hon. Baronet. But, now let me ask the House to consider this savings' bank qualification. An error has prevailed with regard to it, which may as well be corrected. It is said that owing to the limit upon the amount of deposits received it will require two years before a man can put £60 in a savings' bank. That is a mistake, because though £30 is the limit for a year, two days over the year will suffice to enable a man to deposit a second £30. This, however, is only by the way, and does not touch the essence of the measure. But, now remember that was said by an hon.
  616
  Member last night. Speaking as to the operation of this savings' bank clause, he said there were in a particular town 1,200 depositors of £60 and upwards, a very great number of whom did not possess the franchise at all. I think that is a tolerably significant fact, and if we had the means of searching we should probably find that a very largo number of persons all over the country would be enfranchised by means of this clause. What, however, I take to be the merit of this franchise is, that it encourages the working classes to display providence, forethought, frugality; and the very means by which they are obtaining the franchise, which it is supposed they desire, is thus in itself a kind of moral training which must reflect upon their conduct and welfare in the future, and must exercise a most wholesome influence over the working classes at large. There is a difference between this franchise and every other we have hitherto had. Tell a man that if he will only take a £10, £8, or even a £5 house he shall have the franchise, and you may be doing the very worst thing in the world for his interest, for you may be encouraging him to live in a manner which his earnings or his means do not justify. But say to a man, "It is your duty to lay by money for yourself in time of sickness, and for your family after your death, and at the same time you shall have this further inducement, for we will give you the right of voting, as though you lived in a £10 house," and you invite him to do that which must be beneficial to himself and his family, and which must tend also greatly to encourage habits of prudence among the working classes at large.
  I have now, Sir, gone through the various points contained in the Bill of the noble Lord, and explained the nature of the propositions which we have laid before the House. But I cannot help thinking that I should altogether fail in the performance of my duty on this occasion if I were now to stop short and not to inquire what the practical object is which the noble Lord proposes by means of his Amendment to attain. His Resolution must clearly have been moved with some object, and we ought as sensible men to consider what the object is, and to form our opinions accordingly. Now, there are two conclusions to be drawn from the Amendment and the speech of the noble Lord. The first of those conclusions is, that he is afraid to meet this Bill on the second reading. The second conclusion is,

  617
  that the noble Lord declines to tell us what measure he proposes to substitute for that which he condemns. Let me take the Resolution itself and dissect it. To what, let me ask, does it amount? It condemns two particular features in the Bill, and the inference to be drawn from that fact is this, that the noble Lord does not object to anything in the Bill, with the exception of those two points. ["No, no!"] I do not say that this is the case; but I have drawn, I contend, the logical deduction from the noble Lord's proposition. Well, I want to know if this be a fair interpretation of the views of the noble Lord and of those who are prepared to support his Amendment; because we are entitled, upon a subject of this importance, to know what those who oppose the Bill in its main features propose to substitute for it. In the elucidation of that point I thought we might derive some advantage from the sentiments of the noble Lord when a short time ago he was called upon to give expression to them upon this subject. There was not long since a meeting of the constituents of the noble Lord—for his constituents, like any other Members of this House, will meet and ask questions—and they desired to have the noble Lord's opinions upon the subject of Reform. It is, no doubt, an advantage to have a popular constituency, for you may correspond with them by letter when it is inconvenient to attend their meetings in person, and we all know that the noble Lord is fond of epistolary correspondence. At all events, he had recourse to it upon this occasion. An hon. Baronet, another of the representatives of the City of London, and an old and most respected Member of this House (Sir James Duke), adopted a different course; he went to the meeting, and, having done so, was reported to have addressed it to the following effect. He said, "He had felt it to be his duty to attend there that day instead of writing a letter." I do not know what that means. The observation was, however received with cheers, and the hon. Baronet continued: —
  "He felt it to be his duty to attend there that day in order that he might hear the sentiments of that great assemblage, for the guidance of his conduct in Parliament. He had done all in his power to promote the extension of the franchise, and he bad hoped that Lord John Russell, or some other person, would have done them the justice of laying upon the table of the House a measure to supplant the one under discussion, in order that the Liberal party might see what they would be called upon to support when the Government scheme had been rejected. Such a course would
  618
  have been straightforward towards the Liberal Members of the House of Commons."
  Now, I cannot help thinking that there is a, great deal of truth in the observations which the hon. Baronet addressed to the meeting, and I, for one, thought it was not an unnatural expectation to indulge in. But, although the constituents of the noble Lord had not been afforded the satisfaction of hearing him, yet I certainly thought he would, in accordance with his promise made in his letter to them, state his views upon this subject distinctly when it came under discussion in this House. But we now have the advantage of having heard the noble Lord's speech, and I ask what his views are upon some of the questions which appear to me to be involved in the consideration of this measure? Let me take, for instance, the question of the ballot, which I contend is involved in this discussion, not because it enters into the Bill, but because a largo section of the Members of this House look upon it as a necessary ingredient in any scheme of Reform. I know what were the opinions held by the noble Lord in times past upon this question. I have often experienced great satisfaction in listening to his clear and explicit declarations of hostility to the ballot in this House. I want to know whether he still retains the same views with respect to it; to which he formerly gave expression? I wish particularly to have an answer upon this point, because I find that a large number of those hon. Members who sit near the noble Lord below the gangway have attended public meetings, and have contended that, although they deemed the extension of the franchise in boroughs to be expedient, yet they did not desire to have it unaccompanied by the ballot. If, therefore, the noble Lord continues to maintain the sentiments to which he has so often given expression on this subject, I should like to know who are those Gentlemen sitting below the gangway on the opposite side of the House who can be reckoned on as his supporters in any scheme of reform which he may introduce? We were informed last night that the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Forster), told his constituents distinctly that the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Birmingham were, to use a popular phrase, "in the same boat, and perfectly agreed upon every subject." ["No, no!"] These are the hon. Gentleman's words:—If you will wait till next week yon will find that there is a perfect agreement between

  619
  Lord John Russell and John Bright." I beg the hon. Member for Birmingham's pardon for making mention of him in such familiar terms.
  MR. FORSTERsaid, that he had already explained that what he had said on the occasion to which the hon., and learned Gentleman alluded was that it was matter of common notoriety that the noble Lord the Member for Birmingham—he meant the noble Lord the Member for London — and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham were perfectly agreed as to the course to be taken with regard to the Bill under discussion; and that he had perhaps used the phrase that they would be found "sailing in the same boat," the translation of which was that upon a division they would be found in the same lobby. He had also stated, entirely on his own responsibility, that he believed the hon. Member for Birmingham participated in those feelings of confidence which at the present moment advanced Liberals were disposed to extend to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation which he has just given us, because I could hardly believe that the report of his observations which I quoted was correct. It is now, however, clear that the expressions which are attributed to him by the newspapers have been most accurately recorded. I now beg to repeat the question:—Have the noble Lord the Member for London and the hon. Member for Birmingham so completely agreed as to the course which they are to pursue as that they are to "row in the same boat," which interpreted means, it appears, that they are to be in the same lobby when a division is taken on this Amendment? If the answer should be in the affirmative then I should wish to learn upon what principle their compact is founded? Does it or does it not include the question of vote by ballot? If it does include that question, then I should like to know how hon. Gentlemen opposite who sit above the gangway can concur with the noble Lord in the course which he is taking? If, upon the other hand, it does not include the ballot, how, let me ask, are those hon. Gentlemen prepared to act who have told their constituents that any extension of the suffrage unaccompanied by the ballot would be a curse rather than a blessing? Will they vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord?
  620
  I now come to the subject of the redistribution of seats. We are all aware of that which the present Bill proposes to do in that direction. It takes fifteen seats from boroughs which possesses two. We also know what the Bill introduced by the noble Lord in 1854 proposed to do,— namely, to take away fifty or sixty seats. We are are that the measure of the hon. Member for Birmingham proposes to affect a much greater number; I now forget how many. Now several hon. Members opposite in arguing this question upon the hustings have stated that the extension of the franchise without a redistribution of seats would be a farce and a sham. If that be so, and if the noble Lord the Member for London and the hon. Member for Birmingham are quite agreed as to the course which they are to take on the present occasion, I am anxious to know what part of their compact touches, and how it touches, this question of redistribution? it is but fair that the noble Lord should tell the country what he means to do in reference to this subject. I for one do not think the country is to be gulled by being being told that the hon. Gentlemen opposite are the champions of freeholders who have been handed down to us from the days of William the Conqueror. Tell the people boldly what you would do in this respect if you had power placed in your hands tomorrow. What seats would you take away? How would you distribute the scats so obtained? How many electors— no matter where they come from—would you deprive of their votes? In order to catch the popular applause you pretend that you are anxious to admit to the franchise some persons who have it not; but do not conceal the designs that you have upon voters who will be attacked, and whom, if you have the power, you will deprive of the franchise. But I ask another question,—What does the noble Lord mean to do with the borough suffrage? He has not told us. He says it is not the proper course to take in opposition to tell you what he would do if he were in office. But, at all events, I remember what was said by a right hon. colleague of the noble Lord—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey). Mr. Hume some years ago proposed in this House an abstract Resolution something like the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord. Mr. Hume did not specify the extent to which he would go; and what said the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth? He

  621
  said, "Before you take away the constitution we have, at all events let us know what you are going to give us in its place." Now, I say to the noble Lord, at all events let us know what you mean to give us in the place of this Bill, which you won't allow to be considered even on the second reading. But I do not want merely to know what the noble Lord would propose in its place. I want to know what probability there is of the concurrence of the country in any proposition that he might make. We have seen meetings upon this subject. I heard an hon. Member last night say that there had been meetings on every hustings in the kingdom. I do not think that is quite accurate. I have seen meetings, and I have seen a singular unanimity in them, because there has not been a meeting of which I have seen a report which has not terminated not merely in expressing an opinion on the Government Bill, but in going further, and calling for triennial Parliaments, for household suffrage, sometimes for manhood suffrage, sometimes for universal suffrage, always for vote by ballot. Well, I want to know which part of this extensive bill of fare the noble Lord, in his agreement with the hon. Member for Birmingham, has committed himself to select. It is only fair that we should know, because it is not many years since a passage of arms on this subject took place between the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Birmingham, which ended in anything but an amicable manner. I speak of the Motion that was made with regard to the extension of the borough suffrage. What did the noble Lord then say of the hon. Member for Birmingham, who then sat for Manchester as its Member? The noble Lord said this: He said, "What I have to find fault with in the hon. Member for Manchester and those who agree with him is, that they are so exceedingly narrow-minded. Set them upon the subjects upon which they are particularly conversant, and I listen with great admiration to their extensive knowledge and acute ability; but when we come to discuss large questions, such as concern the fortune of our empire, then I see they have intellect and understanding bound up in so narrow a round that it is impossible to get them to understand those great principles on which our ancestors founded the constitution of this country, and which we, their successors, humbly admire and endeavour to follow." That was the view which the noble Lord then took of the
  622
  views of the hon. Member for Birmingham upon this subject. We have been told, and it has been repeated to us to-night, that now the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Birmingham are quite agreed as to the course to be taken with regard to this Bill,—quite agreed, I suppose, in every sense; agreed not merely as to this attempt to get rid of a Bill of this kind by an Amendment, but agreed as to what the consequences of that Amendment must be, and as to what the end of that must be of which this is only the beginning. Well, I ask for information. Many hon. Members have yet to speak. The hon. Member for Birmingham has to speak. I ask for information on the points I have mentioned —vote by ballot, redistribution of seats, and extension of the borough franchise. Specifically, I want to know what is the extent of the agreement between the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Birmingham, I think, as a House of Commons, we are also entitled to ask this question—What probability is there of support to the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Birmingham from the followers who sit around him en these points? The noble Lord may depend upon it that these questions will not be asked merely in this House, but they will also be asked in the country. The noble Lord appeals as a proof of his sincerity in his Amendment to his long-known and long-tried attachment to the cause of reform. We all know and admit the noble Lord's attachment to this great national and political question. But we also know that there is a form of the tender passion which sometimes developes itself in jealousy of any attention to the object of its affection from any other quarter. I think the noble Lord exposes himself to some misconstruction on this point. We have heard it said,—
  "Strong were his hopes his rival to remove;
  With blandishments to gain the public love;
  To head the faction while their zeal was hot,
  And popularly prosecute the plot."
  Whether this is so or not I know not, but of this I am sure, that the country will ask—the country have asked already— what are the real intentions of the noble Lord; and what are the specific objects which be proposes to himself in meeting a Bill of this kind, not openly, not broadly, but by an ambiguous and almost irregular Amendment, which commits nobody and which means nothing that is precise. The people of this country have differed, and always will differ about Reform Bills, about

  623
  theories of representation, about social and domestic legislation of every kind. But there is one subject upon which the people of this country are entirely agreed. They do not like anything which bears the least appearance of approaching to artifice, or—I must use a homely phrase—a dodge. They do not like it in business, they do not like it in politics; but least of all will they admire it in a man who, at a time when the best interests of our country at home and our most peaceful hopes abroad demand all the patriotism, all the candour, and all the forbearance of a statesman, approaches the consideration of a great national question like this, not fairly to criticise, not boldly to reject, but to contrive a crafty and catching device, to confuse and, if it may be, to dislocate parties, and in that confusion and dislocation to secure his own political aggrandisement and private advantage.
  MR. WILSONoffered some explanation as to his remarks on the fluctuating nature of the franchise of the freeholders in boroughs which were not understood in the gallery amid the impatience of the House.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday.
  House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.