boroughs ought not to have so many Mem- | bers 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

excluded from the right to vote for the representatives of the county by virtue of the same property. selves a proper share in the representation, we do At the same time, that the towns will have themnot 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.]

noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, said :

"The plan proposed went to restore to the landed able to the safety and the prosperity of the couninterest that influence which he thought indispenstry, by giving fifty-five Members to the counties

consider what he had just said discourte- In support of the same argument, he could ous, seeing that he had himself frequently quote the noble Lord the Member for Tiveradmitted that he had never seen the Briton, who following up the argument of the tish 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.

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.]

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

This arrangement operated heavily against the country interest. Take Mid-With regard to the proposition of the dlesex for instance. In that county out of 14,000 electors, 8,000, or more than onehalf, 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 If you recognize the right of labour in the country. But the noble Lord the Mem- the towns, by what parity of reasoning do ber for London was perfectly shocked at you ignore it in the counties?" He obthe idea of overturning a franchise which served, that the noble Lord the Member dated back to the time of Henry VI., as if for London, and the hon. Member for Birthat argument would not apply to all at-mingham, between whom there existed tempts 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 thing 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

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

It

The

side he meant that great political econo- | for Committee. There are other questions mist and father of free trade, Adam Smith. as to the franchise-for instance, as to Adam Smith said, that next to the liberal lodgers, whether so many shillings be too arts, there was no trade which required much or too little. Prove your case. greater intelligence or experience than that is a question for Committee. Do you preof farming. [Hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen fer or do you dislike the system of voting opposite were sacrilegiously scoffing at the by voting papers or that of voting openly Bible of the free traders. Adam Smith went at the hustings? Prove your case. It is on to say, "How much the lower ranks a subject for Committee." Well, of course, in the country were superior to those in these are subjects for Committee. Nobody towns was well known to every one whose questions that. You may entertain any business or pleasure made him conversant opinions you like upon them and the altewith both.' To refuse the working ration of a few words in Committee-the classes in rural districts, therefore, any negativing of a clause or of half a clauseprivileges which were enjoyed by their will meet the objections of those who are brethren in the boroughs, would be an in- dissatisfied. But there are other principles justice so gross and so monstrous, that if in the Bill of which the right hon. Baronet it were perpetrated it would, ere long, lead made no mention. We are asked to vote to that "ugly rush" which had been pro- for this Bill under very peculiar circumphesied by the right hon. Member for Ox- stances. We object to the principle upon fordshire. Under these circumstances he which the measure is constructed. (Mr. Knightley) should support the second Government told us one night, "We are reading of the Bill, though he would frank- going to make a change in a principle ly own that the Bill was not at present in which appears to cause dissatisfaction on a form of which he could wholly approve. 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 case 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 Jolin 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 [Second Night.

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 versa. 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 ad miration 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 comfortsome 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

U 2

that uniformity is fatal. But the Chancel- friends of the cause of the ballot to celelor of the Exchequer says that "it will be brate, I think the arrival of some person open to any hon. Gentleman to move from Australia; and my noble Friend sent amendments in Committee. I hope the a very polite answer, but an answer which Government will not be debarred from pur- speaking of a prior engagement, and so suing the same course." In one sentence forth-did not imply to my mind that he we are invited into Committee; in another had any very strong objection to the we are repelled from Committee if we hold ballot. I must say that a refusal couched opinions against the principle of uniformity in these terms does not usually imply any of the suffrage. I want to get at the real rooted aversion on principle to accept facts and merits of this case, and not to the proffered hospitality. I take it that enter into minute discussions upon ques- if the hon. Member for North Warwicktions as to what differences of opinion exist shire (Mr. Newdegate) were invited by upon either side of this House. I do not deny Cardinal Wiseman to attend the celebrathat there are differences. I think the best tion of high mass he would couch his policy is to speak out and to tell the truth refusal in terms somewhat stronger than upon these points. There is the greatest that he "regretted a prior engagement difference of opinion upon almost every prevented him from accepting the invi question upon this (the Opposition) side of tation." I hope we shall be enabled the House. Let us face our difficulties. to arrive at something like a sound conLet us see what we can do and what we clusion before long, as to what is really cannot. Looking to the benches on this the meaning of the Government with reside I see differences upon church rates, spect, not to the Resolution of the noble differences upon the ballot, differences upon Lord, which they look upon as a hostile disfranchisement, differences as to the attack on the Treasury Bench, but upon advisability of an extensive democratic the two principles contained in it-princichange. I admit these differences fairly. ples upon which not only great numbers of But are these differences confined to this far more important persons than myself on side of the House? I look to the other this side of the House, but upon which I side. What do I see there? Differ will venture to say that no small proporences upon church rates, differences upon tion of Gentlemen opposite sitting below the ballot, differences upon the disfran- the gangway, entertain opinions identical chisement 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

The

with those which I now express.
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 elec-
toral districts, and vote by ballot. Well,
if that were 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-per-
haps one of the most eloquent that I ever
heard-in defence of our mixed institu-
tions, 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 constitu
tion, 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-

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

know what has actuated the right hon. Gentleman in adopting the measure of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Locke [Second Night.