^x )fo

'-^LAyL^.'.^i&yLdt^.

-'/a ¦

SPEECHES ON
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
In 1866.
By the RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE,
M.P. rOE SOOTH LANCASHIKE.
"WITH AN APPENDIX.

Vouchsafe
Of these supposed evils to give me leave
By circumstance but to acquit myself.
K. BiCB. HI., act i., sc. 2.

THIRD EDITION.

LONDON:
JOHN MUEEAY, ALBEMAELE STEEET.
1866.
The right of TramUtMon is reserved.

IX)ND0N: feinted bt Wn,LIAM CLOWES AKD SONS, STAMFOED STEEET,
AND CHARING OEOSS.

CONTENTS.

PAGE,
1. Speech on moving for leave to introduce a Bill for
THE Extension of the Suffrage, March 12 .. .. 1
2. Speech at a Public Meeting in the Amphitheatre,
Liverpool, April 6  62
3. Speech on moving the Second Reading of the Bill
FOR THE Extension of the Suffrage, April 12 ... 91
4. Speech at the Close of the Debate on the Amend
ment OF Lord Grosvenor to the Motion for the
Second Heading of the Bill, April 27  130
5. Speech on moving for leave to bring in a Bill for
THE Eedistbibution OF SEATS, May 7  189
6. Speech on the Amendment of Captain Hatter to
THE Motion for going into Committee on the Bill
FOR THE EeDISTRIBUTION OP SEATS, JuNE 4 .. .. 220
7. Speech on the Amendment moved bt Lord Dunkellin
TO THE Fifth Clause of the Bill for the Extension
OF the Suffrage, June 18  265
8. Speech on announcing the Eetirement of Ministers,
June 26  291
9. Speech on moving the Discharge of the Order of
THE Dat for further proceeding with the Bill,
July  304

iv CONTENTS.
APPENDIX.
PAGE.
No. 1. — Letter to the London "Working Men's Asso
ciation  307
No. 2. — Letter to Mr. Hugessen  309
No. 3. — Letter to Mr. Horsfall, of Manchester .. 312
No. 4. — Speech on the Second Heading of Mr. Baines's
Bill, on the 11th op May, 1864  313

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

EBPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
introduction of the bill.
THHE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I
-*- have now, Sii-, to ask that those Paragraphs of
The Queen's Speech, which relate to the electoral
franchise, may be read at the table.
Paragraphs in Queen's Speech at the opening of the
Session read, as follows : —
" I have directed that information should be 'procured
in reference to the Hights of Voting in the Mlection of
Members to serve in Parliament for Counties, Cities, and
Boroughs. " When that information is complete, the attention of
Parliament will be called to the result thus obtained, with
a view to such improvements in the Laws which regulate
the Mights of. Voting in the Election of Members of the
Souse of Commons as may tend to strengthen our Free
Institutions and conduce to the Public Welfare."
The Chancellor of the Exchequee again rose
and said — Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sir, if in order to
estimate justly the arduous character of the question
which I have now to bring before you, it be right, as I
suppose, to take into view not only its own extent and
B

2 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
complexity, and not only the strange fluctuation of
circumstances which has attended and marked its his
tory, but also the weakness of the hands into which the
treatment of it has fallen, then, perhaps, I may well say
that few Ministers have risen in recent years to address
this House under greater difSculties than those, which
at this moment attend my own position and my present
task. Sir, those difSculties are, I am conscious, of such
a kind as to affect in the first instance Her Majesty's
Government ; and we are perfectly sensible of the
weight of responsibility which attaches to us. But
although they be concentrated in their greatest weight
upon us, yet they are not ours alone. The interest in
the successful solution of this question is an interest
common to the whole House of Commons; to every
party, and to every section of a party, that sits within
these walls. For, Sir, let me remind you that those
Paragraphs, which we have just heard read, are not the
only Paragraphs in which, under the most solemn form
known to the Constitution, the subject of the Represen
tation of the People has been brought under the notice
of Parliament. By no less than five Administrations,
and in no less than six Speeches of the Queen anterior
to that of the present year, the House of Commons has
been acquainted by the Sovereign, under the advice of
her constitutionally appointed Ministers, that the time,
in their judgment, had arrived when the Eepresentation
of the People ought to undergo revision. It is needless
to refer to the terms of those Speeches severally ; but
it will at once be recollected that they have not been
delivered exclusively at periods when Ministers taken
from this side of the House were in power. In '1859,

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 3
and in I860, as well as in other years, and by both
parties, each in its turn, those solemn pledges have been
given in the face of the country.
And, Sir, having much, I fear, to state to the House,
I shall not, under the circumstances I have stated,
unnecessarily occupy its time on this occasion by dis
cussing the general grounds of the question, whether
there ought to be a revision of our electoral system, and
whether the franchises of the people ought to be ex
tended. With such an accumulation of authority, and
of authority proceeding from every quarter, in my
favour, I hold it to be superfluous, for the moment, to
debate that general question. I shall assume that by
these declarations, so repeatedly and so solemnly Tnade,
the general ground and justification have been suffi
ciently, nay, amply supplied, on which Her Majesty's
present Government are warranted in placing before
you a proposal relating to this important subject. And
I venture, Sir, to request from the House not only for
myself that kind patience and indulgence which I have,
times innumerable, received at its hands, but likewise,
what is more material, for the question which I have
to introduce, that grave and earnest attention which
belongs to a matter undoubtedly of a serious order.
Sir, it may be with great truth said, with respect to
the origin of this question, that it is emphatically the
work of the House' of Commons itself. Let me remind
the House, as the period has now long gone by, and as
many of the Gentlemen whom I address have recently
taken their seats on these Benches for the first time —
let me -remind the House of what happened in the
beginning of the year 1851. And I must say that
the event, which then occurred, was of a nature to saddle
b2

4 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
the responsibility connected with the introduction of
this question, in a high and peculiar sense, not merely
on one or on another Minister or Government, but upon
the whole body of the House of Commons. It was an
independent Member— my hon. Friend the Member for
East Surrey (Mr. Locke King)— who, on the 20th of
February, 1851, moved for leave to bring in a BiU. to
grant a 10?. occupation franchise in counties. In the
debate which followed, the sole opponent of that Motion
was my noble Friend now at the head of the Govern
ment. Every other authority in the House either
approved, or was silent on the occasion. Although, in
resisting the Motion, the noble Earl, then first Minister,
promised that the Government would itself take the
question into its consideration, and would in the follow
ing Session make a proposal for amending the represen
tation of the people, yet this did not at the time satisfy
the House, and the Government were beaten by a
majority of forty-eight. The minority consisted of
fifty-two Members ; and among those fifty- two there
were not, I think, more than twelve or fifteen persons
who sat on the Benches of the party opposite. So that
it cannot, I think, be denied that the first initiation of
this subject in the form in which it now comes before
us — naving begun as a question of the county franchise
only, but it having been perfectly well known that a
change in that portion of our system must draw a change
in the borough franchise along with it — the initiation
of this subject, I say, was in a peculiar sense the work
of the House of Commons. And, therefore, in inviting
you to co-operate with us, the advisers of the Cro-wn, in
our endeavour to bring it to a solution, we are inviting
you not only to relieve us of difficulties, but to effect a

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 5
work in which Parliament itself has had, from the first,
a common interest with ourselves. .
Sir, the election of a new Parliament in 1 865 natu
rally led the Government to feel, that the time had
arrived when it was right that the sense of the repre
sentatives ofthe people should again be taken in regard
to the laws which regulate our electoral system. The
duty of the Government in this respect was a very plain
one. No doubt, they had before them the discouraging
record of former failures. No doubt, they had to deal,
as it was obvious, with a state of the public mind that
was not clear, definite, and resolute, but rather one
bewildered, or, at the least, indecisive. Their duty, how
ever, was, as I have said, plain. It was at once to
examine the whole materials within their reach which
could throw real light upon the case; to cast aside
every consideration narrower than those which belonged
to a great public and national interest ; not to inquire
for one moment what might be for the benefit or for
the convenience of this party or of that ; to be more
studious of the substance, than of the shadow or the
name, of their own consistency ; to apply their minds
and the best powers they possessed to the, construction of
a prudent, but an effectual measure ; and then to await
the issue at the hands of Parliament; but, as far as
depended upon them, having once framed their mea
sure, to sustain and support it with all the energy and
decision they could command.
And, Sir, the first question which we had to consider
was a most important one. It was whether we were to
attempt legislation in the present Session, or whether
we were to be content for the time with inquiry. It
was beyond all dispute that the careful examination of

6 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM'.
the facts of the case lay at the very threshold of the
subject. It was the .want of information, or at any rate
the want of definite and authentic information, which
had furnished the greatest opening for contention during
the debates of the year 1860. It was scarcely possible,
in that year, to get at the point really in issue. Such
were the doubts, such were the misgivings, such was
the scepticism in regard to the figures on the one side
and on the other, that we felt that if we were really to
come to issue on the merits of the case, we must endea
vour to make oursel^jes, and to make Parliament as well
as ourselves, masters of the material facts appertaining
to it. Well, Sir, with no delay — I believe in the first
autumn Cabinet, which was held after the funeral of
our lamented chief, and certainly before approaching
any other domestic question of a public character — we
applied ourselves to consider and frame the heads under
which that information was to be obtained. As soon as
those heads could be framed, the necessary measures
were taken for procuring it; and I am bound to say
that the assistance we have received from the Poor Law
Department, and in particular the labours of Mr. Lam
bert, who has been the person principally concerned,
proved to be, in point of ability and of assiduity, every
thing that we could desire. Indeed, I am persuaded
that if Members, whether they sit on this side or on
that, have been able, since Saturday morning last, to
institute any examination of the volume of Eeturns
which has been laid on the table, they will admit that
in the preparation of that volume the time has not been
misspent ; and they will likewise admit that they have
now the advantage of approaching the consideration ol
this important question with such a range of knowledge,

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 7
with such a mass of authentic and weighty facts, as have
never been collected before.
We, therefore. Sir, can truly say that no time has
been wasted. Had we, howev.er, found that it was not
feasible, by the means at the command of the Executive
Government, to obtain information which should be both
full in its scope and range, and authentic and trust
worthy in its character, we should have had no hesi
tation in at once seeking the aid of Parliament, and in
postponing legislation until such information had been
obtained. But when we saw what could be done, and
when, as the materials began to flow in upon our hands
dming the winter months, we perceived what had been
done, we had no doubt whatever as to the practicability
of satisfying both the branches of the Legislature with
regard to the sufficiency of their knowledge ; and,
therefore, we had not the least hesitation in at once
pledging ourselves, as early as the commencement of
the Session, to the introduction of a measure on this
subject. And here, Sir, I am anxious to make an explanation
in reference to the preparation of the electoral statistics
now in the hands of the Members of this House. There
have been, here and there, not unnatural indications of a
disposition to murmur at the supposed delay in the pro
duction of these Papers, and to ascribe such delay to
hesitation and vacillation of purpose on the part of the
Government. Undoubtedly that has not been the case.
So anxious have we been to give promptly to the House
of Commons, as far as we could, the same means of
judging with ourselves, that I can truly state that on
Friday evening I could not obtain for my own use a
completely finished copy of those Papers, other than the

8 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
copy that was laid by me on the table of the House of
Commons, and that, consequently, whea so laid, had
passed out of my controul.
But the question of time has an importance very dif
ferent from that which it derives from its connection with
vague rumours or vague insinuations. It has this im
portance — it is now the 12th of March when I make to
you the first proposal for the introduction of a Bill ; and,
taking into consideration the approach of the Easter
recess, it will not be possible for us to ask you to read
the Bill a second time till the second week in April. As
prudent and practical men, therefore, we have had to
measure what our powers might be with regard to legis
lation in the present Session. Then, of course, arose the
question for consideration — Are we to have what is
termed a complete measure, or are we to have one that is
incomplete ? Now, I would ask Members of the House
to cj)nsider what is meant by a complete revision of our
representative system. I must, indeed, omit from any
definition or explanation I may offer of the phrase some
branches of legislation, which are or have been favourites
with a portion of the Members of the House, and which
we, as a Government, do not admit to be necessary or
desirable for us to take into consideration. I need not,
therefore, refer to such questions as the question of secret
voting, or the question of shortening Parliaments, which
I cannot give any undertaking to view with favour- either
now or at a future time ; but I refer to what would more
generally be admitted to belong to a complete revision
of our representative system; because we — like every
one else — are sensible of the immense advantage which
would attend an operation, whereby you would be able
to deal with the whole range of the question at once.

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 9
In the first place, then, there must be a consideration
of the franchise in England and Wales, and a like con
sideration in Scotland, where it is, perhaps, even more
obviously, I might say more urgently, required. The
subject of the Irish franchise, too, must be considered ;
although that is in a simpler state, because the electoral
arrangements in that island have been more recently
adjusted by Parhament, and the machinery necessary for
such pui-poses is much more perfect than in this country.
Then comes the whole group of questions that are in
cluded in the common phrase " redistribution of seats"
— questions between the three Kingdoms — questions
between to"wn and country — questions between total
extinction, or capital punishment, such as is inflicted in
Schedule A, and the milder method of amputation, such
as is administered in Schedule B, or that yet milder
method of grouping small boroughs together, adopted in
principle by my noble Friend now at the head of Her
Majesty's Government in his Bill of 1852, but suscep
tible of being applied in many and very different forms.
All these are matters that must undergo careful con
sideration by Parliament, and must, almost of necessity,
entail protracted discussion. Then comes another ques
tion, which, in reviewing our electoral system, can never
be avoided ; namely, the question whether the present
boundaries of boroughs are such as the circumstances of
those boroughs naturally demand. To meddle with the
boundaries of boroughs for the sake of affecting questions
of town and country representation, and a supposed
balance of interests, would, in my opinion, be a gross
abuse. But, on the other hand, to inquire what may
justly be called the natural boundaries of each borough,
as determined by public convenience from time to time.

10 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
is not only a legitimate and useful, but it is an essential
part of any complete review of our electoral laws.
I am sorry to say that there is another matter belong
ing to that review, which I do not believe to be less
urgent at the present time than at any other, and that
is the consideration of the state of the law with respect
to corrupt practices at elections. I cannot hazard pro
phecies on that subject, which is as difficult as it is
important. But I am afraid the urgency of it now, as
compared with former times, is in no degree diminished ;
and, undoubtedly, it could not be passed over by any
Government in taking a complete survey of the electoral
system. Lastly comes a question of great practical im
portance, though no doubt of a less arduous character,
concerning the administrative machinery for registration,
and for the holding of elections. These subjects. Sir,
are complex in themselves ; but they have been further
complicated by the speculations of many men of great
ability and great authority, who have thought that,
taking into account on the one side the demand for the
extension of the franchise, and, on the other side,
the difficulties we have to encounter with respect to the
due or undue distribution of power among the different
classes of the community, the time had come for intro
ducing in one form or another propositions to which they
attach great importance. One or other of them, nay
several of them, may be supported by arguments the
most ingenious, and by authorities the most weighty ;
but yet they are propositions, of almost all of which it
may be emphatically said, that they are in the old Eng
lish sense innovations, and which, as being innovations,
never could come under the criticism of this House
without the expenditure of much time in a careful, a

EEPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. II
searching, and a jealous examination. Now, was it pos
sible for us to suppose that, as we now stand in respect
to time, it would be inthe power of Parliament to accom
plish the complete review, that I have endeavoured to
describe, during the present Session ? It is all very good,
very conformable to the habits of this country, and in
itself a very constitutional habit of mind, to entertain the
idea of what we call the omnipotence of Parliament.
But time and space are not yet annihilated, either for
the purpose, as the dramatist has it, of making lovers
happy, or for any other purpose. I, therefore, want to
know what is the time at our command in the position
in which we stand, and what is, on the other hand, the
time probably requisite to enable Parliament to deal in
a deliberate and effectual manner with this group of sub
jects? Neither of these questions is very difficult to
answer.. As regards the time at our command, as far as
I can at present judge, if we obtain leave from the
House for the introduction of this Bill, we shall propose
that the second reading take place on the 12th of April.
Suppose, then, I measure the time between the I2th of
April and the middle of July, which I think will be the
latest period at which such a Bill can, under ordinary
circumstances, be sent to the House of Lords, I find that
the evenings certainly at the disposal ofthe Govemment
would amount to about twenty-four. One-half of these
might, as we must calculate, probably be occupied by
the financial arrangements of the Session, and by the
business of Supply. Beyond a period, then, which
might not much exceed twelve evenings, we shall have
nothing whatever to depend upon but the charity of
private Members, and the crumbs that may fall from
•their table. What have we found on similar occasions

12 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
in former years ? In 1860 we spent about ten nights, in
trying, I may say, to do nothing. The great example
of the Eeform Act may give us some idea of the time
occupied by complete reviews of our electoral system. A
single one of the three Bills, out of which the Eeform
Act finally grew, occupied fifty nights of ihe time ofthe
House of Commons. But I feel that I should understate
the case if I were to say that 100 nights, at least, were
expended in that complete review of the electoral system,
which was achieved in the year 1831-2. It may be said,
and said very truly, that at that time there was a poli
tical heat and excitement, and a degree of apprehension,
which do not now exist ; and I do not suppose that any
such review as I have indicated would at the present
day require so great a time. But, then, let me point
out that the time occupied in passing that Act, and the
subsequent Acts, was not less than some six or eight
times in extent that which is now, even at a sanguine
estimate, at our certain command. On the occasion to
which I have referred. Parliament did indeed achieve a
complete review of our electoral system ; but, in order
to do so, it turned day into night, and summer into
winter. You called upon every member of every class
to sacrifice all his domestic engagements, you made the
seasons of the year give way to your resistless and de
termined will, and you justly sacrificed, nay, you were
compelled to sacrifice, all other legislation, I may say, of
a nature to require serious discussion, for a period of two
years. These are not the circumstances in which we now
stand. We may reckon, I have no doubt, upon very fair
and reasonable treatment with respect to the progress of
a m.easure of this kind. Do not let it be supposed that

EEPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 13
I now reckon on our encountering what is called obstruc
tion. We may gather, I think, what we ought to antici
pate from a few words in a speech delivered by the right
hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) in 1860. He
said —
" He and his friends desired, in short, not delay, but
that deep and deliberate investigation of a great subject
which was in accordance with the freedom of discussion
by which the Parliament of England was characterised."
The right hon. Gentleman was justified in calling for
such an investigation ; and for us to attempt now to over
look or pass by such a call would be a breach of duty on
our part. And experience teaches us what this sort of
investigation means. We have determined, therefore,
that it was quite impossible for us to do more than, in
approaching this question, to look first at what we might
think came first in the natural order of importance.
And I do not doubt for one moment that the branch of
the question, which stands first in its own importance,
and in the public estimation, is that which relates to the
enfranchisement of large, numbers of our fellow-country
men now excluded from the electoral suffrage, but
qualified, as we believe, to use it with credit and ad
vantage. This, Sir, we think to be the first and most urgent
claim upon us ; and this, therefore, unable as we are at
the moment to deal in Parliament with the whole
matter, we propose for immediate legislation. We might,
it is true, have adopted a different mode of action ; we
might have framed a complete measure, or a complete
set of measures, and might have thrown them on the
table of this House, claiming credit for the comprehen
siveness of our views, and availing ourselves of every

14 PAELIAMENTAEY REFORM.
formula and commonplace of objection to legislating
piecemeal. But we should have done this, knowing per
fectly well that such measures could not, in all likelihood,
within the time at our command, be duly considered ;
that the effect of the proposal would be to prevent
the possibility, or at least mar the prospect, of real
progress during the year ; and that to all the unhappy
miscarriages which have occurred in former sessions with
relation to this subject, we were adding the certainty of
another failure the most disastrous, and by far the most
discreditable of them all. We have therefore deter
mined to confine the Bill, which we are about to ask for
leave to introduce, to the consideration of the electoral
franchise ; and we have founded this determination mainly
on a review of the time and circumstances in which we
stand, and on the amount of opportunity at our command.
Perhaps, however, it may be asked — and the demand
is, I think, a fair one — what view we take of the Scotch
electoral franchise. A question which has been put to
me this day by an hon. Baronet opposite has, indeed,
given me an intimation that we must not expect to stir
this question in England, without being prepared to deal
with it in Scotland also. What we ourselves think is,
that a fair review of our representative system must
include, if not all, yet unquestionably most, of the im
portant subjects I have named. We freely admit that
the present plan is incomplete. But it will be asked,
" Do you intend to complete it ?" Now, I have ever
been averse — and I think that aversion is justified
by general observation and experience— to dealing in
pledges, which in a case like this must, in part at least,
embrace a future Session. Such are the number and
variety of the circumstances, which must affect the posi-

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 15
tion and duties of the Government of an Empire like
ours, that we must, in my opinion, look to the future
itself, to determine the proper opportunities for dealing
with the portions not at present touched of this im
portant question. This, however, I am free to say, that
while I believe the group of questions bound up with the
complex subject of Parliamentary Eeform are beyond
handling in one Session, and especially in what remains
to us of the current Session, yet I cannot have the
slightest doubt that, if the Government find it to be in
their power to take up those other questions by way of
direct sequel to the proposition which they now make,
the present Parliament will be perfectly competent to
discuss and decide whatever measures we may bring
forward with relation to them.
Having arrived, Sir, as we some time back did arrive, at
the conclusion that we ought to deal with the question
of Parliamentary representation, and to approach it
first in that branch which concerns the franchise, it was
equally obvious to us that, if we did not revive the BiU
for which we were responsible, as a Government in great
part composed of the same individuals, in I860, that
Bill, at least, formed for us the natural starting-point of
our inquuy. And now I wiU first take the question
of the county representation. This is not a question
beset with very great intrinsic difiiculties ; and I do not
beheve that it is regarded with anything like the jea
lousies, with which the question of the borough repre
sentation is surrounded. In the year 1860, a proposal
was adopted by the Government, which had been con
tained in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for East
Surrey, to reduce the occupation franchise in counties
from 501. to 10?. That proposal was not attended, I

16 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
believe, by any other proposal touching the county
representation. What we now propose is a modification
of this plan. We propose to reduce the occupation
franchise — my statement is not precisely accurate when
I say to reduce the occupation franchise, but it is accu
rate enough, and is, perhaps, the mode of speech which
will generally be best understood — from 50?. to 14?. This
reduction of the franchise from 50?. downwards will not,
I have intimated, precisely correspond with the 50?.
franchise as it now exists. We propose to leave that
50?. franchise precisely as it stands. The occupation
franchise, which we propose between 50?. value and 14?.
value, will be an occupation franchise, not of land alone,
but of a house, or of a house with land. That is the
nature of the franchise which we propose ; and there is
no great difficulty in sufficiently estimating, from the
papers which have been laid on the table, the amount
of enfranchisement which this change will produce. It
would correspond, as nearly as possible, with the efiect
of a 12Z. ratmg franchise. And, if hon. Members will
look to the figures furnished by the volume of statistics
which has been presented to Parliament with respect
to a 12?. rating franchise, they will find, I think, that
its effect, after making proper deductions for those'who
do not claim to vote, and for those who have not been
in occupation a sufficient length of time to come upon
the register, will be to add to the present number of
county voters about 172,000 persons.
I may here be asked, why it is that we do not go
down to the limit of 1 0?. I do not know, and I certainly
cannot say, that there would be any danger, so far as I
am able to discern, in going downwards to that limit ;
but what we think on the whole is this, that by the

REPEESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 17
change which the Bill recommends we shall obtain not
only a very large, but a very independent addition to
the county constituencies. At least we are of opinion that,
by going from 14?. to 10?., we should probably obtain not
a more but a rather less independent reinforcement of the
county voters. We have, I may add, no apprehension
whatever with regard to the considerable enfranchise
ment which we propose ; and we hope no such appre
hension will prevail in any other quarter. It will, I
think, be admitted on all hands, and I, for one, very
strongly entertain the opinion, that this must be viewed
as a middle-class enfranchisement. The county consti"'
tuency, when thus enlarged, wiU be a middle-class con
stituency in the same sense as, nay rather more strictly
than, under the present system. The number of persons
¦ properly belonging to the working-classes, and having
a 14?. rental franchise, will be so very insignificant
as hardly to be worth taking into calculation. Or at
the least, I may say, that such portion of the newly
enfranchised body as may belong to the labouring class,
will be tenants of small holdings of land, in immediate
connection with the class of landed proprietors, and
likely to augment, more than to diminish, their influence
over the representation.
We have looked, however, further into the matter, to
see whether there were any cases in which, under the
present law, there were interests of a more strictly pro
prietary character, interests connected with tenure, the
most properly of ail belonging to the county franchise,
yet not provided for by the present law ; and we found
the foUo-wing state of the law to prevail with regard to
county franchises derived from property situate within
the hmits of cities and boroughs. We found that a man

18 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFORM.
possessed of a 40s. freehold within a borough might draw
from it a county vote ; but that, if he had within a
borough a copyhold, which is a rare case, or a leasehold,
which is much more common, and which is just as truly
a proprietary interest as a 40s. freehold, and may in
many cases be of fifty times the amount, he would not
be entitled to vote for it in the county within which
it lies. We propose, therefore, by a clause in the Bill,
to give to the possessor of copyhold and leasehold pro
perty within the limits of boroughs the right of voting
for the counties in which they are respectively situate,
as if they were freeholders within the limits of boroughs,
but of course under the same conditions of relative
amount which are fixed by the present law for each of
these descriptions of property.
I am not able to estimate what the numerical effect
of this proposal will be. It would not be possible, I
think, for us, as a Government, to obtain any adequate
materials for the purpose. The admission cannot be
numerically very large ; but it must, I think, be good
so far as it goes, because it will give a kind of consti
tuency thoroughly germane to the nature and purposes
of a county representation, according to the old rule of
the Constitution.
I come now to another topic affecting counties, and
it is the only remaining one I need mention. I intro
duce it at this point because it is in connection with
counties, in my opinion, that it will have its principal
operation. I must. Sir, briefly allude to the subject of
those franchises, new to the Constitution, and distinct
from the franchises of tenure and occupation, which
have sometimes been pilloried with scoffing or irre
verent names, but which may be properly called, I think.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 19
special or bye-franchises. A number of those franchises
were proposed by the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen in
the BOl of 1854, and again in the Bill of 1859 by the
Ministry of Lord Derby. So far as the Bill of 1854 is
concerned, I may say that many of us, who form the
present Govemment, were responsible for it. But we
have considered further and very carefully the nature of
those franchises, and the numerous considerations that
bear on the policy of their introduction. And first of
all I think I may say, "without fear of contradiction,
that they are not suitable or adequate as a general
basis for extending the franchise. At the best, they
can only be auxiliary. They do not in general admit
any large number of such persons as you cannot get
by the old customary constitutional means of occupa
tion and tenure. They have, however, a great ten
dency to complicate the electoral system by introducing
a multitude of titles and a diversity of investigations,
thereby multiplying and increasing the expense, already
very heavy, which is connected with our system of regis
tration. And therefore, speaking generally, the effect
of our review, I do not hesitate to say, has been unfa
vourable to the general introduction of those bye-fran
chises and special franchises. But there is one among
them, with respect to which, although not attaching
to it any exceeding importance, yet, notwithstanding, we
think there are sufficient grounds for recommending it
to the favourable notice of Parliament ; I mean that
which is called the Savings-banks franchise. The
Savings-banks franchise has the following advantages.
First of all, as far as it goes, it meets a feehng pre
valent in the country, and a feeling to which we are
disposed to give effect as far as we can without the
o2

20 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFORM.
sacrifice of more, important ends and aims; a feeling
that it is desirable to include within the constituent
body, by the method of what I may call spontaneous
selection, some who could not be included by any me
thod of franchise you could adopt, founded upon the old
principles of occupation or tenure. Now certainly it
must be true — it is beyond all reasonable doubt or
question, although the nature of Savings banks does
not allow us to offer you any actual demonstration of
it — it is true without any doubt that provident habits
enable many persons in early youth, many in very
humble circumstances, many not having any inde
pendent holding, to amass their little, stores by the time
they come to legal age, and thereby, as we think, to
qualify themselves, and justly qualify themselves, for
taking part in the choice of those who are to govern the
country. And, above all, the Savings-banks franchise
has this notable advantage, that it is attended with no
complication of title whatever. Every depositor in a
Savings bank possesses — it is necessary for him as a
depositor to possess — ^a book, in which is inserted every
payment in he has made, and every payment out he has
received, with the date of each and of all these pay
ments ; so that an inspection, which could hardly re
quire a minute of time, would tell you, when you had
fixed your standard, by the amount of balance remain
ing at the specified periods, whether a man is qualified
to be put upon the register as a Savings-bank depositor
or not. We therefore propose that all adult male depo
sitors of 50?. and upwards, who have been possessed of
that deposit for two years in a Savings bank, or in a
Post Office Savings bank, shall be entitled to be regis
tered for the place in which they may reside. The

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 21
place wherein they reside will, I think, commonly be out
side the limits of a represented town. Of course, I do
not mean because there will be no such depositors in
Savings banks within the limits of towns, but because in
the towns the nature of the general franchise may pro
bably be such, as to include tho great bulk of them.
But a large proportion, I thuik, of these depositors
will be found to be below the limits of the 14?. holding
which is proposed for counties ; and it is on that account
that I mention the Savings banks in connection with
this department of the electoral system.
With respect to the term I have mentioned, namely,
two years, for the duration of the deposit, we do not
follow precisely the arrangements proposed in some
former Bills; but it is obviously proper to propose a
certain period of time as an essential part of the quali
fication, in order to prevent this franchise from being
used as a means of corruption.
And now, Sir, as to the probable, or possible, numbers
of depositors in Savings banks who may be enfranchised.
If we look to the Eeturns regarding the Savings banks,
printed within the last few days, we find that, out of the
imposing totals of the depositors of all classes, no less a
number of male adults in England and Wales than
94,000 are depositors to the amount of 50?., and of these,
again, the depositors for two years amount to 87,000.
But when we come to consider the probable operation
of two most powerful causes, we shall find that we must
not reckon upon large enfranchisements from this source.
It would be a mere delusion, in my opinion, to look upon
it as the probable means of a large enfranchisement.
The first of these causes is, that so large a proportion of
these persons wiU be enfranchised by other titles and

22 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
claims ; and the second is, the immense deduction that
ought to be made from the apparent effect of every
provision for the extension of the franchise, when that
franchise is accompanied, as it is of necessity in this
case, with the condition that the possession of the fran
chise must be attended with the trouble of an annual
claim. Now the trouble of an annual claim in this case
is inevitable. The money might be withdrawn, the
qualification might be lost ; and to prevent gross abuse
it is absolutely necessary that a claim should be made.
We cannot in a case like this relieve the depositor from
his trouble by means of a public offer. The claim must,
therefore, be made, and must be renewed from year to
year ; and, therefore, although we think this a good
franchise, we offer it simply as a collateral and sub
sidiary franchise. If it adds 10,000 or 15,000 to the
electoral body, I believe that is an outside estimate of
what it will do. It is right, however, to observe that
any estimate of numbers under this head must neces
sarily be matter of conjecture. But, at any rate, it is a
very good franchise as far as it goes ; and moreover we
hope that under the operation of the Post Office Savings
banks it will be a franchise having a tendency gradu
ally to extend itself.
These remarks, I think, Sir, complete what I have to
say upon the subject of the county suffrage. And I
repeat that the enfranchisement in counties will, accord
ing to the plan of the Government, as far as we can see,
be a middle-class enfranchisement. The effect of it
will be not to increase the relative share of the working
classes in the representation, but, on the contrary, to
diminish that share proportionately ; because the in
fluence of the working classes, represented by the very

EEPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 23
small freeholders, will form hereafter a diminished per
centage of the entire county constituency, as compared
with that which exists at the present moment.
Mr. Bright: What will be the proportion — how
much for the house, and how much for the land ?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : There must
be a house ; and if the house is inhabited by the man,
there is no condition as to its value ; while, if it is not
inhabited by the man, it must be worth 6^. at least,
or nearly one-half of the whole county qualification.
And I will now pass to the question of the franchise in
boroughs. I think it will contribute to clearness, which, above
all things, I am desirous to study, if I first call the
attention of the House to the fact that the inhabitants
of towns, for the purpose of enfranchisement, may be
dealt with in four distinct classes. One class, and this
is the principal class, inhabit separate houses, or at the
least separately rated buildings, and likewise undertake
to pay their own rates. These are the proper objects of
the Eeform Act of 1832 with respect to the franchise ;
and thefee I shall call ratepaying householders. The
next class consists of persons who inhabit their own
houses, and whose houses are separately rated, but who
do not pay their own rates ; these being paid otherwise,
either under Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act ; or, and more
commonly, und«r the Small Tenements Eating Act ; or,
in certain towns, under particular local Acts. In all
these cases, the rates are paid by the landlord. I shall
designate these inhabitants of towns by a phrase by
which they are best known, though I am not sure that
it is one of exact legal precision ; I shall term them
compound householders. The third class of persons,
with re?pect to whom it appears that they have now in

24 PARLIAMENTARY EEFORM.
law a claim to enfranchisement, like the two former
classes, but whose claim is, as far as we can obtain
information, practically null and valueless, is formed of
those who not only do not pay their own rates, but
whose holdings are not separately rated. That is to
say, they are inhabitants of a separate portion of a
house, but this separate portion is not separately rated ;
and these persons pay their rents without any specified
reference to rates whatever. The first two classes we
think to be properly householders. There has been
some tendency, I believe, in the course of legal decisions
to favour enfranchisement; and, accordingly, either to
introduce the third class under the title of householders,
or if not, yet to give them the effect of that title, that is
to say, to consider . these persons as qualified for the
franchise, though not strictly householders. But I
much doubt whether, except in a few instances, such as
the case of Victoria Street, Westminster, where the
houses are partitioned into separate holdings of a very
superior class, so that there can be no question of their
sufficiency of value, this class is now to be found in
practice on the hst or register of voters at all. As
regards them, inasmuch as they are not separately
rated, we hold it better, I might almost say we find it
indispensable, to deal with them as being practically,
for our purpose, lodgers. The only mode under the
present law, by which they could obtain' the franchise,
would be by getting their holdings separately rated.
The enormous majority of them are, I believe, to be
found in London ; and, as nothing could be more incon
venient than to establish an electoral law requiring
parishes to adopt rating arrangements, not useful for
•rating purposes, but only arbitrarily imposed upon them
for the purpose of the franchise, we think it better to

REPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 25
let things take their natural course. Substantially,
these persons are found standing in the category of
lodgers; and as lodgers we deal with them, although
generally speaking there is an open door, a common
staircase, and an access to the abode, or tenement, inde
pendently of the landlord or his representative. The
fourth class are lodgers properly so called ; being persons
who inhabit their own rooms, but as inmates in the
houses, indeed, in the domestic establishments, of others.
These four classes we deal with as being substantially
two, namely, householders and lodgers respectively, for
the purposes of our Bill.
And let us now approach the question on which, it is
idle to disguise, so much indecision, so much jealousy,
and so much apprehension exist; namely, the question
of the town franchise. We, Sir, desire, as far as de
pends on us, to remove all that indecision, to allay that
jealousy, and to abate that apprehension. We think
this can best be done, in the first place, by a full ex
position of the facts of the case. What is the present
state of the town constituencies ? and what progress has
been made by them, as compared with the population
in the represented towns, since 1832 ? In 1832, the
town constituencies, taken in gross, numbered 282,000
voters. Of these, 63,000 and odd were freemen ; 44,000
and odd were voters under the scot and lot, and other
old rights of a popular character; and 174,000 were
10?. householders. Between 1832 and 1865 the ten-
pounders rose to 463,000. The gross total of the con
stituency — we have no nett total for the year 1832, and
therefore I can only compare the gross numbers — the
gross total of the constituency was 514,000 in 1865.
That shows since 1832 an increase of 82 per cent.

26 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
Within the same period the population of the repre
sented towns has increased as follows. In 1831 the
population of the towns was 5,207,000 ; in 1865 it is
calculated to have been 9,326,000. The increase, then,
has been 4,119,000 or 79 per cent. So that the growth
of the constituency — and I wish to call the attention of
the House to this fact — the growth of the constituency
in towns, notwithstanding the vast augmentation of the
wealth of the country, has practically but just exceeded
the bare growth of the population. That is, I appre
hend, an important fact for the House to bear in mind.
In the counties it is otherwise ; there the growth of the
constituency has been as great, but the growth of the
population has been much less; so that the growth of
the constituency has been considerably beyond the
increase of the population.
I now come to a point of very great interest and also
of importance ; and I think the House will be of opinion
that, if three or four months have been spent in the
collection of these Eeturns, they would not have been
ill-spent, even though they should have led to no other
result than the particulars contained in the Blue Book
of Friday last, with respect to the representation of the
working classes in the present constituency. The figures,
as they stand, come to the following result. I mentioned,
I think, that the gross town constituency was 514,000.
Great pains have been taken in every case to strike off
double entries, and I have no doubt that has been done
with considerable precision. The nett number of the
constituency, as far as we can ascertain, is now 489,000.
Generally through my statement, for the convenience
of the House, I confine myself to thousands, and reject
odd numbers. The 10?. voters of the working classes are

REPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 27
returned as 108,000, and the freemen and old-right
voters - of the working classes as 20,000 ; making a
total of 128,000 ; and showing an apparent percentage
of 26 per cent, of the present constituencies as belonging
to the working classes. Well, now. Sir, there "mil be, I
have no doubt, some dispute as to the soundness of our
definition of the working man ; and I am bound to say
that our definition is a large definition. [Mr. White :
Hear, hear !] I believe, however, that, though imperfect
and disputable, yet it is practically the least faulty
definition that can be found. [Mr. White : Hear,
hear!] Let my honourable Friend try his hand at
framing a better ; he will find it no easy matter. I do
not believe the phrase " working men " admits of accu
rate definition ; but we have found the only definition
we could take is undoubtedly a liberal definition ; so
that you might say that 10 or that 20 per cent, of those
included in the working class under our definition are
so considerably interested in shopkeeping, or are other
'wise in circumstances of such a nature, that they ought
not to be found among the working class. There is
beyond question a certain amount of debateable ground,
a fringe of uncertainty, between class and class. I think
it right to notice this, in order that there may be a clear
understanding of the case as it stands. But suppose we
deduct 20 per cent, from the amount, the result of these
remarkable figures will still be, that not less than 21 per
cent, of the constituency may be considered as belonging
to the working class. And I freely own it is a larger
percentage than I had expected to find. I am very
glad that this is so ; and, if the percentage were still
higher, I should like it all the better.
But I must observe upon this infusion of the working

28 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
class in the present constituency that, in the first place,
it is exceedingly unequal. I have gone roughly over
the 200 boroughs, and I, think I gathered together about
sixty boroughs, in which the proportion the working
class possessed of the franchise was not less than one-
third. I gathered thirty other boroughs, commonly
boroughs of greater importance, and in these I found
the proportion of the working class was not more than
one-tenth. Again, this distribution of the working class
is not only unequal, but I must say, as being myself a
Northerner, it is least where it ought to be largest; I
mean in the towns of the North. As an illustration of
this remark, I will mention the names of six towns. In
Oldham, with a constituency of 2285, the working class
are represented by 315, or one in 8 of the population;
in Halifax, with a constituency of 1771, the working
class stand at 171, or one in 10 ; in Stockport, with a
constituency of 1348, the working class are 124, or one
in 11 ; in Bradford, with a constituency of 5189, the
working class are 438, or one in 12 ; in Leeds, with a
constituency of 7217, the working class stand at 523, or
one in 14. And last of all, there is a town which
deserves special mention, not only on account of the
distinguished man by whom it was but twelve months
ago represented, but for other reasons — I mean the town
of Eochdale, which has probably done more than any
other town in making good to practical minds a case for
some enfranchisement of the working classes ; because it
is the town where that remarkable system, nay, what
appeared at first sight, I do not hesitate to say, that
most critical and even perilous system, obtained, under
which the working class ousted the retail dealer from
his accustomed province, and took into its own hands

EEPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 29
the business of supply ; but "where, through the extra
ordinary intelligence and self-governing power of these
men, that system has been brought to a most happy,
most successful issue, and has become a source of the
greatest comfort and profit to the labouring community.
What is the case in Eochdale ? With a constituency of
1358, the enfranchised working class stands at only 68,
or one in 20. I say, then, that if the percentage of the
working class, taken over the whole constituency, be
more satisfactory than I, in common I believe with
others, was led to expect, the manner of its distribution
is even less satisfactory. The case of Eochdale is, in
deed, a little peculiar. It so happens that a district
which naturally would belong to it is not included in
it; and that circumstance illustrates the necessity of
including some consideration of the present state of
boundaries in any complete revision of the representa
tive system.
Well, Sir, we are very much pleased, and in good
humour with ourselves, because we find that 26, or more
probably that 21, per cent, of the working classes are
included in the borough constituencies. Let me now
approach another point. How stood this proportion in
1832 ? I have endeavoured to make the best estimate
in my power, because this, too, is a very interesting and
important question. I apprehend there cannot be the
smallest doubt of the propositions I am now about to
state. First of all, that the enfranchisement of the
working class, as it stood in 1832, was not an excessive
enfranchisement at that time. Secondly, that the ad
vance of the working class, smce 1832, in everything
that can entitle men to some share in the Government
of their country, has been a great and an undeniable

30 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
advance. It is not denied on any hand — whether we
take education in schools ; whether we take social con
duct ; whether we take obedience to the law ; whether
we take self-command and power of endurance, shown
under difficulty and privation ; whether we take respect
for the rights and liberties of others ; whether we take
avidity for knowledge and self-improvement ; if we
apply any one of these tests, or any other test that can
be named, there can be no doubt at all that, if the
working man in any given degree was fit to share in poli
tical privileges in 1832, he has, at any rate, attained a
considerable further degree of fitness now. How, then,
I ask, stands the case now as compared with 1832?
In 1832 there were 63,000 freemen. I take the pro
portion of working men among the whole body of free- •
men at that date to have been the same as by our
Eeturns ..we find it to be now, that is to say, to have
been 54 per cent, of that number ; consequently, there
were then 34,000 freemen belonging to the working class.
The scot and lot and potwallopers were 45,000, and I
assume that 60 per cent, of these voters belonged to the
working class. In my opinion that is a very moderate
estimate ; an estimate below the truth. The 10?. occu
piers in 1832 were 174,000. I assume, for the purpose
of comparison (which, however, I deem open to ques
tion), that in 1832 the working class represented only
15 per cent, of the 10?. occupiers of that day. The
result of this computation is that, of the total consti
tuency of 282,000 in 1832, the proportion belonging to
the working class was 87,000, or 31 per cent. They are
now at the very outside not more than 26 per cent. It
is not satisfactory, in all points of view, to deal with this
question as a matter of pure statistics ; but then I must

EEPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 31
say, if these statistics can prove anything, the figures I
have quoted do prove that the working class, which
ought to have borne an increasing and growing pro
portion, has instead borne, during these thirty- four years,
a dwindling and diminishing proportion to the whole
number of the town constituency, and consequently that
the time has arrived when something ought to be done
to increase their share in the elective franchise.
And now. Sir, if I may take so great a liberty, I wish
to address one word to Gentlemen opposite. No wile,
no stratagem can lie in what I am about to say ; it is
the simplest thing in the world. Let them remark the
distribution of the working-class voters in different
parts of the constituency ; I would even promise them
that they may, if they wiU, derive immense consolation
from it ; and let them observe the effect of this working-
class element upon the relative strength of. political
parties; because it is not to be denied that there is
among them; and I admit not unnaturally, a consider
able apprehension of the effect of a large enfranchise
ment, or of any enfranchisement, of the working class,
with regard to a diminution of that particular Parlia
mentary influence, which most naturally and justifiably
these Gentlemen regard as the influence most essential
to the well-being of the State. I will, for the purpose
of illustration, take a case which we may call celebrated
on the one side, and notorious on the other. How
stands the population of the working classes in the
metropolitan boroughs as compared with the rest of the
country ? England, without the metropolitan boroughs,
has, in her town constituency, 27 per cent, of the work
ing classes ; England, within the metropolitan boroughs,
has only 23 per cent, of the working classes ; and yet I

32 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
apprehend that it is an undoubted fact that, if there bd
one section of Members who steadily, perseveringly,
and uniformly represent Liberalism in this House — a
somewhat advanced Liberalism indeed, but also, I am
glad to think, sometimes a philosophic Liberalism too,
it is that section of Members, who have been sent up to
this House by the metropolitan boroughs. Thus, then,
from constituencies having the smallest proportion of
the working classes have been sent up Members the
least " Conservative," in the party sense of that term.
That is my small modicum of consolation, humbly,
but sincerely, offered to the reflection of Gentlemen
opposite. I have stated. Sir, that the Government, in approach
ing the consideration of this question, naturally took the
Bill of 1860 as their starting point. It may be asked
whether, as to the towns, we adopt the Bill of 1860
simpliciter. Let me now call the attention of the House
to what took place in I860. And though we then spent
ten nights apparently in doing next to nothing, and
although a good deal that was irrelevant was then said
in comparing our own institutions with those of other
countries, it is my duty to admit that in the course of
the discussion of that year some important facts were
elicited. I do not think that, if we had been permitted
to proceed into Committee on the Bill of 1860, we
could have held by it exactly as it stood. Not because,
in our view of the Bill, it would have admitted too
many persons to the 'franchise. What was the view we
then took of it ? My noble Friend now at the head of
the Government, in introducing the Bill on the 1st of
March, pointed out that the effect of it would be, as he
judged, to enfranchise 194,000 persons in the boroughs ;

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 33
but that was, in our belief, an outside estimate; and
during the time the Bill was before the House we saw
reason rather to contract it than otherwise. Sir George
Lewis, than whom no man certainly could be a more acute
or more impartial judge, estimated the number from
later information at 160,000. My honourable Friend the
Member for Birmingham had taken it at about the same
amount, from 160,000 to 170,000. I do not think any
one who is of opinion that our borough representation
should be remodelled would say that was an unreason
able or an unduly large enfranchisement ; but it was, as
we found, an enfranchisement badly distributed and
imperfectly adjusted. We must bear in mind that the
metropolis, as measured by its population, is equal to
one-third part of the whole of the represented towns
in the country ; and undoubtedly, I think it could
be shown that the operation of that Bill would have
been highly unequal as between the metropolis and the
provincial towns. Very large numbers would have been
enfranchised in very many considerable towns; but it
was shown to us that in London, under the present law,
numbers of persons are excluded from the franchise as
it now exists, although they come within it according to
the spirit of the law. I refer to those compound house
holders, who cannot number less than 40,000 in London
alone. This large body of persons, though standing on
a footing, of social equality with many of the present
voters, the Bill of I860 virtually passed by. The Bill
of 1860 was, it might almost be said, of no use at all to
London. Such was even then the scale of rents in the
metropolis, that a descent from 10?. to 6?. in the rental
of houses was of no importance whatever. It is quite
true that this Bill for establishing a 6?. occupation fran-
D

34 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
chise did, according to our estimates, purport to en
franchise a number somewhere between 160,000 and
200,000 men ; and that other estimates were placed in
competition with ours, which placed the numbers higher.
The then Member for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James)
made a most effective speech in relation to some points
connected with the London constituency : and the
number of persons, likely to be admitted in the various
London boroughs under the 6?. franchise, he estimatedj
I think most extravagantly, at about 400,000. But a
Committee of the House of Lords, which considered this
question, by a large majority adopted a vote involving
the proposition that the 6?. franchise would have en
franchised a number I think approaching, if not even
exceeding, 300,000. Now we could not admit these
computations ; we held to our own belief ; and we still
placed the number of the working classes, that would
be admitted to the franchise, at from 160,000 to 180,000
or thereabouts. While we contended that this was a
proper number to admit, we also contended that the
franchise should be placed at 6?. Now I am bound to
avow that, if the Bill had proceeded into Committee,
the two propositions could not have stood together.
Either the one allegation or the other must have been
given up. No one would have asked Parliament to bring
down the franchise to 6?., and yet to leave a great mass
of 10?. householders unenfranchised. We must have
given these last the advantage of a real admission.
Not wishing, then, to disturb the relations of class to
class, we should, if we had gone into Committee, pro
bably have had to make a change as regarded the 61.
rental. The most authoritative statement on the sub
ject was that offered by Lord Eussell himself towards

REPEESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 35
the close of the discussion, after the debates in the
House of Commons had shown the imperfection of the
proposed' arrangement. On June 4, 1860, my noble
Friend said —
"And this I will say, that, if you will propose any of
the measures that have been mentioned this evening
either for raising the franchise by making it a rating
instead of a rental franchise, or by increasing the amount
of the rental, or, in another way that has been pointed
out, by admitting a great number of voters who are
distinguished by property, or by a high degree of
knowledge, from those belonging to the working classes
any proposition of the kind shall be fairly considered by
us in Committee. We certainly shall not declare ourselves
so completely wedded to the franchise which we have
put forward that we will not submit to treat on the
subject. If in Committee such a proposal as I have
alluded to be made, and if the House should prefer it to
that which we have originated, it will be our duty to see
whether the Bill with such an alteration would be a
valuable measure, whether it would extend the franchise
in a manner that would strengthen the institutions of
the country; and, in that case, though we might not
.think it a change for the better, we should be ready to
adopt that alteration."
Sir, it was in our view essential, as was declared by a
Motion carried in this House in 1859, that any fresh
enfranchisement in the towns should be principally an
enfranchisement downwards. But now that the facts
have been brought before us, we find they prove that,
through some defective operation of the present law,
large numbers of persons, being householders, who pay
d2

36 PAELIAMENTAEY REFORM.
a rent which the law allows to be a sufficient presump
tive qualification, are not in possession of the franchise ;
and we find it impossible to overlook the claims of these
persons. We find it to be our very first duty to inquire
how many and who there are that, being above the line
of 10?., and being at present within the spirit of the law,
still remain practically unenfranchised ; and then to
devise some plan whereby they may be enfranchised.
The first question, then, for us to ask is, what are
the defects in the law which bring about the result
complained of? They are two ; one of them I have
already glanced at ; and I will now mention the other.
By the present law, a man fulfilling the various con
ditions with respect to the time and value of occupation,
and to being rated, cannot be brought upon the register
unless he has paid the Queen's taxes, and the local rates
made since a certain date. This is usually called the
ratepaying clause. Men do not call it the taxpaying
clause. And certainly, as far as the Queen's taxes are
concerned, if I may venture to form a judgment upon
the' investigations we have made, I think the local
authorities have been exceedingly considerate, and have
not given much trouble to the voters. But so far as the
ratepaying provisions have been considered, there has.
been a great obstacle to enfranchisement ; some trouble"
has been occasioned, and many have lost the benefit of
the vote. It has been supposed sometimes that the
local authorities, for particular purposes, did not apply
for the payment of the rates until the time had elapsed
when the payment would secure the vote ; while in other
cases, do not let us conceal from ourselves the fact,
voters belonging to the two parties, at any rate a portion
of them, have had their taxes paid by the political agents

REPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 37
respectively, in the interest of the respective candidates.
In one instance, the local gentleman who most candidly
sent up information of this tenour to the Government,
discreetly wished it to be understood that his com
munication was to be considered confidential. Again,
there are certain boroughs where the law is system
atically, and by a joint understanding, overlooked on
both sides. All this is bad, and bad in various ways.
The operation of the law has been unjust, unequal,
ineffective, vexatious ; and this is a clause which we
propose to do away with altogether. In Liverpool I do
not overstate the case when I say that there are not less
than 6000 or 7000 persons, and probably more, whose
rates are regularly collected from the landlords by
arrangement with the parish officers, and therefore those
persons are disfranchised. Strictly, they are not com
pound householders, but ratepaying householders; ahd
yet they lose the franchise, contrary to the intention of
the Eeform Act, and without any fault of their own.
We propose, therefore, to abolish this clause ; and we
expect, as the victims of this clause are almost all of
the class that come v^ithin the general designation of
working men, we shall by this means admit to the con
stituency not less than 25,000 persons of those whom I
call above the line, that is, above the line of an occu
pation of 10?. in value.
Then we come to the question of the compound
householders ; and here what we think just and right is,
that the compound householder should be treated exactly
like the ratepaying householder. If the rent of the house
is on such a scale that, in the judgment of the Legis
lature, the holder of it is a suitable person to be
enfranchised, it is perfectly certain, as an economical

38 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
truth, that the rates upon that house, though paid in the
first instance by the landlord, are ultimately and truly
paid by the tenant ; and it cannot make any difference
to us, it does not seem to justify drawing any line of
political distinction, that, instead of being paid directly
by the householder, they are paid by the landlord, and
charged by him on the tenant in the rental.
At present the law is defective in this respect, that the
name of the compound householder does not commonly
appear upon the rate-book. Now, for the proper pur
poses of rating, it ought so to appear; and in an
Amendment that we shall have to propose in the law of
rating, we shall provide that the name of the holder
of a house, as well as of any rated holding that is not
a house, shall appear upon the rate-book. From the
rate-book, just like the name of a ratepaying householder,
it wiU pass to the list of voters, without imposing trouble
or burden of any kind upon the householder himself.
Being thus on the list of voters, it will be subject to
the scrutiny of the Eevising Barrister, just like the name
of a ratepaying householder ; and, unless proper ground
of objection shall be preferred, it will take its place upon
the register. An effective enfranchisement, therefore,
will be given under the Bill to the compound house
holders ; whereas, up to the present time, their enfran
chisement has been almost purely speculative. There
are, indeed, some instances to the contrary, I rather
think the great town of Birmingham is one such instance.
But the metropolis affords by far the most important
illustration of the present operation of the law ; and in
the metropolis you may say, without any fear of con
tradiction, not only that the compound householders are
not on the register in one case in fifty, but likewise that,

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL, 39
when they are on the register, it is because, for some
particular purpose, an election agent has thought it
worth his while himself to flnd out the names, prefer the
claims, and get them put on the register. Now, that is
not the way in which we want a constituency to be
fashioned ; and if our proposition be adopted, the name
of the compound householder will be put upon the rate
book and the register without the trouble and difficulty
of a claim, and by the very same spontaneous process as
that by which the name of the man, who pays the rates
himself, comes upon the list which enables him to vote.
Then comes the other class to which I have already
alluded ; a class of persons also very numerous in the
metropolis, I mean those who inhabit flats, and portions
of houses, which flats, or portions of houses, though .
having a separate access, are not made the subject of
separate rating. Now, with regard to this class, we can,
I believe, do nothing as to bringing them upon the
register by the act of a public officer, but we must in
that respect leave them just as they are. At present,
if they can show that the value of the apartments which
they occupy comes up to what the law calls the clear
annual value of 10?,, and if they can get themselves to be
rated — which I believe they are entitled to ask, though
a test of that kind must in practice generally form an
insuperable obstacle — they may, by a circuitous process,
cause themselves to be placed upon the list of voters.
Now, under our Bill there will be no necessity that the
apartments should be separately rated ; and that
difficulty, consequently, will be obviated. Thus we
propose to confer on them a great advantage by the
removal of an obstacle: but we can do no more. A
public officer cannot know the rent that these people

40 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
pay. He knows the value of the holding of the compound
householder, because for rating purposes it is necessary
that he should know the value of the house ; but he
does not know, and cannot know, the. rent that is paid
by a man who inhabits only part of a house, that part
not being separately rated. That class, therefore, we
must leave as they are now, subject to the burden of
claiming. If any such person can show that his rooms
are of a clear annual value of 10?., the benefit he wiU
derive from the Bill will be that he will be released
from all necessity of being rated, and he may then come
upon the register ; but he will come upon it with the
necessity of renewing his claim from year to year.
Sir John Pakington : What is the estimated number
that will be added by these provisions ?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : We believe
there will be an addition of probably 35,000 persons to
the constituency in consequence of the provisions we
propose to make respecting compound householders
above the line of 10?., by far the larger part of that
addition being in the metropolis. The estimate, I think,
is sufficiently near to accuracy ; because we have ascer
tained the number of houses in the different parishes
which are compounded for, or where the rates are paid
by the landlord. We do not, however, expect that any
large number of the holders of flats will register.
Thus far. Sir, I have given the House an anticipation
of what I may call our enfranchisement above the line.
The number we think amounts to 60,000 persons — -
namely, 25,000 by the abolition of the ratepaying clauses,
and 35,000 by the new provisions of the law with regard
to compound householders.
I now come to a question of considerable interest,

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL, 41
the question which is commonly called that of the
"lodger franchise," Now, we propose to place lodgers,
properly so called — that is, persons who hold rooms
as inmates of another man's house or household —
exactly upon the same footing as those who hold tene
ments or apartments, that is to say, rooms or parts
only of a house having no separate rating, although
with a separate access. Those two classes we shall
treat together, just as we treated together ratepaying
and compound householders, and, in fact, every person
who, because separately rated, will, according to the
provisions of our Bill, come upon the list of voters
at once by the action of the proper public authority.
Taking together those two classes, we, on the other
hand, also take together those men who dwell in tene
ments and apartments (so to call them), and those who
dwell in lodgings. And the provision we make is
this — that if they can show that the rooms they inhabit
are of the clear annual value of 10?., of course without
including either rates, taxes, or cost of furniture, they
will be entitled, upon claiming year by year, to be
placed upon the list of voters. The conditions as to
time of occupation are, I need hardly say, the same in
all these cases.
But I must now refer to the proposal as to the
lodger -franchise contained in the Bill of 1859. It
was proposed by the Ministry then in power, that any
person paying 20?. by the year, or 8s. by the week, for
any rooms, whether furnished or unfurnished, should
be entitled, upon making his claim, and subject to
certain conditions, to be placed upon the register.
Now, there are, we conceive, insuperable difficulties
in the way of any attempt to constitute any franchise

42 PARLIAMENTARY. REFORM.
resting upon the rent paid for furnished apartments.
In the first place, bear in mind that the clear annual
value of rooms is a thing which is continually estimated
from day to day in every town in the country, and
which is capable, therefore, of being brought to some
definite standard. On the other hand, if we endeavoured
to deal with furniture, and with the portion of rent paid
for it — for the use, that is, of moveable commodities —
it would be a very fluctuating and inconvenient basis
for the franchise. If, however, the case is unsatis
factory when you view it with regard to furniture
alone, much more defective is the basis proposed when
we come to consider that the sum of 20?. a year, or
of 8s. a week, or any other sum paid for furnished
lodgings, not only includes furniture with the rooms,
but it includes almost always more or less of personal
service. It includes sometimes firing, sometimes cooking,
very commonly the use of the kitchen fire. In point of
fact, it gives a basis including elements of so uncertain
and slippery a character that it would be quite im
possible to employ it with advantage for the purposes
of enfranchisement. I hope the right honourable Gentle
man opposite (Mr. Disraeli) will not think I am
criticizing his BiU in a censorious spirit, because I
have done so no more freely than I have performed
the same operation on our own Bill of 1860, with
respect to its inequality as between the metropolis
and the country. I wish the House, therefore, to
understand — for I know that great and very natural
interest has been excited on the question of the lodger
franchise — that we propose to deal with it, if not fully,
yet in a manner which we think will include every
case, and more than every bond fide case, that could

.REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL, 43
have been included by the provisions of the Bill of
1859 ; because if a man pays 20?, a year for furnished
lodgings, those lodgings ought to be, and as a rule,
unless many other things besides the use of furniture
were included, would be, worth more than 10?. of clear
annual value as defined by the law. Supposing, then,
the rooms which a lodger occupies are of 10?, annual
value, he will under our Bill be entitled, subject to the
usual conditions as to time of occupation, to claim, and
to come upon the list of voters.
Now, I can give no information, and I believe the
right honourable Gentleman was unable to give any
in 1859, as to the number of persons who would,
perhaps, be enfranchised under the title of lodgers ;
but this I may say, that, in the first place, my firm
belief is that it will be a small one ; and, in the second
place, my firm belief likewise is this, what I now speak
of will prove to be a middle-class rather than a lower-
class enfranchisement. The operation of claiming, and
of claiming, too, year by year, is one that must be
very burdensome to working men ; whereas young men,
such as clerks and men of business, familiar with the
use of pen and ink, if educated and intelligent persons,
and desirous of obtaining the franchise, will estimate
the trouble somewhat more lightly. We calculate,
therefore, on a certain amount especially of middle-
class enfranchisement by the provision I have de
scribed ; but I should be misleading the House were
I to pretend to entertain the opinion that either any
large number of the working class, or any very large
number even of the middle-class, will come upon the
register by virtue of that which we term a lodger
franchise, A great number of persons now inhabit

44 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
tenements, being almost all of them working men,
and all of them theoretically entitled, out of whom
scarcely any find their way to tlie register ; and this is,
in my opinion, a demonstration that no very large
or considerable additions to the constituency are to
be expected from a source, where there is the impedi
ment of a claim renewable yearly. Consequently, I do
not venture to add any figures under this head ; but
I take the 60,000 persons, whom I have already named,
as comprising the amount of additional enfranchisement
granted thus far by the provisions of the Bill which I
have the honour of asking leave to introduce.
I next come to the question of that description of
enfranchisement which I venture to call enfranchise
ment below the line — that is to say, enfranchisement as
it relates to any portions of the community holding
occupations from the limit of 10?. downwards, which
is not only a necessary, but is in our view the most im
portant- part of any measure relating to this subject.
My noble Friend Lord Eussell, in a speech delivered
in 1860, adverted to the possibility of changing the
proposal for a 6?. rental franchise into one for a rating
franchise of the same amount. The question of a
rating franchise has always been one of the greatest
interest to those who have been engaged in the pre
paration of our numerous, I will add, our too numerous,
Eeform Bills. The advantage of having an external
standard to determine the claim for registration, not
based simply upon a process which, as often as the
question is raised, each man must institute anew for
his own particular case, but dependent on the evidence
of a public authority, though guarded by an appeal,
it being the business of that public authority to fix

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 45
the value of a holding for certain parochial purposes,
which are not political — the value of a franchise of
that kind, considered narrowly and closely from such
a point of view, is obvious and great. There was
another reason also, which, but for objections which I
shall presently mention, would have led us to the adop
tion of a rating francihise ; to the adoption probably of
the very franchise indicated in the passage of the speech
of my noble Friend to which I have referred. The
Small Tenements Act provides that in all the boroughs
where it is adopted — and it is adopted in, I think, a
considerable numerical majority of the boroughs in the
country — for every tenement up to, and also including,
those of 6?., the rates shall be paid not by the occupier,
but by the landlord. Now there would have been a
great advantage in saying, " We will adopt the precise
limit which Parliament has indicated, as expressing
its view of the capacity to pay direct local taxes.
Where that capacity begins, the franchise shall begin ;
where that capacity ends, the franchise shall end also."
But when we came to look at the operation of the
SmaU. Tenements Act, which includes all houses of a
value of 61., as well as those under that value, we found,
first of all, that the total enfranchisement would not
have exceeded 80,000 persons ; and we did not think
that this was such a number as, upon one of these
rarely recurring occasions of the readjustment of the
franchise, we could propose to Parliament, or hold out
to the country as anything like a settlement of the
question of the suffrage in towns. But then we were
.met by another question — and this is the last of the
drier subjects which I -shall have to submit to your
consideration. It is nevertheless, I think, one of some

46 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
importance, and one in respect to which I may well
beg to invite your attention during a few minutes.
We were called upon to consider the great change —
I will go further and say, the great Eeform — which has
been effected by my right honourable Friend the Presi
dent of the Poor Law Board, through the medium of '
the Union Assessment Act. In former times it was
said, "Why not have a rated franchise, a franchise
taken from the rate-book?" But the inequality of that
rating was so gross and so anomalous in the various
parts of the country, that, though we did admit it into
the Bill of 1854, we, nevertheless, subsequently con
sidered that it could not prove a satisfactory basis for
the franchise. The rating, however, is now immensely
improved. It is, of course, our duty to take the best
and simplest basis for the franchise that we can find.
The simple question, however, arises, whether there is not
another basis, supplied by the law of rating as it now
stands, more nearly coinciding with the present basis,
although differing from it in legal expression, which is
better than the basis of rateable value. We think there
is. It is in substance the same which the law now
recognises, namely, the " clear annual value ;" but it is
the clear annual value as determined by the column in
the rate-book, called the " gross estimated rental."
Now, rating is good chiefly if we consider it as the
adoption of a public independent standard — a standard
supposed to be impartially chosen for local taxation.
But in everything in which the column of rateable value
is good, the gross estimated rental is good also ; whereas
it escapes many sources of error and of inequality which.
are inherent in rateable value. For the rateable value,
after all, is estimated by certain deductions made from

, REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 47
the gross estimated rental. The rateable value contains
no new and independent element of information which
we do not get from the gross estimated rental. The
rateable value is not, again, per se, the proper test to
adopt as the basis of the franchise. It is not the test of
what a man actually pays for his tenement, but it is
only the test of the net value of the tenement to the
person beneficially interested. This is no doubt im-
porta,nt for the parish officers, inasmuch as it determines
relative capacity to pay ; but it is a test wilh which we
have reaUy nothing to do for the purpose of the suf
frage. You may, for example, have two houses, paying
20?. a year each. One of those may belong to a solid
and substantial class of houses, and may only require a
deduction of 4?. or 6?. per cent, for repairs ; but the
other may have been built of slight materials, and may
therefore require much more money from year to year,
perhaps not less than from 15?. to 20?. per cent., to
keep it in repair, and in a condition equally good with
the other house. But, when kept in repair, the same rent
is paid for them both. And the same franchise, accord
ing to the view of Parliament under the circumstances I
have referred to, might fairly be demanded by the occu
piers. But if we adopt the standard of actual rating as
the basis of the franchise, one would be enfranchised,
whilst the other would be excluded.
Again, there will also remain an element of in
equality in the column of rateable value in reference to
insurance, as well as to repairs. The duty on insurance
has of itself undergone a material change within the
last few years. My honourable Friend the Member for
Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) pointed out some time ago
that the fire insurance duty amounted to 4 or 5 per

48 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
cent, on the net income from the house, when it stood at
3s. per cent. But it is now reduced to half that amount.
Consequently the deduction from gross estimated rental
on account of insurance ought to be changed; and it
might again change hereafter, with any changes which
Parliament might make from time to time in the
amount of the duty. For reasons. Sir, such as these, we
propose to take gross estimated rentals as the practical
basis of the title to vote. We connect this proposition
with the present legal rule, by saying that the colunyi
of the gross estimated rental shall be prima facie evi
dence, until contested, of the clear annual value. Thus,
we shall secure the double object of adhering to the
present definition, and yet of avoiding all the inequali
ties inherent in the test of rated value ; while, at the
same time, we shall in this manner attain that sim
plicity, certainty, and facility, which is obtained by the
use of the rate-book, as a public and impartial document
in each parish of the country.
Now, Sir, the gTOSs estimated rental is, as we find,
upon the whole, in exact correspondence with the rack
rent. There are, however, some local irregularities, and
there will, of course, be an appeal to the revising bar
rister. But, iu all the boroughs except thirty, the gross
estimated rental appears to be, under the operation of
the Act introduc;ed by my right honouraljle Friend
(Mr. Villiers), as nearly as possible equal to the rack
rent. In these thirty boroughs one-half exhibit a con
siderable inequality ; but it is in general only because the
operations under the Act of my right honourable Friend
are not quite completed. Certainly, before any practical
steps can be taken under this Bill those operations will
have been brought to a close. There are a few other

REPEESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 49
cases of local acts, and certain cases in the metropolis,
where, in point of fact, the column of gross estimated
rental is not at present in accordance with the true
principles of the Union Assessment Act. That is to
say, it represents a mere conventional sum. With a
view to correct this inequality, we intend to propose
certain enactments ; and then we can with confidence
recommend the gross estimated rental as uniformly a
proper basis for the franchise. But then, even while
these inequalities exist in a few particular cases, we
have a means of applying a test with sufficient accuracy
to the gross estimated rental as a whole. We have
called for the Income Tax returns. We know that
many of these represent a sum considerably above the
rack rent ; for in every case where the landlord pays
the rates he includes them in his returns, and conse
quently the income-tax assessment is, in many cases,
in advance of the rack rent. Much oftener stdl is
it in advance of the nett or real annual value. Now
the gross annual Income Tax returns, in which we
must allow for all excesses, give a total valuation of
39,238,000?. ; and the gross estimated rental, though
still defective in some places, amounts to 37,375,000?.
The difierence at this moment, therefore, is only
1,863,000?., or 5 per cent. We have, therefore, no
hesitation whatever in the substance of what we pro
pose ; as we feel that we can now found ourselves upon
a secure basis of operation, which will be the means of
introducing a great practical improvement in the ad
ministration of the electoral law of the country.
It appears. Sir, that the present town constituency
consists of 488,000 persons. Dividing this aggregate
number as above the line of the working classes or
E

50 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
below it, I find that in the latter category there are
126,000, according to a large and liberal estimate, who
belong to the working classes ; while I take 362,000 as
the number of voters in the towns who undoubtedly do
not belong to those classes. We propose, as I have
said, to add 60,000 to the present number of 10?. voters,
All these I reckon, for the purpose of my statement, as
if they belonged to the working class6s. I do not now
refer to the lodger, or to the depositor in Savings
banks ; both of these would probably be of small num
bers ; and the lodgers, at any rate, of mixed and varied
condition. Up to this point, then, I may roughly reckon
that we shall have 186,000 persons, more or less, on the
future register, who belong to the working class. If to
these the persons of a 6?. rental were added, I find that
this would be the result. A 6?. rental, calculated upon
the most careful investigation, and after making every
allowance and deduction that ought to be made, would
give 242,000 new voters, whom I should take as all
belonging to the working class. I should thus arrive at
a gross total of 428,000 persons, which would, in fact,
probably at once place the working classes in a clear
majority upon the entire town constituency. Now, Sir,
that has never been the intention of any Bill proposed in
this House. I do not think it is a proposal that Par
liament would be disposed to adopt. I cannot say I
think it would be attended with great danger; but I
am sure it is not according to the present view or ex
pectation of Parliament. And although for my ovm
part I do not think that much apprehension need be
entertained with respect to the working classes, even if
admitted in larger numbers than we propose, yet this I
fully admit, that upon general grounds of political pru-

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 51
'dence, it is not well to make sudden changes of sweeping
extent in the depositories of political power. I do not
think that we are now called upon by any overruling or
any sufficient consideration, under the circumstances, to
give over the majority of town constituencies into the
.hainds of the working class. We propose, therefore, to
take the figure next above that which I have named —
namely, a clear annual value not of 6?., but of 7?.
I will now give the House the exact numerical result,
so far as we can distinctly make it out, of the proposal
to fix the borough franchise at a clear annual value of 7?,
The figure of 7?. rental is not very far from the standard
apparently fixed by the Small Tenements Eating Act ;
but the result as to admission will be considerably
larger. If Gentlemen will take the pains to add
together from page 54 of the Statistical Volume the
gross total of the male occupiers at 7?., and under 10?.,
and will then make a Eule of Three sum, having for its
first two terms the gross number of occupiers above
10?., and the present number of the 10?. constituency,
and for its thfrd term the gross number of occupiers
between 7?. and 10?., the fourth term will give the
probable addition to the constituency upon reducing
the franchise to 7?, [Laughter from the Opposition
Members^ I hold it a good omen that these studies in
arithmetic prove so amusing, as they are generally
thought to be among the drier class of subjects. But
the result is that the figure is 156,000 persons. [An
honourable Member: The gross number?] No, the
net number. The gross number will be between 207,000
and 208,000 ; and even from the net number a deduction
must be made of a certain number, of freemen whom it
includes, and who have already the franchise, I take
E 2

52 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
off from the 156,000 one-third of the total number of
freemen now enjoying the franchise, and that leaves
144,000 as the probable number of persons who would
be enfranchised by the reduction from 10?. to a clear
annual rental of 7?.
But it is right I should point out the causes by which,
in the view of some persons, this calculation may be
modified. There are some persons living in houses
between 7?. and 10?., who do not belong to the working
classes. The number of these, so far as our inquiries
extend, is probably small. I incline to believe that
5 per cent, would be an over-statement of the amount,
and it is needless to take into view the reduction of the
total by this number, which may be balanced from other
sources. Then, again, there must be a deductioif, some
would say a considerable deduction, made on account
of the more frequent removals which take place among
the holders of small houses. But, on the other hand,
an increase will have to be made, in allowance for the
effect likely to be produced by the abolition of the rate-
paying clauses on that class of persons. The Eule of
Three sum is affected by all the causes I have named,
including the abolition of the ratepaying clauses, and
the operation of the new provisions we propose to make
for compound householders : also there would be some
small addition to be made for the Savings-bank fran
chise. I do not for myself attach any very great conse
quence to the general upshot of these various modifying
circumstances. They may, I think, be taken, on the
whole, as balancing one another ; and, desiring to avoid
all minor points of controversy, I should say that the
addition to the working class voters by the reduction to
7?. would be about 144,000.

REPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 5S
And, Sir, I wish to point out to those who may still
think that this addition to the constituency ought not to
take place, that all are disposed to admit that the fran
chise ought to be at the least attainable by the working
man. I think that the most extreme speeches heard in
this House in opposition to change are of this character.-
They all state that it is desirable that the working man
should be able to reach the franchise. That, of course,
means that he should be able to reach it by means of
such efforts as it is really within his power to make. Now
let us consider his present position with regard to the 10?.
franchise. Ten pounds of clear annual value, when we
make the proper addition for rates, taxes, and furniture,
must imply that the man is at a charge for his residence
annually of not less than 16?. I am safe, I may even
claim that I speak with moderation, when I say that
the working man does not, as a general rule, spend more
than one-sixth of his income on his house. Therefore,
in order that he may have a 10?. house, his average in
come must be 96?. ; or, in other words, without making
any allowance whatever for sickness and casual interrup
tion of work, he must receive, at least, 1?. 17s. per week,
or, if we allow for necessary breaks, perhaps about 2?.
per week. Now, Sir, it is plain that only a very small
portion of the working classes can hope to receive 2?,
per week as the wages of their labour, Mtoy an able,
industrious, and skilful workman, using his best exertions
all his lifetime, would and must fail to attain to such an
income. Accordingly, I do not think that a 10?. franchise
can in the fair meaning ofthe word be said to be within the
reach of the working man. A 7?, franchise would work
in a different manner. Adding 60 per cent., as in the
other case, for rates and furniture, to the sum of 11., it

54 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFORM.
would come in the gross to II?. 4s., which would repre
sent an income of 67?. 4s,, or, instead of 37s, per week, a
little under 26s. a week. Now, 26s, a week is an income
which is undoubtedly unattainable by the peasantry or
mere hand labourer, except under very favourable cir-
cum.stances, but it is also an income very generally
attainable by the artizans and skilled labourers of our
towns, though perhaps not so easily in the country,
I will now. Sir, endeavour to give a general and com
bined view of the figures in this case, in order that they
may be placed clearly as a whole before the House, In
the counties, as I have said, if our Bill shall become law,
the working classes will form a. much smaller propor
tion of the whole constituency than they now are ; inas
much as the 40s. freeholders, among whom they are to
be found, will form a smaller proportion of the aggregate
number, and I can hardly reckon the agricultural tenant
at 14?. rent as belonging to the class of working men,
for the purposes of the present discussion. In the towns,
the voters of the classes, other than the working classes,
amount to 362,000. The working class, as it appears,
has now 126,000 persons, and there will be new electors
of the working class, for houses above the line of 10?,,
amounting to 60,000 ; while for those below the line of
10?., so far as we can calculate, there wUl be 144,000,
bringing the entire number of the working classes in the
constituency to 330,000 ; or, making a total addition of
204,000 to the 126,000 now included in the constituency.
The total enfranchisement contemplated in counties is,
by the 14?. occupation, 172,000, to which, however, is to
be added whatever may be thought fit for copyholders
and leaseholders having their qualifications within re
presented towns, and for the Savings-bank franchise.

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 55
Again, as in towns there will be an addition of 204,000
persons, we are likely to have a total addition of 376,000,
so far as we may venture to offer definite figures on this
subject. With respect to the lodger franchise, to the
copyhold and leasehold franchise for counties, and to
the Savings-bank franchise, we may perhaps be safe in
throwing in the 24,000 which are necessary to make
up the next round number, and in stating that the total
enfranchisement will probably embrace 400,000 persons ;
of whom, speaking very roughly, one-half will belong to
the working class, and the other half to the middle class ;
including among the latter, in the' counties, many
persons of education, although, perhaps, not many of
great means or station.
And now as to the proportion which the new con
stituency will bear to the total number of our house
holders. There appears to be in our towns a population
of 9,326,000. Of these the adult males may, I presume,
be taken at 2,331,000 ; and the adult male occupiers
appear from the returns to be 1,347,000. Of occupiers,
occupying houses at and over 7?., there are 847,000.
The actual constituency of 488,000 represents 36 per
cent, of the whole number of male occupiers. The pro
posed constituency of 692,000 would represent 51 per
cent, of those male occupiers, and ofthe working classes
there would be in the towns, according to these figures,
330,000 enfranchised against 588,000 unenfranchised,
being less than two in five, but more than one in three,
of the whole number belonging to the working classes.
Again, Sir, the gross constituency of the whole country
wiU stand thus. There are already, taking the gross
numbers, 550,000 voters in the counties of England and
Wales. There are likewise 488,000 in towns ; making a

56 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
total of 1,038,000. But in order to know the actual
number of persons possessed of the suffrage, a very large
deduction must be made for those who possess a plurality
of votes. I cannot think that, even upon the most
liberal estimate, the present constituency can be held
to consist of more than 900,000 electors. In addition to
those we propose to bring in 400,000, making for Eng
land and Wales a total constituency of 1,300,000. The
total number of adult males may be nearly 5,300,000 ;
so that the whole number enfranchised in town and
country would be one in four, as nearly as possible.
So much for the figures. I do not know whether
the House would like me to recapitulate very shortly
the legislative proposals which form the basis of them.
The first is to create an occupation franchise in coun
ties, for houses alone or houses with land, beginning at
14?. rental, and reaching up to the present occupation
franchise of 50?. The second is, to introduce into coun
ties the provision, that copyholders and leaseholders
within Parliamentary boroughs shall be put upon the
same footing as freeholders in Parliamentary boroughs
now stand upon for the purpose of county voting, with
out any alteration in the relative amounts of qualification
for household and copyhold as compared with freehold.
The third is a Savings-bank franchise, which will operate
in both counties and towns, but which may, we think, have
the more sensible operation in the counties. In towns,
we propose, first, to place compound householders on the
same footing as ratepaying householders. We propose
next to abolish the tax and ratepaying clauses. We pro
pose also to reduce 10?. clear annual value to 7?. clear
annual value ; and to bring in the gross estimated rental
taken from the rate-book as the ordinary or presumptive

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 57
measure of the value, thus, pro tanto, making the rate
book the register. We propose, further, to introduce a fran
chise on behalf of lodgers, which will comprehend both
those persons holding part of a house with separate and
independent access, and those who hold part of a house
as inmates of the family of another person. The quali
fication for the suffrage in these classes will be the 10?.
clear annual value of apartments, without reference to
furniture. We propose to abolish the necessity, in the
case of registered voters, for residence at the time of
voting. And, lastly — I say lastly because, though there
are some other minor provisions, I do not think it need
ful to trouble the House with them at the present time
— we propose to follow the example set us by the right
honourable Gentleman opposite and the Government of
Lord Derby in 1859 ; and, sustained and supported I
must say by many great authorities, to introduce a clause
disabling from voting persons who are employed in the
Government Dockyards, while they continue to be so
employed. Sfr, I have detained the House very long in this
explanation ; and I have now briefly to consider what
is the true representation to be made of such a plan as
that which we now submit. It certainly makes a large
addition to the constituency. The number of persons
who will be enfranchised by this Bill, not upon an esti-
timate wholly vague, but taken on the basis, as far as
may be, of the positive and absolute figures which we
have been enabled to present, wUl, I think, certainly be
greater than the number of those who were enfranchised
by the Eeform Act ; for no estimate of the enfranchise
ment effected by the Eeform Act would carry it very
greatly beyond 300,000 persons. As respects the county

58 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
vote, we do not apprehend that our Bill will raise on
the floor of Parliament any broad question of principle.
As regards the borough vote, we hope that our plan is
a liberal, as we believe and are sure that it is a mode
rate and a safe plan. It alters greatly in towns the
balance as between the working classes, defined in the
liberal manner which I have stated, and the classes
above them ; and yet it does not give the absolute ma
jority in the town constituencies to the working classes.
It is probable that, according to the various tempers of
men's minds, we shall be told that we have done too
little, or that we have done too much. Our answer is,
that we have done our best. We have endeavoured to
take account of the state and condition of the country,
as well as of the qualifications which the people possess
for the exercise of the political franchise. We are
mindful that unhappily the limbo of abortive creations
is peopled with the skeletons of Eeform Bills, We do
not wish to add to the number already registered of
unfortunate miscarriages. We may have erred ; but
we have endeavoured to see how much good, by the
measure which we propose, we have a prospect of
effecting for the country. As to the completeness of
the measure, I have stated to the House what I think
are the clear and distinct objects, which any Govern
ment attempting to deal with the question of the repre
sentation of the people must have in view ; but honesty
of purpose equally compels us upon careful examination
of the facts not to attempt, by any measure that we
could lay on the table of the House at this given mo
ment, that which we know to be impracticable, and in
which, therefore, we must fail. If we are told that,
with respect to the franchise itself, we ought to have

EEPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL, 59
done more, our answer is that it was our duty to take
into view the public sentiment of the country, disposed,
as we believe, to moderate changes, but sensible of the
value of what it possesses, and sensitive with regard to
bringing what it possesses into hazard. And, whatever
may be the opinion entertained of the growing capacity
and intelligence of the working classes, and of their
admfrable performance at least of their duties towards
their superiors — for it has ever appeared to me that,
though they have sins, in common with us all, yet their
sins are chiefly, and in a peculiar sense, sins against
themselves — it is true of the working classes notwith-,
standing, as it is true of any and every class, that it is
a dangerous temptation to human nature to be suddenly
invested with preponderating power. That is the reason
which causes me to think we have not done too httle
in the way of enfranchisement. We may be told, on
the other hand, that we have done too much, I yet
hope that such an objection may not be urged. We do
not entirely abandon the expectation that even those who
have protested, who have almost protested in principle,
against the extension of the franchise downwards, will
be disposed to accept a measure which they may not
wholly approve, if they think it offers the promise of
the settlement for a considerable period of a grave, im
portant, complex, and difficult subject. I would beg
them to consider, what an immense value there is in
the extension of the franchise for its own sake. Liberty
is a thing which is good not merely in its fruits, but in
itself. This is what we constantly say in regard to
English legislation ; when we are told that many de
scriptions of affairs are managed more economically,
more cleverly, more effectually in foreign countries.

60 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
" Yes," we answer ; " but here they are managed freely ;
and in freedom, in the free discharge of political duties,
there is an immense power both of discipline and of
education for the people," But, Sir, if unhappily issue
is to be taken adversely upon this Bill, I hope it will be
above all a plain and direct issue. I trust it will be
taken upon the question whether there is or is not to
be an enfranchisement downwards, if it is to be taken
at all. We have felt that to carry enfranchisement
below the present line was essential: essential to
character, essential to credit, essential to usefulness;
essential to the character and credit not merely of the
existing Government ; not merely of the political part-y
by which it has the honour to be regarded with favour ;
but of this House, and of the successive Parliaments
and Governments, who all stand pledged with respect to
this question of the representation.
We, Sir, cannot consent to look upon this propose
addition, considerable although it may be, to the political
power of the working classes of this country, as if it
were an addition fraught with mischief and with danger.
We cannot look, and we hope no man will look, upon it
as upon some Trojan horse, approaching the walls of
the sacred city, and filled with armed men, bent upon
ruin, plunder, and confiagration. We cannot join in
comparing it with that monstrum infelix ; we cannot
say, we trust that none will say, —
"  Scandit fatalis maohina muros,
Fceta armis : mediaeque minans illabitur urH,"
I believe that those persons, whom we ask you to en
franchise, ought rather to be welcomad, as you would
welcome recruits to your army, or children to your

REPEESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL, 61
family. We ask you to give, within what you may
consider to be the just limits of prudence and circum
spection; but, having once determined those limits, to
give with an ungrudging hand. Consider what you
can safely and justly afford to do in admitting new
subjects and citizens within the pale of the Parlia
mentary Constitution ; and, having so considered it, do
not, I beseech you, perform the act as if you were com
pounding with danger and misfortune. Do it as if you
were conferring a boon, that will be felt and reciprocated
in grateful attachment. Give to these persons new in
terests in the Constitution ; new interests which, by
the beneficent processes of the law of nature and of
Providence, shall beget in them new attachment; for
the attachment of the people to the Throne, the insti
tutions, and the laws under which they live, is, after all,
more than gold and silver, and more than fleets and
armies, at once the strength, the glory, and the safety
of the land.
Motion made and Question proposed,
" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend
the Eight of Voting at Elections of Members of Parlia
ment in England and Wales,"

62 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATEE AT
LIVEEPOOL, APEIL 6, 1866.
THE EIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.,
said : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Eesolu
tion which has been read from the chair is a Eesolution in
support of the Eeform Bill introduced by her Majesty's
Government ; and under these circumstances I hope it is
not unnatural either that I should be called upon, or
that, being called upon, I should obey the call to sup
port that resolution. The measure, which is now before
the House of Commons, has two objects in view. One
of them is the improvement of the composition of that
House : the other is quite apart from and beyond the
improvement of the composition of the House; it is
to strengthen the House of Commons itself, and along
with the House of Commons every other institution of
the country, by marshalling a larger share of the
energy, the intelligence, the will, and the character of
the people of this country in support of those institu
tions through the possession of a direct share in political
franchises. Now, gentlemen, first with reference to the
constitution of the House of Commons. One method in
which you may improve its constitution, or at least its
composition, is, I will venture to say, by sending back
among us my respected friend, our President for to-night,
Mr. Ewart. That is not the only nor the widest im
provement, which I anticipate in its constitution from
the passing of our Bill. But I entirely decline to stake
the fortunes of that Bill upon any supposed necessity

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATEE, LIVEEPOOL. 63
of bringing, in th6 first instance, an indictment against
the Parliament as it now stands. That, gentlemen, is
one of the errors committed, as I think, by the oppo
nents of the Bill. They seem to think that the en
franchisement of the people is an evil in itself so great,
that it ought not to be encountered except for the sake
of curing some greaiter evil. And in that view of the
matter, they may, not unnaturally, say, if we wish to
prove that we are really under an obligation to en
counter all those terrific dangers, which must arise from
admitting a further portion of the English nation to a
share in the government of the country, then, in order
to make good our case, we are bound to show at the
outset that the present House of Commons is bad and
inefficient. Gentlemen, I will attempt no such proof.
The present House of Commons, although I believe it
may be improved, has for the last five-and-thirty years
— nay, I will go further back, and say that for many
long years and generations before the Eeform Act it
self — the free Parliament of England has, upon the
whole, done a great and good work for this nation.
But that is no reason why we should not seek an en
largement of the constituency of the country. If the
Parliament be good, it is no reason why we should not,
if we can, make it better still. Why, gentlemen, how
would a private individual treat a question affecting his
own interests ? Suppose a merchant has a fiourishing
business, with all his arrangements complete, and sup
pose -an opening is made apparent to him by which,
increasing his outlay and his ventures, he may, in per
fect consonance with the rules of prudence, stiU more
largely increase the profits of his industry and his
capital, does that merchant requfre to have it shown to

64 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
him in the first instance that the business he is already
doing is a bad one? No, certainly; but he says, "I
will make it as good as I can." Does a landowner who
has an estate of a thousand pounds a year, who finds that
by inclosing or by draining he may make that estate of
one thousand a year worth two thousand a year, does
he require to have it shown to him that his estate is
valueless, that his one thousand a, year is not worth
having, before he considers or sets about such an im
provement ? No, certainly, gentlemen ; and just in the
same way we, believing the Parliament of England to
be good, wish to make it better, not only by any change
that may take place within its walls, but by strength
ening it from without, by one of those considerable addi
tions to its native and essential vigour, which every
wisely-framed institution cannot fail to draw from an
additional infusion of popular strength. Gentlemen,
that is the principle, and that is the basis upon which
we wish to approach this question.
And now, our friend, Mr. Jeffery, who last addressed
you, referred to the objection, which, as far as I know,
is the only even plausible objection that has been
made against the present Bill, and that is, that it is
what is called an incomplete measure. Gentlemen,
symmetry and completeness are very good things ; but
it is a suspicious circumstance when you find that the
persons who are calling for symmetry and completeness
— the persons who refuse to be content with anything
less than the whole — are the very same persons that
detest the part which we have presented to them ; and
such appears to be the secret of the outcry you now
hear. We, gentlemen, have engaged to make known
the views which we entertain on the subject — a subject

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVEEPOOL. 65
that must excite, and that ought to excite, great interest
in Liverpool— the subject of the redistribution of seats.
But knowing those with whom we have to deal, we
have likewise said this ; before we produce those portions
of our plan — before we put into the hands of opponents
fresh means of obstruction, by enabling them to use one
portion of the scheme so as to make it an obstacle to the
other, and to repeat the operation, turn about, as often
as they may find it convenient, — ^before we do that,
give us at least a pledge of your general intentions
by allowing us to learn your decision on the second
reading of this Bill, it is time, gentlemen, to make
it clearly understood that, as has been said by Mr.
Jeffery, in our judgment the great question, the first
question, the cardinal question is. Who are to form
the constituency? and depend upon it, when we are
well agreed upon the subject who are to form the con
stituencies, the other difficulties involved in the question
of Parliamentary Eeform will be found to be, not
perhaps few in number, but yet of a comparatively
slight and manageable character. It is not, gentlemen,
with you, who are friendly to this Bill, and to the
extension of suffrage which it proposes, that we shall
quarrel, when we come to discuss the subject of redistri
bution of seats. But pray observe that the subject of
redistribution of seats has assumed at this juncture a
most fortunate position. It stands high for the moment
in the good gTaces of those who never liked, redistribu
tion of seats before, and who, I fear, will continue
to retain their liking for it only during a very short
time. You will see, gentlemen, that when the views
of Government upon the subject shall have been stated,
they will be found, in the estimation of that portion of

66 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
the community, to whom I refer, to be very unsound
views indeed ; and in point of fact what will happen
will be that, while we have, as they say, committed
an unpardonable error, and rendered ourselves guilty
in the face of the country, by producing only one half
of a Eeform Bill, when we come to produce the other
half our guilt will be greater still. But, gentlemen,
for the present, I will only ask you to believe that,
in determining to submit to the present Parliament,
during the present session, first and foremost the question
^ of the franchise, whether we have acted rightly or not,
we have acted upon careful aiid deliberate reflection,
and we have been prompted only by a sincere and
singleminded desire to promote the interests of the
common cause. But now, gentlemen, strangely enough,
those very persons, or many of them, who complain
of us so bitterly for not having produced a broader
measure, are, likewise, the very men who complain
of us for having produced any measure at all, and
whose purpose and desire is not to add to and complete
our Bill, but to strangle and destroy it.
And they say, that we give no reasons for the intro
duction of this measure. Well, gentlemen, in part
that is true. This measure, in its substance, considered
as a measure of additional enfranchisement, involving
a sensible reduction of the suffrage, is a measure which,
for fifteen years, has been before the country, and has,
during those fifteen years, enjoyed in theory the unques
tioning," the general, nay, the nearly unanimous support
of every party, and of almost every public man, in the
country. Well, now, gentlemen, when Lord Clarence
Paget, who appeared at the banquet last night, at
the commencement of each Session, proposes the Naval

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATEE, LIVERPOOL. 67
Estimates in Parliament, he does not begin by proving
the necessity of a navy, but he asks for the sums
necessary to support it for the year. And we were
certainly under the belief that, inasmuch as we were
bringing into the House of Commons a proposal which
had received in principle a constant and general adhe
sion for fifteen years from every quarter of the House,
it would have been idle to go back to the very first
elements of that question, and to spend hours of the
time of Parliament in discussing either the general
principles of political and civil right, dr the expediency
of founding upon such general principles some measure
for the improvement of our representative system.
But, gentlemen, if we are called upon to assign reasons
for our proposal to extend and to reduce the suffrage,
there is no difficulty in producing them. The first
reason, what we thought was a sufficient reason, what
I still believe is a sufficient reason, for an assembly
composed, as Parliament is, of men desirous to win
the confidence of the people by keeping their word to
the people, was the reason that it had been repeatedly,
constantly, and deliberately promised. But if that be
not enough, it is not difficult to point to many con
siderations, that show the justice of the introduction of
such a proposal at the present time.
Now, gentlemen, if I speak of this BiU as a Bill of
which the merits turn especially 'on the questions con
nected with the larger enfranchisement of the working
class, I do so with reluctance, I do so with pain, and I
do so under protest ; because, like those who have pre
ceded me, I decline to recognise those distinctions that
have been somewhat invidiously, and sometimes even
offensively, asserted to exist in this happy country
F 2

68 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
between class and class ; nor has a more important or a
more unquestionable truth often been uttered in a public
assembly, as I believe, than that which was asserted by
Mr. Jeffery, when he said that in this country you never
will have anyone class combining against any other class
or classes of the community, except when smarting under
a sense of exclusion, and of injustice as connected with
exclusion. But still, for we must meet our opponents on
their own ground, I would now ask whether the present
adjustment of our electoral laws is altogether fair as
respects the working men of this country. Now I raise
that issue fairly, and I raise it fearlessly ; and mind, the
question which we argue, we argue virtually before a
fribunal not composed of the working class, but composed
in the main under the influence of the upper and of the
middle class of this nation. Now, I take, gentlemen, as
the ground of my argument, not the numbers of our
working men, for, if I took their numbers in any degree
into the calculation, I should be overwhelmed with pre
tentious accusations that any reference to numbers meant
democracy, anarchy, mob rule, and I know not what.
I will not say, therefore, anything on the subject of
numbers ; but I will take simply for the moment this
test : I will take the income of the working class. Now,
I want to know whether the working class of this country
is at the present time represented in the constituencies
in fair proportion to its income. It is a little difficult, I
admit, to get at anything like a precise estimate upon
this subject. Yet, still dealing with those flgures that
are before us, it is not difficult to come near enough to
the truth to arrive at an answer to the question that I
have put. Now, we know pretty well what is the sum
assessed to the income-tax ; and the sum assessed to the

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 69
income-tax, although it includes a portion of the earnings
of the working class, yet for the present I will assume to
belong wholly to those who are not of the working class.
Well, that sum, gentlemen, is somewhere about three
hundred millions a-year. But there is also some portion of
income, not charged to the income-tax, which belongs to
those not of the working class. Making due allowance for
this, and treating the matter roughly, the whole income
of those not belonging to the working class may be
between three hundred and three hundred and fifty
millions. Now, what is the income of the working class ? »
That is still more difficult to reach by an accurate
estimate, but it has been made the subject of a very
careful and a very interesting inquiry. And I believe it
is a moderate estimate, when speaking of the three
Kingdoms — and I have spoken of the three Kingdoms in
what I have just been saying — it would be a moderate-
estimate, which should place the aggregate income of
the working men in this country at nearer two hundred
and fifty millions than two hundred millions. Now, if
that be so, it follows that the income of the working
class is something like five-twelfths — not very far
short of one-half — something near five-twelfths, or three-
sevenths, of the whole income of the country. I will
take it at three-sevenths, which I do not believe to be in
any sense an exaggerated estimate ; some, I know, would
consider it to be inadequate. That, then, is to say, out of
every seven pounds (Ji the income of the country three
pounds is received from working men. And the doctrine
of those who are pinched and straitened in their views
about the suffrage is this : that we ought to look to the
representation of property. But here I must refer t&
the difference between property and income. It is from

70 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
income, and not from fixed property, that we chiefly raise
monies for carrying on the Government. I say it is to in
come we should look, if we are to act upon the principles
of our opponents, in order to ascertain, as between classes,
the true weight of claims ou the ground of pecuniary
interest to share in the representation of the country.
Well, we have found that three-sevenths of the whole
income of -the country belong to the working class.
What is their proportion of the representation? We
have produced figures which show, that the number of
the working class now enjoying the borough franchise
is one hundred and twenty-five thousand, besides what
may be called in comparison a handful of the working
class enjoying the county franchise in England by the
forty-shilling freehold. But this is not all. Much has
been said on the subject of these figures. It has been
said that we adopted a very large and liberal definition
of a working man, and that, if we had taken a stricter
definition, a much smaller number would appear to have
been entitled. That is perfectly true. But we have taken
a large and liberal definition, and, proceeding upon that
large and liberal definition, that is to say, stating the
case as much as we can in favour of the opponent, we
find that possibly between counties and boroughs there
may be one hundred and fifty thousand, or something
more than one hundred and fifty thousand, working men
enjoying the franchise in England and Wales. What
is the whole number of voters of the constituency in
England and Wales ? In round numbers it is about one
million and fifty thousand ; so that, while the working
people of England and Wales appear to have three-
sevenths of the income, they have somewhere about
one-seventh of the votes.

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL, 71
And again, gentlemen, were I, instead of looking to the
income, to look to the taxation paid by the working com
munity of the country, the case would come out in very
nearly the same form. It is indeed a matter of discussion,
not admitting of accurate settlement, what proportion of
our indirect taxes in particular is paid by the different
classes of the community. But undoubtedly in my
opinion — and from considerable experience in the office I
now hold I have had some means of judging — undoubt
edly not less than one-third, probably a good deal more
than one-third, of the sixty-eight millions at which our
revenue now stands, is contributed by the working
population of this country. My belief is that the working
man pays taxes in as high a proportion to his income as
is borne by the wealthier classes. But the case is so
strong that it leaves a margin. And I need only say that
if from two-sevenths to three-sevenths, and it is nearer
three-sevenths than two, of the taxation of the country
is contributed by the working men, and if we are told
that the franchise (not to take numbers into view at all)
is to depend upon property, I ask with what justice it is
that we can ask the working population to pay us from
two-sevenths to three-sevenths of the taxation, and to
pay them in return with the inadequate, nay the
miserable fraction of one-seventh of the representation ?
Well now, gentlemen, I think that these are reasons —
and there is no difficulty in finding reasons, as our
opponents are so fond of reasons — to justify the moderate
scheme that we have laid before Parliament.
I will now, gentlemen, refer to another point, I will
draw another reason from a comparison between that
which now is, and that which was in the year 1832.
According to the figures I have spoken of, the working

72 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
class at this moment consists of about twenty-six per
cent,, not of the constituency at large, but of the borough
constituency of England, According to what would
probably be an estimate nearer the strict truth, they
constitute about twenty-one per cent,, or a little over one-
fifth. Now it is matter of much interest to inquire, how
stood this matter in 1832 ? In 1832 the working classes
constituted no less than thirty-one per cent, of the con
stituency ; so that the proportion which we are endea
vouring to modify, and which we are so much blamed
for the endeavour to modify, that proportion has been
since 1832 not an increasing but a diminishing propor
tion. Gentlemen, is that j ust ? Changes have taken place
since 1832, Has the relative position of the working
classes improved, or has it been deteriorated? None
can doubt that it has been greatly improved. Not the
most superficial observer could survey the condition of
England in 1832, and again in 1866, without perceiving
that, in everything that relates to social duty and to
capacity for the enjoyment of political privilege, the
working class has made enormous advances.
I am far from saying that they have nothing yet to
learn ; they have much to learn, gentlemen, and much
to learn have we all. But look at all the points upon
which that capacity and that fitness for duty and for
privilege depend. And who is there that can for a
moment doubt that the time has come, when, instead of
a diminishing and a dwindling, we ought to have, I am
far from desiring to say an overwhelming, but yet a
growing and extending proportion of the working class'
in the constituency ? Now, was there ever a time in
the history of our country known to us when all im
proving agencies have been so busy? Look at the

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 73
agency of the ministers of religion. Look, to begin with,
at the clergy of the Established Church, Why, gen
tlemen, a generation ago — one can feel now no delicacy
in avowing it — the clergy were as a body a lethargic
clergy, although with many and honourable exceptions ;
but still in its main they were a body of men whose eyes
were not sufficiently lifted above the level of human
things towards the eternal and the imperishable objects
that it is thefr duty especially not only to regard for
themselves, but to present to their countryman. What
are they now ? No man will for one moment withhold
from the clergy of the national Church at this moment
— ^no man, I am persuaded, will think of withholding the
praise, whether he agrees with them, or whether he
differs from them — that they are a body of men honestly
and earnestly devoted to their high calling. The very
same things which I say of their activity and devotion at
this time I believe may be said with equal truth of the
activity and the devotion of the ministers of every other
Church and persuasion among us. Nor do I speak of
the teaching office in connection with religious bodies
only. The same has been the case with the schools.
Look at the vast extension of education ; and look at aU
that has been done by the State, The State — I have
not put the figures together, but I believe I should not
exaggerate the sum were I to say that from ten, nay, pro
bably fifteen, possibly not far from twenty millions have
been spent by the State during the past five-and-thirty
years, in modes and through channels wholly new, for the
promotion and extension of education ; and likewise take
into your view, that the spending of this large sum of
money has been the means of eliciting from private
sources the expenditure of a much larger sum. Now,

74 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM,
what has aU this process been but the erection of a vast
machinery for the moral, as well as the intellectual, im
provement and elevation of the mass of the community ?
But we have to regard not the school and the Church
only. Look likewise at the press. Now, what has the
State done in that matter ? And it is most important
for us to keep in view this department of the subject ;
because what is done by the State is done deliberately,
done by public authority, and done so as to express the
general judgment of the nation. Why, the State, gen
tlemen, has surrendered within the last twenty or twenty-
five years more than two millions — I think, perhaps,
nearly two millions and a half — of revenue, upon the dif
ferent heads of the paper duty, of the newspaper stamp,
and ofthe advertisement duty, for the sake of supplying
an easier access to knowledge on behalf of the masses of
the community easier ; access to knowledge, but more par
ticularly easier access to that knowledge, which is social
and political. And, therefore, in every department of
human nature, with regard to what is spiritual, with
regard to what is moral, with regard to what is intellec
tual, with regard to what is political, we have, for a whole
generation of man, been engaged with one consent in
endeavouring to increase the capacity of the mass ofthe
community for the discharge of public duty. And can
there be anything more absurd than, after having par
ticipated in these operations, after having pushed them
to the utmost of our power, after having used every
means to procure, and to promote and stimulate to the
uttermost, that kind of improvement, after having ele
vated in that way, as Parliament aided by other agencies
has elevated, the working class and the mass of the
community, to turn round upon the very work we have

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATEE, LIVEEPOOL, 75
ourselves performed, to refuse to it its natural consum
mation, and to say, we admit your increased fitness ; we
admit your increased intelligence ; we have done all we
could to help it on, and we will do all we can to help it
on hereafter ; yet, take notice, we will still deny to you
that public and legal recognition to which by fitness you
are entitled, in the shape of any increased possession of
the franchise, and in the shape of power to participate
in making the laws for the government of the country ?
Why, gentlemen, it is hardly to be expected that
objections so unreasonable, though they may have been
brought out into the light of day, can endure the test of
prolonged discussion, I am glad, gentlemen, on many
grounds to meet you here to-night. But I am glad ,
especially, because it is, to a great extent, in these great |
assemblies of our fellow-countrymen that the opinions \
and sentiments are formed,- which become ultimately the
guides of the public mind and public policy. And I
would that those who say there is no sentiment in the
country favourable to the passing of the measure of
the Government could be present among us to-night,
and judge for themselves. Gentlemen, it is not violence, '
it is not a love of innovation, it is not a pedantic view of
what is necessary to vindicate our own consistency, that
brings us forward as a Government in connection with
this important measure ; it is the deep conviction that !
we are endeavouring to assist in the payment of a debt
which not only honour, but justice and policy, all combine
to recognise as due to the people of this country. Have j
those, who object to these proceedings, considered the
real amount of the change that has passed upon the mind
and temper, as well as the condition, of this community
within the last five-and-thirty years? Do they really

76 - PARLIAMENTARY EEFORM.
look back to what was the condition of the peasantry
thirty-five years ago, under the operation of the poor-law
as it then existed ? Do they look back to the petition
which was signed, at least which, purported to be signed,
by three millions of men, and which was signed at any
rate by an enormous and almost inconceivable number,
praying for radical and fundamental changes, and evi
dently indicating the general unsettledness, if not dis
content of mind, which, at a time somewhat later, rankled
in the breasts of the masses of the community ? Less
than thirty years ago such was the state of facts. But
who could get up such a petition now ? But if there
is content, if there is intelligence, if there is fitness,
is it not then our business to take advantage of the
existence of those qualities, of those favouring circum
stances, and to rally them all and turn them to the best
account by giving to greater numbers a positive interest,
a direct share, in the conduct of the Government on be
half of the institutions of the country ?
Why? gentlemen, at the period to which I refer, the
sore, the uneasy state of the pubhc mind, I mean in
the minds of the masses of the community, indicated
itself in ten thousand forms. I will not go back to the
manifestations of violence which occurred in times that -
some of us can recollect. I will not go back to those
unhappy and deplorable collisions of authority with
assemblages of the people, that now raise a blush upon
the cheek of Englishmen ; but I will speak of other
things. I will speak by way of example of one that is
familiar. At that time there was a kind of popular
charm attaching to parodies of well-known and very
sacred and solemn documents of our religion; which,
with their well-understood forms of expression, in order

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 77
to meet popular favour, were twisted into a sense adapted
to express the wants and sufferings of the people. "Well,
gentlemen, it happened to me not long ago, in an hum
ble street in London, to hear a couple of men singing, or
trying to sing, a parody of that kind. It was a parody
on the Church Service in the Prayer Book, and all the
addresses and expressions were altered so as to refer to
a great supposed misery and misgovernment of the
people. This was within the last few months. I had the
curiosity to wait near those persons for some length of
time in order to see wha.t took place. They were success
ful in gathering around them a group, which appeared
to varyljetween six and twelve in number, composed of
boys and girls ; and those boys and girls, I am bound
to say, thereby testifying to the improved condition of
the working classes, did produce various pennies and
half-pennies, with which they purchased copies of those
wonderful productions. But my curiosity was to see
what testimonies of the popular interest they would elicit
_from adult working men. It was about the time — about
six o'clock in the evening — when they were going home
from their work, and they passed by, to and fro. I saw
Ibut'ona person, of an age to receive wages as a working
"man, stop near this group, and having listened for about
half a minute, he went on with evident indications of
contempt. And that is a symptom, slight perhaps but
trustworthy, of the sort of change that has been pro
duced in the mind of the mass of the community. It
is not a solitary symptom ; and the importance of those
symptoms would be much misunderstood, if they were
taken as anything but indications of a wide-spread — I
will venture to say, of an almost all-comprehending
change; indeed it is that change, and the improved
and constantly increasing capacity, that, as we say.

78 ] PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
constitutes not only the fitness, but, in a moral sense,
constitutes as I affirm a right, a right on behalf of the
people, to expect at the hands of the legislature not a
sweeping or violent, but a fair and reasonable extension
of the franchise.
But, gentlemen, it appears to me that, when the
matter is well weighed and examined, the real difference
between us and those who oppose this Bill turns out to
be really no less than this, that, as I have said, they
regard every demand for a concession of increased
political privilege to their fellow countrymen as an evil
— an evil that they would face, perhaps, in order to
avoid greater evils, such as the burning of their houses
over their heads ; but it is a change, which they are not
prepared to recognise as being in itself anything but
more or less an evil, and hence it is that we have those
extraordinary demands to know how many, how many
exactly, will there be of voters from the working class in
this town and in that. It reminds me very much, gen
tlemen, of what took place about the time of the repeal
of the corn-laws, when the admission of corn from abroad
was regarded as a tremendous evil, and it was asked
with a jealous, feverish, and scrutinising curiosity, how
many quarters of corn would come from America;
how many quarters from Eussia; how many there
would be from Odessa ; how many from the Baltic ; and
we were told that there would be a deluge, an inunda
tion of 'foreign corn ; and this awful mischief of an
undue augmentation of the quantity of food available
for the support of the people was regarded with a per
fectly sincere, and real, and true, but, as we now all
know, a most ridiculous and even in itself contemptible
apprehension. Very ridiculous were the errors into
which men were betrayed by that temper. Possibly you

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 79
may even recollect that one of the most distinguished
among the opponents of the repeal of the corn-laws,
who is also one of the most distinguished opponents of
the Bill now in Parliament, made the discovery that
there was a place in Eussia called Tamboff, and from
that place it was credibly reported, and he had reason to
believe, that there could be imported at a very low price
into this country per annum about thirty-six millions
of quarters of corn. Well, apprehensions just about as
reasonable are now entertained. For my own part, I
stated in the House of Commons, I stated as a kind of
challenge, hoping that it would be repelled with energy
and even with indignation on the opposite side of the
House, with reference to some gentlemen who had
been remarking upon this subject, — I said, " You seem to
dread the working men about to be admitted to the
constituency as if they were an invading army." To
my great astonishment, I must add to my great pain,
that imputation of mine, which I had hoped would be
indignantly repelled, appeared, by cheers from various
quarters, to be warmly accepted as a perfectly true de
scription of the view that was taken of a measure of
popular enfranchisement. Well, gentlemen, is this so,
or is it not ? Is it true that in a free country, that in a
Christian country, in a country that hopes it is some
where not far from the very head of Christian civilisa
tion, eighteen hundred years after our Lord illuminated
the world with His presence, and blessed it with His
teaching and example, — is it really true that what we
have come to after so long enjoyment of the light, after
such progress through scores of generations, is only this,
that the best we can look for in happy, free old England,
is to see 'gathered together a small and privileged class

80 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
within the fortified precincts of what we call the Consti
tution, and outside of it the huge toiling masses of the
community, who are to be regarded, if they come near
the door, if even a moderate share of them become can
didates for admission, as an invading army? Gentle
men, I must say that life would be scarcely worth having,
and certainly the institutions, for which we are so thank
ful, would be a cause of shame and disgrace to us rather
than of glory, if such was their character, and if such
had been their result. Why, what do we mean, gen
tlemen, when we make our boast, as Englishmen, of the
local government and the self-government that have so
long prevailed in this country ? Is that self-government,
is the parochial government, is the municipal govem
ment in this country a good or an evil ? (Several voices
— " A good.") If it is a good, why is it a good ? because
it is an instrument of practical education to those
who partake in it. But if the giving of your vote
for the concerns of the parish, and for the concerns of
the borough, is an instrument of practical education, I
ask, is it not a yet more powerful instrument, and a yet
higher and nobler education, to be admitted also to give
your voice in the selection of men who are to make the
laws under which they live.
But again, gentlemen, what is the case with respect
to those who may be generally described as the upper
classes of this country ? Did they at once jump into
fitness for the exercise of political power ? Did they, at
a moment's notice, adapt themselves to the workings of
a constitutional system ? Most certainly not. Our con
stitutional system in its present form, though not in its
original elements, is considered to date from a period
not yet quite two hundred years old, namely, from the

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 81
Eevolution of 1688. But for several generations after
that revolution, how was parliamentary govemment in
this country carried on ? Undoubtedly by means of cor
ruption, in a great degree by gross corruption, though not
so much corruption of the constituencies as corruption of
the Parliament itself : of that very upper class, whose pre
sent capacity for political duty we all admit, and whose
upright discharge of it we have now so generally to
admire. But if it has taken time to apply a remedy
to those evils, and if, with time, a remedy has been
applied, is not that a proof of the educating power of
political privileges, of the political franchise? And if
such has been the result of the enjoyment of that power
by certain classes of the community, why are we not
to believe that the very same human nature in other
classes will in its degree receive analogous benefits from
an analogous discipline ? why are we not to believe that
it is, in point of fact, a proof not only that we are to
seek fitness in the people before we admit them to the
franchise, but that we are to look to the use of the fran
chise itself for the purpose of increasing and of per
fecting that fitness ?
Gentlemen, I must say there is one institution of this
country which has assumed a form thoroughly national,
although it is among the most recent — it is, in fact, the
most recent of all our institutions — and of which we
may say that it illustrates the manner in which national
strength is augmented by the extension of political
privilege, from time to time, and within the rules of
prudence and of safety, to augmented numbers of the
people. I refer, gentlemen, to the Volunteer move
ment. You will judge whether I am wrong in my
opinion. It may sound at the first moment like a
G

82 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
paradox if I connect the Volunteer movement with the
Eeform Act. The Volunteer movement has been essen
tially, in the main, a movement of the middle classes of
this country. The great bulk of the members of that
force are members of the middle class; are members of
that very class, which was enfranchised by the Eeform
Act. I do not doubt that at any moment, under the
pressure of immediate danger. Englishmen would have
ralhed round the vital interests of their country, and
would at the call of duty have given their lives on its be
half ; but I do not believe that forty years ago it would
have been possible to institute anything like what we have
seen in the Volunteer movement. I am not sure that
the voluntary arming, which took place at the beginning
of this century, went so far down in society as this has
done. But even if it did, that was a movement with
the enemy at our gates : this was one, which, if it com
menced in a period of some vague uneasiness, has grown
and thriven since amidst conscious and entire security.
I believe that this movement is an indirect, but at the
same time a perfectly true and legitimate, result of the
manner in which the middle class of this country has in
recent times come to be immediately and intimately
associated with the working of our institutions. They
have felt more than ever that they have an interest, a
share, a property, in these institutions ; and they have
shown their readiness to give both time, and money,
and care, and attention, for the purpose of adding to the
strength of the country, even apart from any apprehen
sion of immediate danger, for, thank God ! no such
apprehension does or need trouble our minds.
But, gentlemen, there is another illustration of the
effect of extended franchises : and I cannot refrain from

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 83
mentioning it, although it is possible that it may expose
me or others to misunderstanding — I mean the illustra
tion afforded by the civil war in America. Now, about
five or six years ago, when the subject of Parliamentary
Eeform was under discussion, it was a popular and
a fashionable practice to speak of the institutions of
America as a sheer failure, and formal orations were
delivered in the House of Commons, setting forth that
supposed failure as a warning to this nation, and making
use of those institutions as a bugbear, to ten-ify and
frighten us from proceeding in the path of liberal policy,
to induce us to withhold our confidence from our country
men, and to insist upon retaining the narrow limit of the
present constituency. Gentlemen, what has taken place
since that time ? I am not about to deliver a general
lecture upon the civil war in America. I am not about
to draw any invidious distinction, or any distinction at
all, between one section and the other section of that
great community. For my part, gentlemen, my earnest
and devout aspiration has long been and is — and I
believe that such is the aspiration and desire of English
men at large — for the welfare of that nation, in every
part and portion of it — whether it be Avhite or black,
and whether it be in the North or in the South.
Neither, gentlemen, am I going to hold up American
institutions as institutions to be preferred to our own ;
but what I am going to do is this. I think it is our
business, as men of sense, to draw lessons from the ex
perience of America, and from facts that come under
our view, whether they be in a despotic country, whether
they be in a constitutional country, or whether they be
in countries that are republican or democratic. The
G 2

84 PARLIAMENTARY EEFORM.
point I ask you to observe is this ; not the comparative
merits of English and American institutions at large, but
one single and important point, I mean the effect that has
been produced in America by a largely extended popular
franchise, and a widely spread participation on the part
of the people in the choice of their governors ; the won
derful, the unexampled, the almost incredible effect that
has been produced by that system in giving forcible
expression to the national wiU, and in enabling a
Government to develope energies for the purpose of
. giving effect to that will such as probably have never
been developed, in an equal time and among an equal
number of men, since the race of mankind began to exist.
Only consider the facts : consider what has been done by
thirty miUions of people. But I had better not include
the negro population, who can hardly be said to have
entered as a distinct party into the struggle, thankful as
we may be for the effect it has had ultimately upon
their destinies. .Let us consider, then, that some twenty-
five or twenty-six millions of people, twenty millions in
the majority, and six in the minority, when they came
to the bloody issue of war upon a matter which on the
one side and on the other was held vital, have, as in
common justice we are bound to admit, developed an
amount of heroism, a power of self-sacrifice, an energy,
a perseverance, a forgetfulness of every personal in
terest, and have marshalled an amount of actual force,
and expended an amount of treasure, in support of their
chosen rulers on the one side and on the other, such as I
know not where to seek for in the annals of the history
of the world. Well, gentlemen, what I would say is
this, — let us learn lessons where we can ; and among

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 85
others let us learn them not least readily where we can
learn them from our kinsfolk, from the children of our
loins in America.
The position of England, gentlemen, is a peculiar
position in the world. England has inherited from
bygone ages more perhaps of what was august and
venerable in those ages than any other European coun
try ; and at the same time that her traditions of the past
are so rich and. fruitful that our minds and all our cha
racters have, both within our knowledge and beyond
our knowledge, been largely moulded by them, she has
likewise been exposed in the highest possible degree to
the sifting and stimulating power of every modern influ-
mce, which the nineteenth century has brought into
activity. As geographically she stands with Europe
on one side of her and America on the other, so she
stands between those feudal institutions on the one side
under which Em-opean States were formed, and which
have given to England her hierarchy of classes, and on
the other side, those principles of equality which form
the base of society in the United States. What in
these circumstances is the course which duty and pru
dence mark out for us ? Surely it is this. It is the
business of England not, by a servile imitation of the
one or the other, to disown her own glorious and most
characteristic history, but, on the contrary, to cherish
everything she has inherited, and to improve it, but to
improve it for the sake of preserving it. And further :
it is her duty, while she looks fondly upon the past, to
learn likewise from the present ; and if the recent events
which have taken place on the other side of the Atlantic
have demonstrated to us how, by enlarged franchises,
augmented power can be marshalled on behalf of Go-

86 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFORM.
vernment, and increased energy and power be given to
the nation as a nation, why, then, gentlemen, I say, with
out incurring needless risk, without forgetfulness of the
rules of prudence and circumspection, and recollecting
^hat the apphcation of principles of public policy is ever
subject to the control of circumstancCj I think we ought,
with a firm determination, to observe, to record, to
appropriate all the lessons which may be so gathered
from the experiences of the other portions of the human
family. Gentlemen, it is sometimes said that the measure
we propose is a democratic measure. The word de
mocracy has very dfiferent senses. If by democracy
be meant liberty, if by democracy be meant a pro
gressive extension to each man in his own sphere of
f every privilege and of every franchise he can exercise
with advantage to himself and with safety to the State,
why, then, I must confess I do not see much to alarm us
in the word democracy. But if by democracy is meant
the enthroning of ignorance as against knowledge, the
setting up of vice in opposition to virtue, disregard
of established distinctions of rank, forgetfulness of
what our fathers have done for us, indifference or
coldness to the grandeur of the inheritance we enjoy,
then, gentlemen, I for one, and, I beheve, all whom
I have the honour to address, are in that sense the
enemies of democracy. But, gentlemen, in such a
sense, this country is not a democratic country. On the
contrary, in this country there is a love, deeply rooted
and grounded in the public mind, of that arrangement
and constitution of society which we have inherited
from former times; and I do not believe that of the
entire community there is one man in one hundred.

SPEECH IN THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 87
or it may be one thousand, that would disturb it even
if he could. There is but one thing that can make
this country, from a country aristocratic in its feeling,
become a country democratic in its feehng. That day,
I think, would be an unhappy day ; and I know nothing
that could cause such a day to arrive, unless it were a
forgetfulness among the British aristocracy that their
order has in all times, beyond any aristocracy in the
world, been trustful and confiding in its temper towards
the people, mild and forbearing in its use of privilege,
and ready to furnish leaders for the nation in every
cause that belongs to its honour and its liberty. I
am sorry whenever for a moment, and even in a par
ticular instance, there may be a disposition to depart
from those noble and glorious traditions of the British
aristocracy. I am sorry to reflect that at the moment
I now speak the immediate danger threatening the
measure which the Government has introduced should
proceed from names eminent and honoured on the
list of that aristocracy. A notice of motion has been
given by Lord Grosvenor for the purpose of defeating
the Bill of the Government ; we are further told —
and as the announcement has been publicly made
without contradiction, I presume that we are truly
told — that the motion is to be seconded by Lord
Stanley. I know no two individuals more worthy of
respect and honour in the high station which they
occupy ; but I am bound to say, I think for many
reasons that a more deplorable arrangement never was
made — to speak in homely phrase, a more gross blunder
never was committed — than when in the councils of
political party, with that kind of cleverness which so
often outwits itself, it was determined that the repre-

88 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
sentatives of these two of our noblest and most ancient
houses should come forward combinedly for the purpose
of resisting and defeating what is an act of grace, but
what is likewise, besides being an act of grace, an
act of justice, to the great community of England.
Gentlemen, however much we may lament this un
happy instance, I am persuaded that we are not to
accept it as an indication that there is likely to be
a general and a fundamental change in that wise mode
ration, which has hitherto, for the most part, distinguished
the conduct of the most favoured members of society ; of
those upon whom the bounties of Providence have been
poured in the largest abundance, and who have profited
most largely by the labours of their fellow-men.
I do not think, moreover, that the present movement,
formidable though it be, is likely to succeed. We,
gentlemen, have framed a measure, I think, in the
strictest spirit of moderation. We do not desire, nay,
we should be among the first to resist, sudden, and
violent, and sweeping changes. But a progressive
enlargement of the popular franchise, having due
regard to the state and circumstances of the country,
we consider not to be liable to the application of any
of those epithets. Having produced that measure,
framed in a spirit of moderation, we hope to support
it in a spirit of decision. It is not, gentlemen, in
our power to secure the passing of the measure ; that
rests more with you, and more with those whom you
represent, and of whom you are no unworthy sample,
than it does with us. Yet still we have a great
responsibility ; and we are conscious of it ; and we
do not intend to flinch from it and from what it entails.
We stake ourselves, gentlemen, Ave stake our existence

SPEECH IN. THE AMPHITHEATRE, LIVERPOOL. 89
as a Government, whether it be worth much or whether
it be worth little it is not for us to say, but such
as it is we stake it, and we stake our political characters,
upon the adoption of the Bill in its main provisions.
You have a right to expect from us that we shall tell
you what we mean. You have a right to ask that
the trumpet, which it is our part to blow, shall give
no uncertain sound. Its sound, gentlemen, has not
hitherto been, and I trust it will not henceforward
be, uncertain. We have passed the Eubicon ; we have
broken the bridge ; and we have burnt the boats behind
us. We have advisedly cut off from ourselves the
means of retreat. And having done this, we hope that,
as far as time has yet permitted, we have done our
duty to the Crown and to the nation. The rest, gentle
men, is in other hands than ours. And we beseech
you, and we beseech all reflecting Englishmen in whose
hands, by the well-understood Constitution of this
country, the ultimate settlement of these great issues
is lodged, to consider what the future is to be. You
cannot, I think, doubt, if you consider the workings
and the movement of society, that there is on the part
of the masses of the community a forward and onward
movement ; a forward and onward movement perfectly
safe and harmless, and not only safe and harmless, but
infinitely profitable, if only you deal with it wisely
and in time. But read the signs of the period in
which we live. The voice that once spake as never
man spake rebuked those that were then in authority,
because they could not discern the signs of the times.
Does any man really suppose that that particular limit
which is signified by the figure of ten pounds is to
be for ever and from ever, for generation to generation.

90 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
the limit within which you are to enjoy, and beyond
which every man is to be deprived of the enjoyment
of, the franchise ? Certainly not. And the defeat of this.
Bill ; what would it procure ? An interval indeed,
but not an interval of repose, an interval of fever,
an interval of expectation, an interval for the working
of all causes and all influences which might possibly
rise even to the formidable dimensions of political
danger. Let this great nation, we adjure it, be wise,
and be wise, too, in due season. Let it not, through a
dallying indecision, au improvident neglect of an op
portunity as favourable, I believe, as ever was offered
to a legislature, or through the influence of a weak, or
cowardly, sometimes even a selfish apprehension, refuse
the granting of a boon which, I am firmly persuaded,
if granted now, will be received as a boon in a spirit
of grateful affection, and will tend to nothing but an
increase of attachment of the people to its laws, its
institutions, and its rulers. Let us not convert that
which is truly, if we can but see it, for our advantage into
an occasion of danger and of evil ; but let our country
men, if they so view the duty of the day and the pros
pects of the future, rally round us and strengthen us for
the task we have in hand ; for if they so rally round us,
rely upon it, gentlemen, that whatever difficulties be in
our way they will be easily and even soon surmounted ;
and the next time we meet within these now crowded
walls it will be to exchange our mutual congratulations
upon the passing into law of a great and liberal measure
of enfranchisement, and upon the evident fruits it may
at once, it is not too much to hope, have begun to
produce in the augmented contentment, and love, and
loyalty of the people.

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 91

EBPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order for Second Eeading read.
THE CHANCELLOE of the EXCHEQUEE:
I rise. Sir, to move the second reading of the
Eepresentation of the People Bill : And, in doing so, I
propose to supply a defect, which some have observed
in the statement with which I originally introduced the
Bill to the notice of the House. It was thought on my
part almost disrespectful to the House — and suggestions
of this kind have proceeded from persons of weight and
authority — to have laid a measure of so much import
ance on the table without dealing more largely, than I
did presume to deal, in substantive reasons for its intro
duction. I will hereupon explain briefly to the House
the feelings with which that measure was introduced,
and which will, I think, explain and justify the course
which I pursued.
Her Majesty's Govemment — for I do not speak on
this point for myself alone — Her Majesty's Government
have been all along sensible of the tender nature of the
ground, on which they were about to tread. They had,
first and foremost of all, to apprehend that they might pre
judice the progress of this great question, by giving to it
unnecessarily, or at all events prematurely, the character
of a party conflict within the walls of Parliament. They
had also to apprehend that they might incur a still
more serious mischief — that they might give to the
course of the controversy on the subject the character.

92 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
beyond these walls, of a conflict between class and class.
They were determined. Sir, that, so far as depended
upon them, the discussion should not be marked from
its commencement either by the one character or the
other. I was therefore earnestly studious — with what
success I know not — to thread my way through the
whole of that long and, I fear, wearisome address, with
out including in it any statement of principle, any argu
ment, any suggestion, any reference to the past, of such
a nature as could in any manner raise even so much as
a flutter of hostile emotion on the part of the gentle
men who sit opposite.
I was not at that period aware of any reason, nay, I
am not even yet aware of any good reason, why gentle
men who sit opposite, and who may be disposed to
take a temperate and conciliatory view of pubhc affafrs,
should not freely concur in the enlargement — as we
think the very moderate enlargement — of the franchise
which we propose. We had framed the measure in
what appeared to us a spirit of moderation and re
straint. We desired that it should be placed before the
House in the same spirit. It was in the effort to give
effect to that desfre that I omitted many of the topics,
which would have exhibited more clearly the breadth
of the grounds on which we rest our measure, but which
might have neutralised that advantage by bringing too
readily into the foreground occasions for sharp conflict
of opinion.
I must confess that, when I heard the demand for
reasons urged in terms so peremptory, it was not alto
gether without a touch of surprise at some of the
quarters from which it proceeded. Had I been ad
dressing an assembly never before conversant with the

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 93
subject, I could have felt no such surprise. But it was
somewhat singular that gentlemen, who had themselves
heard of Eeform, who had themselves supported Ee
form, who had themselves been responsible for the
introduction of Eeform, who had themselves in some
instances — and this is by far the strongest case of all —
endeavoured to force Eeform, nay, to force even what
are now contemptuously called piecemeal and partial
measures of Eeform, on a reluctant Government, should
come forward and demand reasons why the advisers of
the Crown, forsooth, had troubled the mind of Parlia
ment and of the country by the introduction of the
question of Eeform.
Now, Sir, although I did not enter into reasoning at
large, I did refer to authority ; nay, I did, in effect, refer
to at least two heads of argument ; such heads as, under
the cfrcumstances, I thought sufficient for the purpose
which we had in view. One was, the nature of those
remarkable promises which had been given, and which
had been repeated more times than one can easily recol
lect, with respect to the settlement of this question.
And in connexion with those promises, I endeavoured
to explain the peculiar origin of the question — not from
the free and spontaneous choice of the Government, but
out of the very mind, the very bosom of Parliament
itself. A further head on which I touched was the state
of things that now prevails with regard to popular en
franchisement, in the strict sense of the phrase — that is,
the enfranchisement of the working class — as compared
with what prevailed in 1832, and with the undoubted
increase, during the interval, of fitness, on the part of
that class, for the exercise of political duty.
Now, with reference to the origin of the question, I

94 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
have been challenged in terms of extraordinary bold
ness. I must, therefore, revert to the point again ; and
I do so for the sake of stating that the only fault in the
explanation I gave was that I understated that case of
Parliamentary responsibility, which I sought to esta
blish. In 1851, when this question was first in a serious
form introduced to Parliament by my honourable Friend
the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Locke King), I stated
that, in spite of the opposition of the Government, a
majority of two to one voted for the introduction of his
Bill for the establishment of an occupation franchise
of ten pounds in the counties. But, Sir, what I be
lieve I omitted to state, and what, at any rate, greatly
strengthens the case, was this — that the House gave
that vote, and expressed that determination in favour of
the introduction of the Bill, even after my noble Friend,
who was then, as he is now, at the head of the Govern
ment, had stated that the Govemment would give
their attention to the subject, and would themselves
in the ensuing Session submit a measure of Eeform to
its consideration. And yet, in the very face, in the very
teeth of that pledge, given by my noble Friend, the
House of Commons of 1851 took upon itself the respon
sibility of forcing a vote in favour of the introduction of
the Bill. Thus, then, the revival of the Eeform ques
tion under the authority of the advisers of the Crown
was, in a peculiar sense, the wish of Parliament itself.
But I am told that the Bill of 1851 was subsequently
thrown out. No doubt ; and under what circumstances
was it thrown out ? The introduction of the Bill was
followed by the resignation of Ministers, who would not
submit to the judgment of the House, and who at the
same time did not think proper to advise a Dissolution.

EEPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 95
The attempt of the distinguished leaders of the party
opposite to form a Government, based as it was at that
period on an intention to propose the reimposition of a
fixed duty on corn, entirely failed. In that state of cir
cumstances, the Government came back, by ordinary
process, and of necessity, into the hands of my noble
Friend ; and coming back by necessity into his hands,
of course it followed that the House of Commons, which
accepted him as Minister, should, in lieu of the measure
for which it had pronounced, accept also his pledge with
reference to Parliamentary Eeform, and should decline
to proceed with the Bill of my honourable Friend.
But what did happen, and what was indeed remark
able, was that, under these circumstances?, there were
some ardent spirits who could not even then desist from
their attempt ; who divided for the second reading of
the Bill, and tried to force it on the Government ; and
among the gentlemen who were thus anxious to force
piecemeal Parliamentary Eeform on the Administration
was my right honourable Friend the member for Stroud,
whom I now find, if I rightly understand him, among
the implacable objectors to piecemeal legislation.
At a subsequent period, in 1858, the very same mea
sure was forced on the Government of Lord Derby.
On that occasion I voted against the Bill ; not because
I disapproved of the reduction of the county franchise
to ten pounds, for I had myself in 1 854, as a Minister,
been a willing party to a measure which went to enact
it; but because I did not wish to assume the respon
sibility of forcing it on an Administration, which was
not prepared at the time to deal with the question. But,
again, my right honourable Friend, hot and ungovern
able in his zeal for piecemeal proceedings in the matter

96 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
of Eeform, endeavoured by his vote to force on the
advisers of the Crown the adoption of a measure not
only confined to the subject of the franchise, but con
fined to a special branch of the franchise : a branch of
that branch of the question of Eeform.
Now, Sir, let us shortly consider who the persons are,
who have made to the people of this country the pro
mises of which I venture to remind this House ; promises
which I think the petitions presented to-day sufficiently
demonstrate not to have been forgotten, but to lie re
corded in the memory of the people as engagements of
which they anticipate, and of which they now ask, the
fulfilment. That statement, I perceive, was greeted with
something like a jeer from a portion of the House ; still,
let us consider for a moment who were the men that
gave those promises. They were first given by Lord
Eussell ; they were next given by Lord Aberdeen ;
Lord Palmerston followed in the train ; they were after
wards given, last of all, by Lord Derby and the right
honourable Gentleman opposite. Now, what was the
engagement- taken by the right honourable Gentleman,
speaking on the part of the Government of which he
was the organ ? Was it a first fault on the part of that
Government ? Was it an occasional and incidental slip
from the path of virtue, which led them, in an unguarded
moment, to promise a measure of enfranchisement, and
finally to include in their promise a reduction of the
borough franchise ? No, Sir, they had time enough to
consider their Eesolution. The second reading of their
Bill was met, as the second reading of our BiU is, we
are told, to be met, by a hostile Eesolution. It was
met by a Eesolution which I was not disposed to sup
port, but 01 which, at any rate, I wiU say that it was

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 97
direct and outspoken in its purpose, and that it gave
the country clearly to understand the real motives that
were in the minds of its supporters. That Motion was
successful. The Bill was arrested. The Parliament
was dissolved. The dissolution of the Parliament gave
an opportunity to the Govemment of Lord Derby to
consider whether they had been right, or whether they
had been wrong, in the introduction of a Bill which
refused to deal with the borough franchise ; and, upon
the assembling of the new Parliament, the right hon-'
ourable Gentleman opposite announced the deliberate
view of his coUeagues. On the 7th of June, 1859, he
spoke as follows : —
"We are perfectly prepared to deal with that
question of the borodgh franchise and the introduc
tion of the working classes by lowering the franchise
in boroughs, and by acting in that direction with sin
cerity; because, if you intend to admit the working
classes to the franchise by lowering the suffrage in
boroughs, you must not keep the promise to the ear
and break it to the hope. The lowering of the suffrage
must be done in a manner which satisfactorily and
completely effects your object, and is at the same
time consistent with maintaining the institutions of the
country." (Opposition cheers.)
I see that you hail with satisfaction the saving clause
of " maintaining the institutions of the country." But
we do not ask you now to pledge yourselves to sacrifice
the institutions of the country. We do not ask you, at
this stage of the proceedings on the Bill, to fix this or
that particular standard for the lowering of the borough
franchise. We may have our own views on the subject,
and we have them. We have reduced them to what we
H

98 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
think are the narrow limits of strict moderation. We
now ask you, whether ypu are or are not prepared to
act on the principle announced by the right honour
able Gentleman opposite, when he said that the Govern
ment of Lord Derby, haying before it the question
whether it was to continue in posses'sion of power or to
retire from it, was ready to propose, in some effectual
shape, the lowering of the borough franchise ?
However, Sir, I will not omit to notice what perhaps
honourable Gentlemen opposite may consider important,
that at a subsequent period, unless I am much mistaken,
the right honourable Gentleman retracted those words.
I rather believe, though I cannot give the exact date,
that the right honourable Gentleman expressed an un
feigned repentance with regard to the promise he had
given. But, Sir, the promise that he gave, he gave
while in power ; he gave it as a Minister of the Crown.
He gave it on the occasion of an appeal to Parliament ;
a solemn appeal, lodged in order to determine who
was worthy to hold power, and who was not worthy to
hold it. It was a promise given, I admit, under poli
tical pressure, but it was a promise, on that very account,
all the more important and more sacred ; and if in the
ease and leisure of opposition the right honourable
Gentleman has retracted it, that is not the first time
such things have taken place ;
" Ease will retract
Vows made in pain as violent and void."
And, Sir, let me not be misunderstood. I do not doubt
that the right honourable Gentleman had a perfect right
to make the promise, or that he had a perfect right to
retract it. It is not for me to question his discretion-

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 99
in the one step, nor do I intend to question it in the
other. But let not the right honourable Gentleman
suppose, and let not any member of his party suppose,
that the retractation of pledges, once given by a minister
of the Crown, can make those pledges to be as though
they had never been given. They can never be effaced
from the record of time ; they can never be cancelled in
the mind and memory of the nation ; they will continue
to stand among the material facts, which must bear there
after upon the settlement of the question. A constitu
tional Government cannot go before the representatives
of a free people to-day and say, " I promise you this,
that, and the other," and to-morrow say to them, " I
have changed my mind and I retract my promise," and
faU into the gross error of supposing that by the second
act it can efface and annihilate the first.
Well, Sir, the engagement to which I have referred
was subsequently renewed by the late Lord Palmerston.
He not only assented to, but he actually took office,
as head of the Government, for the second time, upon
the basis of a proposal to introduce an extension of the
franchise downwards ; and that extension, if not nume
rically wider, yet adopted arithmetically a lower figure,
than that which we now propose. And I say that if the
series of acts and declarations to which I have referred
does not constitute an engagement between the go*
vemors of the country and those who sit in this House,
and between the Statesmen of this country and the
people, I for one know not in what way, or under what
cu-cumstances, it is possible that such an engagement
should be formed.
Sir, it has been' necessary to go into the history of this
question ; it has been necessary to lay firmly and broadly
h 2

100 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
the grounds of our coming discussions, because, although
I was more sanguine at a former period, I do not conceal
from myself that we may now be upon the threshold of. a
long and a painful controversy. It is with the deepest
grief that I contemplate the course that has apparently
been decided on by the powerful party now in Opposition,
which I conscientiously believe had at the outset no
adverse interest in regard to such a settlement of this
question as we propose, though they have unhappily
chosen to consider that they have such an interest.
But now let us consider — and it is my justification
for dwelling upon the history of the question — in what
form this history of the question is sometimes given
from that quarter. Now, in debate we sometimes speak
with haste. In the daily press articles may sometimes,
we must admit, be compiled in haste ; and even in the
weekly press a trace of passing excitement may not be
altogether inconceivable. But, Sfr, we have likewise a
quarterly press ; and to that quarterly press we are
entitled to look for what I may justly term the philo
sophy of history. I refer to the ' Quarterly Eeview,'
the latest number of which I had the privilege, through
the kindness of my excellent and respected friend the
publisher, of consulting yesterday ; and there I find
the philosophy of history in regard to this question, as it
is viewed by the acutest minds that can be arrayed in the
service of that ancient and justly far-famed periodical.
I see from this kind of history what sort of food is
sometimes served up for the most fastidious appetites of
the most intellectual classes. The 'Eeview' is pub
lished, I think, to-day ; and what I am about to quote
is from a critical notice of the Eeform Bill. It is highly
complimentary to my honourable Friend the Member

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 101
for Birmingham as regards his weight and power, but not
quite so much so as respects his moral character. The
article in question includes a philosophical statement of
the real causes of this Eeform Bill, and, starting from
1860, it shows why we have not had a Eeform Bill
since 1860, and why we have a Eeform Bill now. These
are its words : —
" Just as in 1860 and 1861 the reforming zeal of the
Eadicals was bought off by the sacrifice of the Paper
Duty, so, from 1861 to 1865, it was appeased by the
sacrifice of the gallant Confederacy, But with the fall
of Eichmond Mr, Bright's heart was set at ease con
cerning the fate of the Government to which his true
allegiance is given,'
I need not say what Government is intended ; it is not
the British Government, (A cheer,) In that cheer I.
hear the voice of a reader for the ' Quarterly Eeview,'
" And the moment Lord Palmerston was removed by
death the Government instinctively felt that the time
had again come round for buying off once more their
insatiable ally. "
" This time there was nothing for it but to reproduce
a Eeform Bill."
(Opposition cheers.) More readers of the ' Quarterly
Eeview.' (Laughter and cheers.) More assenting and
applauding readers ! — Gentlemen who think it was the
duty of this country not to have sacrificed the gallant
Confederacy — that is, who think that this country
ought to have gone to war on its behalf— Gentlemen
who thought, and who may stiU think, that what they
called the sacrifice of the paper duty was a measure
adopted simply to appease my honourable Friend,
although they themselves, in Government, had recom-

102 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
mended that sacrifice; Gentlemen who search in the
hidden recesses of the breasts of their opponents for
what they call the causes of events, but who have no
eyes to perceive what stares them in the face, and who
are totally oblivious of the fact that repeated and
solemn engagements have been contracted by the Throne
and the Government of this country, although they were
engagements into which they themselves had not re
fused to enter. When we read such statements as this,
it is necessary that the true history of this Eeform Bill,
depending not upon foolish imputations, and upon
visionary suppositions, but upon the recorded history of
the country, should be brought to mind; and really.
Sir, when I read this particular statement, I sought for
a description of it, and I could find no other so applic-
. able — with the exception of one monosyllable which I
wish entirely to pass over — as the reply of Prince
Henry to Falstaff after the story of the men in buck
ram — " These lies are like the father that begot them ;
Gross as a mountain, open, palpable."
By " lies " of course I mean " erroneous statements."
(An honourable Member : Who is the father of them ?)
Who is the father of them I will not undertake to say, and
of his dimensions of course I cannot possibly know any
thing, but whether he is or is not equivalent in size to
his prototype, this description is certainly a true one —
" Gross as a mountain, open, palpable.''
Sir, the House will remember that on a former occa--
sion I ventured to refer to the state of the constituency
at the present moment as compared with what it was in

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL, 103
1832:; and I endeavoured to show by a computation,
of which I stated the grounds, that the proportion of
the working classes included in the present constituency^
although to. our great satisfaction we had found it to be
larger than we had supposed, yet was smaller than it
had been in the year 1832. That statement has not yet
been impugned in this House ; and I do not think it
can be impugned successfully, I do not think that any
Gentleman, who has examined the figures, will venture to
question my statement that at the present moment the
quantitative proportion of the working men in the town
constituencies is less than it was in 1832, But in order
to. obtain a full view of the importance of this fact,
neither must the House forget that, since 1832, every
kind of fruitful and improving change has been in
operation in favour of the working classes. There never
was a period in which religious influences were more
active than in the period I now name. It is hardly an
exaggeration to say that within that time the civilizing
and training powers of education have for all practical
purposes been not so much improved as, I might almost
say, brought into existence, as far as the mass of the
people is concerned. As regards the press, an emanci
pation and an extension have taken place, to which it
would be difficult to flnd a parallel, I will not believe
that the mass of Gentlemen opposite are really insen
sible to the enormous beneflt that has been effected by
that emancipation of the press, when for the humble
sum of a penny, or for even less, newspapers are circu
lated from day to day, by the million rather than by
the thousand, in numbers almost defying the powers of
statistics to follow, carrying home incessantly to all
classes of our fellow-countrymen accounts of public

104 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
affairs, enabling them to feel a new interest in the
transaction of those affairs, and containing articles which,
I must say, are written in a spirit, with an ability, with
a sound moral sense, and even commonly with a refine
ment, that have made the penny press of England the
worthy companion — I may indeed say the worthy rival
— of those dearer and older papers, which have long
secured for British journalism a renown perhaps without
parallel in the world.
Again, by external and material, as well as by higher
means, by measures relating to labour, to police, and to
sanitary arrangements. Parliament has been endeavour
ing, has been striving to raise the level of the working
community, and has been so striving with admitted
success. And there is not, on the other hand, a call
which has been made upon the self-improving powers
of the working community, which has not been fully
answered. Take, for instance, the Working Men's Free
Libraries and Institutes throughout the country ; take,
as an example of the class, the Library of Liverpool ;
who are the frequenters of that institution ? I believe
that the majority of the careful, honest, painstaking
students who crowd that library are men belonging to
the working classes, a large number of whom cannot
attend without making some considerable sacrifice.*
Then again, Sfr, we called upon them to be provident ;
we instituted for them Post Office Savings Banks, which
may now be said to have been in full operation for four
years ; and what has been the result ? During these four
* It should have been added, that the example was set them in
1851 of Exhibitions of the works of industry ; and that they an
swered by establishing them for themselves, and by conducting them
with singular good order and success.

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 105
years we have received their names at the rate of thou
sands by the week, and there are now six hundred and
fifty thousand depositors in those Savings Banks. This,
then, is the way in which Parliament has been acting
towards the working classes ; and these are the results.
But, Sir, what is the true meaning of all. this ? It is
simply this. Parhament has been toiling to make the
working classes progressively fitter and fitter for the
franchise ; and can anything be more unwise, not to say
more senseless, than to persevere from year to year in
such a plan, and then blindly to refuse to recognise its
legitimate upshot — namely, the increased fitness of the
working classes for the exercise of political power?
The proper exercise of that power depends upon the
fitness of those who are to receive it. That fitness you
increase from day to day, and yet you decline, when
the growing fitness is admitted, to give the power.
[" No, no 1 " from the, bach Opposition Benches.^ You
decline to give the working classes political power by
lowering the borough franchise. [" No, no ! " from the
back Opposition Benches.^ I do not complain of the
interruption ; in fact, I am very glad to hear it. I
wish that cry were much louder, I wish it were uni
versal, I wish it came from the front Opposition Benches,
and from my noble Friend behind me ; for if our oppo
nents were now prepared to proceed in what seems the
natural sense of their interjections, we should have little
matter for controversy on the subject of this Bill. But
I fear it is not so. I fear the intention is to resist the
consummation of the process, of which the earlier stages
have been favoured and approved. This course appears
about as rational as the process of a man who incessantly

106 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
pours water into a jug or bason, and then wonders
and complains that at last it overflows.
Now, what are the arguments that the busy brain of
man has framed in opposition to this measure ? It is
one favourite plea of our opponents, that we ought not
to hand over the power to govern to those who do not
pay the charges of Government. In the depository of
wisdom to which I have referred that argument occupies
a very prominent place, as it did in the speech of a
noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne), a very distinguished
Member of this House ; from whose discourses in this
House I am afraid the political writers in the ' Quarterly
Eeview ' have been guilty of the grossest plagiarism on
more occasions than one. But is this the thing that we
are really going to do ? are we, indeed, going to hand
over the power of Government to those who do not pay
the charges of Government ? I will not at this moment
examine into the first portion of the proposition, although
I say distinctly we are not going to hand over the
power at all ; but is it true that the working classes do
not contribute fairly, fully, largely, to the expenses of
Government ? This question was put to me two days
ago, in consequence of my statement that, according to
the best estimate I could form, the working classes
were possessed of an income forming not less than five-
twelfths — that is, not very far short of one-half — of the
entire income of the country, I here and now repeat
that statement, in the presence of those who are able to
correct me if I am wrong, and in the presence of one
(Mr, Mill) whom I may justly call the greatest econo
mist of the day. Others have made higher estimates.
The honourable Member for Derby (Mr, Bass), who is

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL, 107
no mean authority upon subjects connected with the
earnings of the working classes, has placed their income
at a much higher rate than I have taken. This is a
matter on wiiich I may be confuted, but scarcely con
tradicted ; because the question is not capable of being
handled as one of fact, but only of inquiry, argument,
and inference, I repeat that, in my judgment, after the
best examination I can make, it is a moderate estimate to
put the income of the working classes at five-twelfths of
the aggregate income of the country ; whereas they are
put off under the present law with, at the outside, what
may be called one-seventh of the electoral power. Now,
on the very showing of our antagonists, and putting
aside altogether the question how far the human element
itself may weigh, apart from money, is not such a state
of things, I ask, absolutely unjust ?
Perhaps I shall be told that I have based my estimate
upon the income and not upon the property of the
working classes. Probably that may be the answer to
my statement, [Hear, hear!] Yes, I hear a cheer
confirming me. I admit that I have spoken in refer
ence to income, and not in reference to property. Well,
then, any one so inchned may take it on that ground if
he chooses ; but he must also take the consequence of
having made that choice, and he must be prepared to
change the whole system of our taxation. We now lay
upon income the great bulk of our taxes ; and to these
taxes the working classes contribute, perhaps, a larger
proportion, looking at the amount of their earnings,
than is paid by the proudest noble in the land, I
therefore say to those Gentlemen who argue that the
working classes are not entitled to the franchise because
they do not possess , property, but only income, that

108 PARLLiMENTARY EEFOEM.
they must be prepared to join hands with the honour
able Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and with
the Financial Eeformers of Liverpool, and instead of
raising a fourteenth part of the revenue, or some such
proportion, as we now do, from property, and the rest
from income, we must learn how to raise a fourteenth
part from income and the rest from property.
Again it is said, at least I believe it has been so said,
that where the working classes have a majority they
vote together as a class. Now, is there any shade or
shadow, any rag, even, of proof that such is the fact ?
I am going to trespass upon the patience of the House
by reading a letter which I received to-day from a
working man, and which I shall venture to read for the
especial benefit of some Gentlemen opposite. I beheve
the statements it contains to be perfectly true ; and it is
my sincere opinion that the writer's arguments are
typical of the views prevalent in the class to which he
belongs. In any case their nature is such that I am
confident honourable Gentlemen will not be sorry to
hear them.
" Dear Sir " (I do not know him personally, but he
thus kindly addresses me) — " My motive in writing this
is to remind you, that there are Tories who belong to the
working classes ; as you cannot think perhaps all you
wish at the right time. We all know, that there are
the same variety of principles and opinions in all classes
of society. I am a working man, and have an opportu
nity of knowing that the Tories in principle, especially
the artisan class, are very numerous, who are not now
in possession of the franchise. The new Eeform BiU, I
think, wiU do about as much, I think, for the Tories as
for the Liberals. It would for all we know. The love

EEPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 109
of country and constitution is confined to no particular
class. A Liberal is as loyal as a Tory. Is there any
evidence to show that these men which the Eeform Bill
or Franchise Bill would enfranchise are not fit to be
trusted ? They know well that the welfare and pros
perity of their country and their masters is at the same
time their welfare and prosperity. Please not to make
my name public."
Well, Sir, in my opinion, this letter presents a true
view of the question. There is in it that patent con
centrated good sense which often comes from the mind,
from the mouth, and from the pen, of an uneducated
man with a peculiar force of meaning, perhaps because
he is in a certain sense, as I may say, without any
reproach or disparagement to education, so much nearer
in one sense to the point at which nature originally
placed him, than are men with minds more elaborately
cultivated and refined. Now, Sir, I maintain, like my
correspondent, that there is no proof whatever that the
working classes, if enfranchised, would act together as
a class. Perhaps you ask for proofs to the contrary.
It is exceedingly difficult to give a direct proof of that
which has not been formally put to the test : although
in my opinion ample proof, substantial, even if indirect,
of the correctness of my statement does exist. For
example, I take this point. Municipal franchises are
in a predominant degree working men's franchises.
Those franchises, if they do not quite come up to uni
versal suffrage, at all events nearly approach household
suffrage. What has been the system followed by the
working classes in municipal elections ? In order to
institute a comparison between the municipal and
Parliamentary franchises, we must select those towns, in

110 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
which the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries are
the same. There are three hundred and forty-six
thousand municipal voters in that portion of the towns
of this country, and, computing as well as the informa
tion in our hands will permit, I find that there are one
hundred and sbcty-three thousand of them on the Par
liamentary register. I deduct from that number one-
fourth, or forty-,one thousand, as representing the
maximum portion of working men, and the result is
that there remain one hundred and twenty-two thousand
as the number of non -working men in the municipal
constituency. Thus the working men number no less
than two hundred and twenty-four thousand. Is not
this a dreadful state of things ? Yet there has been no
explosion, no antagonism between classes ; no question
has been raised about property, nor indeed has any,
even the slightest, attempt been made to give a political
character to municipal institutions. [Oh, oh !] Yes, but
when the municipal franchise was discussed in 1835 the
party who occupied the seats of honourable Gentlemen
opposite — -[Mr. Disraeli: Where were you sitting
then ?] My reply is that I was sitting on the Benches of
that party ; but I was not one of those who employed the
argument. If such questions are relevant to the matter
in hand, where was the right honourable Gentleman
sitting at that time ? He was not sitting, indeed, for he
did not sit in Parliament at all ; but he was standing,
somewhere or other in the interests of what is termed
the " Mountain," at an elevation far above any of the
Benches behind me. Apart from these trifles, the
material point. Sir, is this ; that many of the Gentlemen,
who were then sitting opposite, prophesied that great
danger and mischief would spring from the municipal

EEPEESENT ATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. HI
franchise, because it would give a political character to
municipal elections, and imbue all our corporations with
a similar spirit. That being the case, 1 think I am
perfectly justified in standing upon this important and
strictly relevant fact, that, as far as I am aware, we are
not able to adduce a single instance in which this
majority composed from the working class has given a
democratic — I will not say a disloyal or a turbulent,
but a democratic character, a character distinct from
that which they bore under the influence of the middle
classes, to our municipal institutions or elections.
Again, Sir, with respect to the Parliamentary' con
stituency, let Gentlemen glance impartially at the
present state of things. I have on a previous occasion
referred to the metropolitan boroughs. These return a
large number of what are denominated "advanced"
politicians sitting on this side of the House, and which
have less than the usual proportion of voters of the
working class, I pass now to the other end of the scale.
I find that, among the present town constituencies, there
are eight boroughs in which the working classes con
stitute, in great part as freemen, a majority on the
registers. These eight towns are — Beverley, Coventry,
Greenwich, St. Ives, Maldon, Stafford, Pembroke, and
Newcastle-under-Lyne. What is the revolutionary
character of the Members whom they return ? I find
that these eight towns return five who bear the name of
Liberal, and nine who claim to belong to the Opposi- ,
tion. These, then, are the results, as far as our narrow and
partial experience goes, of having the working classes in
the majority.
But there is a much broader ground, to which, I think,

112 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
no reference has yet been made, and that is the case of
the boroughs, which had open constituencies, containing
large majorities of the working classes, before the Eeform
Act ; constituencies much more popular than any among
those of the present day. Upon examining the probable
operation of the new BiU, I find that, according to our
very large definition of the working classes — a definition
which we have employed rather for argument's sake,
I mean in order to avoid contention, than because it was
strictly and literally accurate — I find this as the result ;
that in sixty boroughs, returning one hundred and one
Members, the working classes will or may have majori
ties. In these sixty boroughs, the electors form 8'4 per
cent, of the population. Now let us compare with this
state of things, the state of things that existed in the
popular boroughs before the Eeform Act. Before 1830
there we're sixty-five boroughs of a strictly popular
character ; more popular, I conceive, than the sixty
boroughs that are likely to have a majority of the
labouring classes under the BUI now on the table, for
the electors in them, instead of being 84 per cent, of
the population, numbered nearly 10 per cent. And
furthermore, these sixty-five boroughs returned Mem
bers for one hundred and thirty seats. If it be true that
every majority of the. working classes in a constituency
has the control of the seat, which, however, I entirely
deny, you cannot show that, under our Bill, there would
be more than one hundred and one such seats ; while,
under the old Parliamentary system, that system which
so scandalises my right honourable Friend the Member
for Calne (Mr. Lowe), they numbered one hundred and
thfrty. We now, therefore, stand, to a certain extent,
upon the firm ground of history and experience, for the

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 113
purpose of comparison. Was there developed, among
those hundred and thirty Members, at any period of
our history, a character in any degree dangerous to the
institutions of the country ? I doubt if even a single
Member will be found ready to affirm that there was.
Sir, it appears to me that these are considerations of
great interest, considerations entitled to weight when
presented, if it be not done in an offensive manner, to
the minds of moderate and reflective men, on whichever
side of the House they may sit, while dealing with this
question. If there be a desire, and we are told there is
a desfre, to see it settled, I frankly own that I, for one,
can see nothing dangerous to the party opposite in the
proposed reduction of the borough franchise from ten
pounds to seven pounds. There can, I am persuaded, be
nothing dangerous to them in that reduction, if they
will only take warning by the experience of the Eeform
Act. There was nothing in that measure prejudicial to
the power or to the just influence of the party opposite,
but by thefr own option, by thefr own conduct in
reference to the measure, they chose to give it. that
character. The Eeform Act was injurious to them
through the effect produced on the mind of the nation
by their determined resistance to its adoption. As long
as I could do so, therefore, I cherished the hope that
the recollection of the Eeform Act, and of the conse
quences of their resistance, as exhibited in the transfer
of predominant power to their adversaries tor almost the
whole of a period of flve-and-thirty years, would lead
them to avoid faUing, a second time in the same genera
tion, into so palpable a snare ; and that they would not
prejudice themselves, and their own credit in the opinions
of the bulk of the population, by offering a resistance

114 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
that cannot fail, if it be prolonged, to engender more or
less of aversion and hostility,
I think. Sir, the facts to which I have referred are
sufficient to disprove the proposition that where the
working classes form the majority of a constituency, its
members are likely to work together in combination
against the other portions of society. Perhaps I may be
told that my argument goes too far, and that, if that
be true, there can be no danger in a much larger en
franchisement than that which is proposed by the present
measure. I have already said that, in my opinion, some
further enfranchisement would not be attended by danger
to the State. That, however, is an opinion I cannot ex
pect Parliament, in its present mind, to adopt ; and I
must add that, though I believe some further enfran
chisement would not be dangerous, I am far from saying;
or from believing, that it would be wise to go to great
lengths in that direction. Changes that effect sudden
and extensive transfer of power are attended by great
temptations to the weakness of human nature; and,
however high our opinion may be of the labouring
classes or of any other classes of the community, I do
not believe that it would be right to place such a temp
tation within the reach of any one among them. The
genius of our country and the history of our institutions
dictate and recommend gradual progress; and it is in
the mode of gradual progress, therefore, that these
changes should be brought about.
But, Sir, it is constantly alleged, and the argument is
employed with assurance, that, if we would only let the
matter take its course, the enfranchisement of the work
ing classes is actuaUy in course of being effected by a
natural process ; whereas we are endeavouring to stimu-

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL, 115
late and force onwards this enfranchisement by artiflcial
means. This is a matter upon which I should be
extremely slow to dogmatise ; because it does not admit
of being brought to a test with such precision, as to
warrant the employment of any tone of superlative con
fidence. But I must say, that the whole ofthe argument
upon such facts as are known to us is the other way ;
and that I wait with anxiety, but without expectation,
for the proof of this enlargement, of this natural and
spontaneous enlargement, with which it is said that we
are rashly intermeddling. The number of working men
on the register is, I think, undeniably less at present
than it was in 1 832 ; but, of course, there is the fact that
since 1832 the working men belonging to the class of
freemen have somewhat diminished. I do not think that
the diminution in this direction is numerically of much
importance, but there has been a great diminution in
the scot and lot voters, who were principally working men.
That class is not, indeed, yet extinct ; and therefore, in
our computations respecting the future, we must allow
for a continuance of this dwindling process, until the
whole number of scot and lot voters, in existence at
the time of the Eeform Act, has disappeared It is said,
however, that there is a rapid growth of the working
classes among the ten- pound householders. But where
is the proof of this assertion ? I believe it to be unde
niable, that the rate of progress in the aggregate number
of ten-ponnd householders has been very much less of
late years, than in the first few years after the passing
of the Eeform Bill. From 1832 to 1851, while the
population increased at the rate of forty -three per cent.,
the constituency, for counties and boroughs taken
together, grew more than twice as fast; but from 1851
I 2

116 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
to 1866 the constituency grew only fifty per cent, faster
than the aggregate population; thus showing a great
slackening in the onward movement at the later, as
compared with the earlier, period.
This, however, can in some degree be accounted for.
There were persons not belonging to the working classes,
who were classed under other denominations at the time
of the Eeform Act, but whose successors, as they
themselves died off, have subsequently appeared in the
capacity of ten-pound householders. But it is a mistake,
I believe, to imagine that some very extraordinary
growth has taken place among the ten-pound house
holders ; and a still greater mistake to imagine that such
growth as may have occurred, has taken place in the
working portion of the population. Let us look, for a
moment, at the economical facts of the case. If we take
the case of the towns, we find that the increase of the
constituencies since 1832 has been nearly the same, for
the entire period, as that of the population. In the
population it has been seventy- nine per cent., and in the
possessors ofthe suffrage it has been eighty-two per cent.;
a difference so slight, that it may be practically dis
regarded. It is said that there is a growth in the wealth
of the working classes more than proportionate to that
of the classes above them ; but no attempt has been
made to prove this. In my personal opinion, the largest
share of the recent increase of wealth has taken place
among the middle classes of the country. To put it
shortly and intelligibly, the capital of the country has
grown in a far greater degree than the income of the
working classes. But other circumstances must be taken
into view. We must not assume that the improvement
in the dweUings of the artizans in towns has kept pace

EEPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 117
with the increase of their income ; nor even that they
are in as great a degree as formerly the occupiers of
houses at all, so as to be in a position to obtain the
franchise. Again, we must remember that in the large
towns, where the area is limited, the growth in the value
of land, and in rents, has been much more rapid than
the general growth of wealth. If we inquire what is the
value of land in the City of London, and compare it with
what it was twenty years ago, we shall find that its
growth is entirely out of proportion to the growth in the
wealth of the City, great as that growth has been. This
constant pressure, arising from growing rents, and from
the limitation of area, may drive the working man into
lodgings ; or may send him to a dwelling beyond the
limits of a represented town, instead of one within them.
I apprehend that these cases very frequently happen.
I shall not be going too far if I assert — in fact, I may
almost say it is notorious — that there are large masses
of the labouring people, especiaUy in London, who, as
compared with their position twenty years ago, are
better clothed and better fed, but who live in worse
dwellings than they did, although they enjoy a larger
income. And this arises from the fact, that there is not
the same limitation in the supply of food and clothing
as exists in the supply of houses, because of the con
tracted area, and the rigour of the law of distance. I
state my own opinions with the reserve that the nature
of the question requires ; but I must say that I have
heard no good argument to the contrary. And I stand
finally upon this general statement of the case. For a
man to occupy a house of ten pounds clear annual value,
setting aside only the class of men who receive lodgers
into their houses, he must, all things considered, have an

118 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
income of not less than from ninety to a hundred pounds
a year. That clear annual value is a vahie minus rates
and taxes; and it is also minus the cost and the
depreciation of furniture. It is vain then to stand in
the face of your working population and to say, "We
have a law which will enfranchise all the careful,
diligent, and respectable men among you; but no
working man is intelligent, or industrious, or respectable,
unless he can earn thirty-five or forty shillings a week."
That is too severe a test ; and my general statement of
the facts is enough, therefore, to show that it is vain to
speak of a ten-pound franchise, taking the country all
over, as one which is capable of admitting, by the
natural or spontaneous process which has been set up in
argument against us, all the industrious and diligent
persons among the lower classes.
Sir, I must now beg leave to deny that any general
transfer of power, either in counties or boroughs, is
contemplated by this Bill. That is to say, the prepon
derance of power in the constituencies, now lying in one
quarter, is not by it, in our opinion, to be carried over
to another. We are met too much, I think, not by
reasoning, but by suspicions and by fears. Now, with
suspicion it is vain to deal ; it is vain to deal with fear.
The reasonable course is to go to the facts and figures,
and to see how they stand. I am now going, accordingly,
to estimate the maximum of this formidable invasion,
which we are given to understand the country may have
to encounter, if the Bill should pass. There are six
hundred and fifty-eight Members of Parliament ; and I
would ask first up to what point wUl the character of
the representation be "tainted," so to call it, by an
infusion of the influence of the labouring classes ? To

EEPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 119
begin with,' there are two hundred and fifty-four county
Members. Honourable Gentlemen are aware of the
character of the county franchise ; and I think they will be
inchned to admit that that body of two hundred and fifty-
four county Members is almost free from "the contamina
tion ofthe working classes." \_Cries of " No, no ! "from the
Opposition.^ I hear cries of " No ! " Very well ; but I
am unable to endorse the opinion ; unless, indeed, it be
thought that one working man taints a county con
stituency like a fly in a pot of ointment. I say that, as
far as I know, there are no county constituencies where
the working class is predominant. I really think that
is a proposition not admitting dispute, and it is the
only proposition relevant to the present issue. For the
inquiry I have now in contemplation is, how many are
the seats, in the elections to which the working class
will possess a majority of votes? If I am told they
will have an influence also when they are a minority, I
reply that much more will the wealthier classes have
an influence, when they form the minority. Taking,
then, the ruling character of each constituency from its
majority (and this, I think, involves as to working men
an admission unduly large), I put counties, as a general
rule, out of the question. It is true that county Members
from Ireland are returned by a twelve-pound rating
franchise ; but I presume we shall not call those persons
working men unless they be tenants, and as tenants-
at-wiU they may be more or less under influence, but
they can hardly be called working men in the sense we
now contemplate.
Mr. Disraeli : There are the forty-shilling free
holders, of whom a great many are working men, in Bucks.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: They are, I
, 'ipprehend, for the most part, like the fly in the pot of

120 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
ointment. ["No no!" from the Opposition.} What is
the proportion ? If we are to carry on the debate in
this interlocutory fashion, I would ask what is the pro
portion of forty-shiUing freeholders in the constituency
of Bucks ?
(Me. Disraeli signified that he would reserve further
explanation until he should take part in the debate.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : The right
honourable Gentleman interpolates questions in the
middle of my speech — with perfect relevancy I admit,
and I make no complaint of it, if that course be thought
convenient ; yet, when I invite him to continue the argu
ment in the way he has selected, he declines to follow it.
Then I only wish to say — and certainly I thought it gene
rally believed— that the proportion of working men in the
county constituencies is too small to allow of our reckon
ing the county seats as seats which could be brought
under their influence. I reckon, accordingly, that the
county constituencies are free from the predominance of
working-class influence. If this be objected to, I shall be
obliged to put the proposition in a manner much more
unfavourable to my opponents. For I think I have not
dealt unfairly by them in saying that the county consti
tuencies, having only a minority of working men, are
free from the influence of the working classes ; because
I have on the other side allowed nothing for the influence
of minorities composed of the middle and upper class.
Now the towns in England and Wales where it is likely
there may be a majority of working men in the consti
tuency have one hundred and one seats; the towns
where they must apparently be a minority have two
hundred and thirty-nine seats. I assume for the moment
the same proportions in the Scotch and Irish towns.
Upon that assumption the effect will be that the work-

REPEESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 121
ing classes will have a marjority in the choice of one
hundred and twenty members for towns and cities of
the three kingdoms ; and they wiU be in a minority in
the choice of members for two himdred and eighty-four
seats of the same description. Then come the county
constituencies, returning two hundred and fifty-four
Members. Therefore, putting these numbers together,
the working classes will be in a minority in five hundred
and thirty-eight seats, against one hundred and twenty
seats, in the filling of which they may be in a majority.
Is that a transfer of power such as we ought to fear ? '
Sir, I am astonished when I find that it positively
seems to be held by intelligent men, (such is the effect
of fears and of suspicions,) that property is a cause of
weakness, and that mere numbers, in spite of all his
tory and experience, are to be regarded as stronger in
determining the force of political opinions than similar
numbers when they happen to be backed by property.
To the very liberal statement I have made I invite the
closest consideration; and I presume to think that
Members will be returned to fill at least nine-elevenths
of the seats of the country by constituencies where the
influence of the working class cannot possibly, as a
general rule, predominate.
Now, I am desirous to make well understood to the
House the position in which the Government conceives
itself to stand. I am not about to quahfy or alter in
any respect, but to confirm, what has already been
asserted. To those Gentlemen whom we believe to be
earnestly united with ourselves in desiring an extension
of the franchise, we have cheerfully made a concession.
Although we ourselves believed, and still believe, it to
be the wisest course to dispose of the great subject of

122 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFORM.
the franchise before we go forward to discuss in any
way the question of redistribution of Seats, yet we have
promised to set our views before you in the most defi
nite and formal manner — that is, in the shape of Bflls
upon the Scotch and Irish franchise, and upon the redis
tribution of Seats for the three kingdoms — before we go
into Committee upon this Bill. That is what we have
said; and we have also said, what I really until the
day before yesterday had always believed it to be un
necessary to state in express words, that in speaking
of this great subject of the representation of the people
as a matter vital to the credit, and, therefore, to the
existence of the Government, we included the subject
of redistribution of Seats, along with the subject of the
franchise. I had not thought it necessary to say this,
because it seemed to me so obvious that nothing could
be more contemptible and base than the conduct of a
Government which could give out, with a view of enlist
ing the generous confidence of its supporters, that it
would deal with the subject of Eeform, and would stand
or fall by its propositions, and which all the while could
silently exclude from the scope of their declaration all
portions of that question, except only the reduction of
the franchise, though among such portions we find one,
I mean the distribution of Seats, only second in import
ance to that of the franchise itself.
Sir, I could wish the House more clearly to under
stand than they do at present, the mode in which the
question of time has been treated by the Government,
as it bears on the progress of this BUI. I have seen
or heard it stated, in what I may term multitudinous
forms, that I have made it known on the part of the
Government, that we will not go on with any matter

REPEESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 123
of Eeform during the present year, except the question
of the suffrage. I have at no time said anything of
the kind. But this I have declared, and thus much I
said on the introduction of the Bill ; looking at the
ordinary duration of the Session, we did not believe, we
could not reckon, that within that period it would be
practicable to deal with those other portions of the sub
ject. Allowing for full and free discussion upon aU
parts of the question, we could not expect that these two
portions of it would be dealt with, and still less could
we entertain a favourable expectation as to the other
portions of it, within the ordinary and recognised period
for the duration of the Session. And, beyond all this,
I have stated, as is well known, that we for our parts,
from motives of duty, are indisposed to proceed with
any other part of the subject, until the fate of the
Franchise Bill shall have been determined. When we
shaU conceive that its fate is determined, it will then
be for us to review our position. A portion of our work
wiU StiU, it is true, remain to be performed ; but we
shaU then more fully know the state of public business,
and the feeling and desire of the House. The Franchise
BiU is so framed, and professedly so framed, as to afford
ample time for disposing of the whole matter under
that branch of the subject, without much disturbance
of the arrangements of the House, I mean of honourable
Members of the House. The notices to be given with
a view to registration must be given, I think, on the
lOth of June ; and as the most sanguine among sanguine
men would hardly suppose that this Bill could receive
the Eoyal assent before the next 10th of June, it
foUows with certainty that the new constituency cannot
be in existence tUl the end of the year 1867 ; and con-

124 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
sequently, and beyond all question as to what may be the
wiU of the Govemment of the day, either this Parlia
ment, or, at any rate, one elected by the present con
stituency, has ample time for dealing with the whole
subject. There may, however, be Gentlemen who have
so great a love of comprehensive action as to be willing
to make personal sacrifices on its behalf; and if there
should be any extended desire for a prorogation or
adjournment of the House, with a view to sittings in
the autumn, there is nothing in the world to prevent
our proceeding during the autumn and fall of the pre
sent year with the matter which is not contained in
this Bill, but which is necessary to make up a complete
plan for the aniendment of the representation of the
people. The appetite for redistribution seems to have
grown so enormously within the last few weeks, that
if there be a determination to let the grouse, the
partridges, and the pheasants, or any of them, have a
holiday, and to bring Parliament together, whether by
prorogation or adjournment, in order to get this great
work out of hand, it certainly is not for us to plead our
own personal convenience ; we shall be ready to make
the sacrifice, and we shall come up as well as we can,
though with visages perhaps pale and languid enough,
to set a last hand to the accomplishment of the work.
That, Sir, is the position in which we stand as a Govern
ment, with reference to the question of time and to the
order of proceeding.
Now, Sir, there is, as far as I know, but one allega
tion made in these debates which is broad enough to
cover and warrant the opposition offered to the BiU.
I am convinced that all attempts to show there is in
action under the present electoral law a self- working

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 125
enfranchisement, adequate to the case, all attempts to
show that every working man, if only he be intelligent,
respectable, and well-conducted, can now come upon
the register, will utterly break down. Such allegations
cannot be sustained on any careful investigation. There
is only one allegation — I do not say whether it has
been made — but it was that which was supposed to have
been made by my right honourable Friend the Member
for Cahie. [Mr. Lowe : Understood to have been
made.] And I am bound to say, as far as words have
meaning, and so far as I can form a judgment of that
meaning, rightly so understood. Of course, I accept at
once the disclaimer of a man, of whom I freely confess
that, in my judgment, so far as his conduct in this House
enables us to judge, he is not more eminent for his ex
traordinary intellectual power — a power in a number of
points never surpassed and rarely matched in this House
• — than he is entitled to the utmost credit for his perfect
integrity. And, Sir, I take this opportunity of making
an apology to my right honourable Friend, for having
used hastily elsewhere some fugitive words which might
have appeared to cast a reflection on another quality of
his — on his courage. I did not mean any such thing ;
md if I uttered words which appeared to convey that
imputation, I am very sorry for it. But my right
honourable Friend will allow me to explain, or rather
aUow me to answer his explanation, on my own behalf.
He has pubhcly stated that I have been answering at
Liverpool the speech which he made in the House of
Commons, I have been about nothing of the kind.
Any observations made by me at Liverpool were an
answer (so far as they were an answer at aU) to a letter
which I perceived from the public journals that he had

126 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
addressed to a portion of the electors of Calne ; and I
noticed the strange conclusions, and the singular laby
rinthine complications, in which it appeared to me that
a certain artful Mr. Bishop had contrived to entangle
him. By all that I said on that matter, I abide. But
my right honourable Friend says that, in the speech
which he delivered in this House, he referred not to
the mass of the labouring class, whom he very greatly
respects, but to some persons in the different consti
tuencies. I will not dwell on the fact that in his letter
he went on to describe that very portion of the labour
ing class, included within the several constituencies, as
men who had won their way there by forethought, and
as men whom it would be, an injustice to mix with the
inferior persons below them. But my right honourable
Friend, speaking of these guilty persons in possession
of the franchise, used, beyond denial or dispute, four
memorable words. And my right honourable Friend's
phrases are not words that evaporate, not words of
which we can say what has been said of lovers' vows —
" In vento et rapida scribere oportet aqu^ ;"
he uses a pen of steel, and his words are written on the
rock. " Ignorant, drunken, venal, violent ;" words easily,
too easily, remembered I My right honourable Friend, he
tells us in his letter, spoke of that portion ofthe labouring
classes in the constituencies. Did he speak of them gene
raUy, or merely of one or two, here and there, among
them ? If he spoke of them generally, then I say his
bold, but most unjust, most extravagant allegation is
sufficient for its end, and justifies his opposition to the
Bill. If, on the other hand, he spoke only of a few
men among them, exceptions to the general conduct

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. 127
and character of their order, then his allegation is, as
an argument, worthless; his arrow falls short of the
mark. He has no right to apply a kind of Pride's
Purge to the labouring class, and say, " From you we
wiU riddle out, before we admit you to political rights,
every man who is a spendthrift, every man who is a
drunkard, every man who has broken any one of the
Ten Commandments ;" while those higher in station,
those above the magic figure of ten pounds, or above
the line of daily labour, exempt from the ' operation ot
this purge of his, may have glaringly come short in
every one of these respects with perfect impunity, and
may be admitted to the constituency, or to this House,
without, forsooth, in the slightest degree impairing the
efficiency of Parliament. But did my right honourable
Friend speak only of the members of existing consti
tuencies ? Is there a man now present, is there a man
who heard my right honourable Friend deliver that
notable speech, who forgets his famous simile of the
Hyperboreans ? Who and what were they ? There was
a belief, he informed us, among the ancients, that though
the north wind brought cold from the region next to
them (and that was the region of the 10?. constituencies ;
that is the region in which we stand now), yet that by
going a little further towards the north (that is, by going
successively to 9?., to 81., to 7?., and eventually to 6?.),
at last they would arrive at a warm country. My right
honourable Friend exposed the absurdity of the idea;
and it was not the constituencies alone^ — it was the
masses behind and below the constituencies — to whom his
observations applied, and who in his simile occupied the
place of the still colder and colder tracts, which we must
encounter as we travel further and further north. How,

128 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
then, are we to be told that the speech referred only to
those already in possession of the franchise? Nor is
this all. My right honourable Friend supplied us with
another and yet more convincing proof of his meaning — .
though I had endeavoured to warn him off the ground —
in the use which he made of an illustration from VirgU.
I had said, speaking of the measure, surely this is no
" monstrum infelix," no Trojan horse charged with
armed men, who are to be let loose from its womb only
that they may carry fire and desolation through your
homes. But my right honourable Friend, in his im
patience, as though my entreaty, instead of being a
warning, had been a hook that had been baited to
allure him, rushed straight at his mark, and with por
tentous emphasis delivered the two lines from which I
had drawn the phrase —
" Instamus tamen immemores, ceecique furore,
Et monstrum infelix saorata sistimus arce."
What is the " monstrum infelix " ? Who are the per
sons contained within its hollow side? They are the
voters at 7?. Sir, I am not seeking to tie my right
honourable Friend to this construction, clear and unde
niable as it is. What I have said, I have said to justify
myself for having believed, with reluctance and with
pain, but still for having honestly believed, that his
speech was a denunciation of the working community.
If I have been wrong, by all means let us hear it. For
one, I shall hear it with joy. It is a matter of deep
importance. It has affected the whole tone of thought
and language on the question, within and beyond this
House, My right honourable Friend has explained his
speech. Let him explain his explanation. And when
he explains it, let us distinctly understand where, in his

REPRESENTATION OP THE PEOPLE BILL. 129
view,, we are. Is this a charge against the mass of his
working fellow-citizens, in which case it is unjust and
untrue ; or is it only a charge against certain bad cha
racters among them, in which case it is utterly insuffi
cient? If that argument of my right honourable
Friend can be sustained in the more unfavourable sense,
then I admit it is sufficient to destroy this BUI, But, iu
that case, I think it sufficient to destroy a great deal
else along with this Bill, It is sufficient to destroy the
hopes of every generous heart, and every intelligent
mind ; if that picture which my right honourable
Friend, with his matchless power, strove to draw, be
indeed a true picture, then there is nothing to hope for
England, I thank the House for the great patience and kind
ness with which it has heard me on a subject such as
this. After what has occurred, it can hardly be but
that we should be apt to grow warm. But let us, at all
events, so far as concerns the formation of our judg
ments, endeavour to keep our balance ; let us recoUect
to look before and after. In this spirit, I do earnestly
intreat and conjure the House, on whichever side, to
remember that it is not enough for us now to say, as we
shall soon, it appears from a notice . given, be asked to
say, by way of answer to an expecting country, "We
are ready to entertain the question of Eeform with a
view to its settlement." Enough, and more than
enough, there have been already, of barren, idle, mock
ing words. Deeds are what are wanted. I beseech you
to be wise ; and, above all, to be wise in time.
[Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the BiU
be now read a second time."]

130 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

LOED GEOSVENOE'S MOTION.
THE CHANCELLOE op the EXCHEQUEE:
At last. Sir, we have obtained a clear declaration
from an authoritative source ; and we now know that
a Bill which in a country with five millions of adult
males— [" Oh, oh ! " " Hear, hear ! " and cries of " Order ! "]
Am I to be permitted to proceed? ["Hear, hear!"
and renewed cries of " Order ! "] — and we now know that
a Bill which, in a country with some five millions of adult
males, proposes to add to the present limited constituency
two hundred thousand of the middle class, and two
hundred thousand of the working class, is, in the judg
ment of the leader of the Tory party, a BiU to re
construct the Constitution on American principles. In
the light of a declaration such as this, we can all the
better consider and comprehend the opposition to the
Bill. Sir, I rise after one o'clock in the morning to review,
as well as I am able, a debate which has continued
through eight nights. And first. Sir, I would gladly
have passed by the defence, as he calls it, and as I
must presume he thinks it, which the right honourable
Gentleman has made for himself and for his friends,
with reference to the history of the past twenty or
thirty years. I have no desire to interfere in that
general controversy. I will not attempt to follow him
through its detaUs; it will require from me only the
briefest notice as to its general scope. I have too

LORD GEOSVENOE'S MOTION. 131
much respect for the time of the House to weary it,
at this hour, with discussion which it is in my power
to avoid : and I must say that I have too much respect
for the judgment of the House, and for the judgment
of those elsewhere who will become acquainted with
our proceedings, to have the slightest apprehension
that any one of the mistakes, or any one of the mis
representations consequent on the mistakes, which have
proceeded from the right honourable Gentleman, in
regard to the past performances and present position of
his party, will have an influence on the House or on the
people. Now, Sir, I am afraid that I must begin by owning
that I have much to state. I will endeavour, however,
to consult the convenience ofthe House by clearing out
of the way at the outset some misapprehensions, which
the right honourable Gentleman has assisted to propa
gate, and which have prevailed on the other side during
this debate ; to these- I will refer separately and at
once, because I think they have considerably tended to
obscure the general issue.
In the first place, I must presume to say a word upon
the subject of the references which have been made
to a great name among us, in this House and in the
country; I mean the name of Lord Palmerston. It
has been assumed by Gentlemen who are supporters
of the Amendment that they honour the memory of
Lord Palmerston by describing him either generaUy
as the enemy of Eeforms, or specially as the enemy
of Parliamentary Eeform. Or again, and yet more
specifically, by describing him especially as the enemy
of that, which constitutes the essential point and the
very hinge ofthe whole framework of this Bill ; namely,
K 2

132 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
a reduction of the borough franchise. Now, Sir, to.
throw light upon this subject, I wUl read but a few
words which Lord Palmerston used in supporting his
own Bill in 1860. He said, that the provisions of
that BiU were open, as without doubt the provisions
of our Bill, and of every other Bill, are open, to con
sideration in Committee ; but he went on to use these
words, " There are certain fundamental principles in
the Bill which we could not consent to have infringed,
because that would destroy the measure altogether.
One main principle of the BiU is, the reduction of the
borough franchise."
It has been assumed. Sir, by some speakers, that the
life of Lord Palmerston was a security against the
introduction of a measure of Eeform, I think it no
less due to Lord Palmerston than to his colleagues
to say that, as far as I am aware — and I presume
the right honourable Gentleman will admit that, if
mischief of any kind had been brewing in the Cabinet,
I probably should have known it — there never was,
during all the years to which the assumption refers,
a difference of opinion between Lord Palmerston and
his colleagues on the question of Eeform, I wiU
venture to state my own view of what passed in a
former year. In my own judgment, we underwent
a great responsibility in regard to the measure of 1860.
The introduction of that measure was an important
step, in redemption of a very solemn pledge ; of a
pledge which might almost have been said to constitute
the basis of our official existence at the time. The
abandonment of the measure probably must have
taken place at some period of the Session in the state
of affairs in which we stood ; yet it was a matter

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. " 133
as to the precise time and circumstances, difficult to
determine. I admit that, in that abandonment, we
underwent a great responsibility. Differences of opinion
there might have been with regard to it ; but I know
of no Member of the Cabinet of Lor<l Palmerston who
ever thought that, after the abandonment of that
measure, and considering the circumstances which
prevailed from the year 1860, down to the Dissolution
of last year, it would have been wise, or even warrant
able, for the Cabinet to have revived the subject of
Eeform, The right honourable Gentleman quotes, and
grossly, I must say, misquotes, a speech of mine on
the subject of the suffrage : no. Sir, I will not say
he misquotes it, "for he did not refer to my actual words,
but I will only say he entirely misstates the effect.
The right honourable Gentleman, however, if he recol
lected that speech at all, might have recollected that
in that speech I declared that, in my opinion, it would
be wrong for the Government to introduce or take
up the question of Parliamentary Eeform, till there
should have arrived such a state of public opinion
as might seem to -afford a fair prospect of success.
That, I believe, was aU along the unanimous opinion of
the Cabinet. It has been observed, indeed, that my
right honourable Friend the Secretary for the Home
Department declared last year, that we did not make
our appeal to the country as the patrons of a great
measure of Eeform. Certainly not ; we tendered no
such profession. We left the country to pronounce
its own impartial judgment; and we waited, in the
state of things 1 have referred to, for spontaneous
indications of the state of the public mind with regard
to the representation of the people in Parliament.

134 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
But my right honourable Friend himself has stated
that, when the elections had taken place, he individu
ally formed the opinion, which, as far as I know,
was the opinion formed by the other Members of the
Cabinet, that the manifestations which had been given
by the country, and by candidates when appealing
to the constituencies, in respect to Parliamentary
Eeform, when considered as a whole, had brought again
before us the very occasion, on which it was our duty to
become responsible for another measure of Eeform.
Nor have we the smaUest right, the smallest ground,
to suppose that Lord Palmerston difl'ered from that
opinion. We cannot, indeed, say that he agreed in
it ; and why? Because, at the moment of his lamented
death, no single Cabinet had as yet been held, for the
purpose of considering the measures to be adopted
during the coming Session. But I do chance to know,
and it is a posthumous record of some interest, that
Lord Palmerston had a conversation with one, at least,
of his coUeagues at no very long period before his
death — it may have been a twelvemonth, it may have
been more ; I cannot further define the time — on this
very subject. I have not the smallest doubt in my
mind, though I cannot state it as a matter of fact,
that he was looking forward to the dissolution as the
critical period when a fresh decision would have to
be taken. But as matter of fact, in that conversation
he stated his opinion that, within a limited time, it
would be right for the Government again to introduce
the subject of Eeform. So much, Sfr, for the honour
of Lord Palmerston, which I confess I think has not
been in the most judicious keeping during the chief
part of this debate. That opinion, I hope, may be

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 135
expressed without offence, and without transgressing, in
letter or in spirit, the rules of Parliament.
Now, I come to another subject, again one of a
personal character, and one with which the House has
been made perhaps sufficiently familiar during our long
discussion. I refer to our supposed relations with my
honourable Friend the Member for Birmingham. It
has been made a charge against the Government that
they are identified with my honourable Friend. It
is admitted that we are the nominal Ministers of the
Crown, but it is confidently or boldly declared that
he is its irresponsible, yet its real adviser. To such
a charge, couched in such terms, I shall make no
reply whatever. Such persons as are disposed to admit
it must hava minds in a position entirely inaccessible, I
will not say to deliberative reason or justice, but, at any
rate, to any observations such as I can offer. In truth,
such things are said not in order to convince, nor
to persuade, but, if not to bewilder, at least to sting.
But other and more specific charges have been made ;
and these it is right that, as Her Majesty's servants,
we should notice. I thas been stated, that my honour
able Friend the Member for Birmingham has been the
adviser and vfrtual framer of this Bill. Ou that subject,
inasmuch as it raises an issue of facts, and is therefore
one which admits of being dealt with, let us consider
what has really taken place. And I may preface my
statement with this remark, that in my opinion, as
well as in the opinion so gracefully, as well as manfully,
expressed by my honourable and learned Friend the
Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), it would have been
no disgrace to the Government, if policy had appeared
to recommend it, that they should have consulted the

136 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
great organs of opinion in the different sections of their
party, with respect to the best method of framing a
plan of Parliamentary Eeform. Had that method been
pursued, it would have been impossible to overlook —
it would have been culpable if, through cowardice, they
had refrained from consulting, for one, my honourable
Friend the Member for Birmingham. But Her Majesty's
Government felt no such necessity ; and, as far as
I am aware, did not in any manner or degree pursue
that course of consultation. They did feel that,
responsible as they had been for the formation and
the introduction of previous Reform Bills, and being,
most of them, far from inexperienced in conducting
the affairs of a Government, they had sufficient con
fidence in themselves, sufficient knowledge of the state
of the public mind, and sufficient sense of their own
responsibility, to form their own opinion on the leading
provisions fit to be embodied in a measure of Eeform.
We were, indeed, aware of the opinions of the honour
able Member for Birmingham ; just as much, I believe,
as, and no more than, the Gentlemen opposite were
aware of them. And 1 apprehend that we were aware
of them through the same unfailing channels —namely,
the public journals of the country. What we under
stood to be his opinions he had stated in a speech
delivered by him, I rather think at Eochdale, during
the autumn. We conceived them to be as I will
now state them; and my honourable Friend himself
will, I doubt not, have the kindness to correct me
if I am wrong. There were, I think, four points
principally put forward. Firstly, that there was a
certain franchise which must be considered to be the
maximum admissible for counties, and that this was

LORD GEOSVENOE'S MOTION. 137
ten pounds ; secondly, that there was also a certain
franchise which must be considered to be the maximum
for boroughs, and that to make this in any manner
satisfactory it should on no account be above six pounds ;
thirdly, he considered that the extension ofthe Franchise
ought to be separated from the re- distribution of Seats ;
and fourthly — he will forgive me if I do not quote him
with sufficient precision — he thought that this separa
tion of the two subjects ought to take place for a
special purpose, namely, in order that the interval of
time between the two might mature and ripen the
public mind after the passing of the Franchise BiU,
so as to obtain, if a later, yet a more full and conclusive
settlement of the later question. These, as far as
my memory serves me, were the four points of opinion
delivered by my honourable Friend. And what have
we done? We agreed with my honourable Friend
in one of them; we agreed with him in the policy
of separating the question of the Franchise from the
re-distribution of Seats. And should we not have been
the most contemptible of all poltroons ever misnamed
Ministers, if, having that opinion, we had shrunk from
acting on it because we might know well enough,
without any gift of divination, that the leader, forsooth,
of the Tory party (as he has described himself to-night)
would found on that circumstance a charge of sub
serviency, which he himself must know, just as well as
we do, to be thoroughly unfounded? If subserviency
exists, why has it not appeared in our conduct with
refer'ence to the other opinions of my honourable Friend?
Why were we of set purpose to differ with him in
everything ? Why have we not proposed the ten-pound
franchise recommended by my honourable Friend, and

138 PARLIAMENTARY RKFORM.
by the right honourable Gentleman himself in the
Bill of 1859? Why have we not proposed the six-
pound franchise introduced in 1860 under the express
sanction of the right honourable Gentleman the Member
for Calne, and declared by my honourable Friend the
Member for Birmingham to be the highest figure that
could be allowed to stand in any satisfactory Eeform
Bill ? If this subserviency exists, how is it that these
opinions have not been followed ? It is true that my
honourable Friend, with, I think, great moderation
and great wisdom, accepts the Bill as it stands ; and
his acceptance of it is converted into a charge against
the Bill itself. Strange position indeed, if, as seems
to be the case, we have arrived at a state of things,
in which the very fact that my honourable Friend
gives his support to this BiU — a Bill proposing a far
less popular franchise than was recommended by Lord
Palmerston, whose political calmness and deliberative
temper have been so justly commended in this debate ;
by Sir George Lewis, and by the light honourable
Gentleman the Member for Calne — if the very fact
that the honourable Gentleman supports this Bill is
to taint, and, as it were, to poison the measure itself.
Is it credible that there are such extremes of party
and personal animosity in this House, and that the
very essence of facts and objects is to change its nature
from its relation to this or that particular individual?
And are these the encouragements to political modera
tion in his future course, which my honourable Friend
is to receive ? Such, Sir, is the state of the facts, so far
as we are concerned, with regard to my honourable
Friend the Member for Birmingham. Yet I must
still say one more word about him, I am sorry to

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 139
have to do it, but I cannot lieli3 myself, I do sincerely
think he is a great deal more obliged to honourable
Gentlemen opposite, than he is to us. It is my firm
opinion, though it may be an erroneous one, that the
Gentlemen, who adopt the line of argument that has
been adopted by the right honourable Gentleman
opposite, with regard to what he terms Americanizing
the institutions of the country, are doing their utmost,
against their will and without their knowledge — for much
of what they have really been doing for a long period of
time has been not only against their will, but likewise
without their knowledge — to magnify and increase the
influence of my honourable Friend the Member for
Birmingham; and if my honourable Friend be the
dangerous man he is supposed to be, and if he nurses
in his breast such wicked schemes as are imputed to
him against the institutions of the country, it is not
through Her Majesty's Government, nor through the
agency of those who are now thinking and voting
with them, that he will ever obtain the means of giving
effect to his fell designs, but through the line of arg-u
ment arid statement which has been adopted by his
and our opponents, and which invests him with powers
and attributes of influence such as not even his extra
ordinary abilities, aided as they are by his known
integrity, have ever enabled him to obtain.
And now. Sir, I must bestow two minutes on a ques
tion that touches several expressions of my own.
Perhaps my best apology for troubling the House on
such a matter will be that they are expressions which
have furnished material, in the mouths of others, for
some hours of this debate. The noble Lord the Member
for King's Lynn, in his very clear, very forcible, very

140 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
argumentative, and I must say, as it seemed to me —
though it has been criticised to a contrary effect — by no
means uncandid speech, complimented me on not having
used any of those expressions which may perhaps be
best and most briefly summed up in a single phrase that
will be sufficiently understood by the House — namely,
the " fiesh and blood" arguments. Now, Sir, I wish
that the noble Lord, the right honourable Baronet the
Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. Lytton), and the right
honourable Gentleman the Member for Calne, had a
little more considered what really took place with regard
to the use of that and of other more or less similar ex
pressions. The right honourable Member for Calne for
I think half an hour, the right honourable Baronet the
Member for Hertfordshire for perhaps half an hour more,
not having themselves heard me use the phrase which
became for them so copious a theme, founded detaUed
declamation, argument, denunciation, and I know not
what, upon a pure assumption. They assumed, and
doubtless they believed, I had used the fact, that the
working classes are of our own flesh and blood, as a
reason why the BiU now before the House should be
passed. And my right honourable Friend the Member
for Calne, in a part of his speech which I admit was
quite unanswerable, showed that thus to make use of
such a consideration would be the greatest imaginable
absurdity. Undoubtedly ! But then it so happens I
never did use any argument of the kind. There are
limits to human folly ; and neither here nor elsewhere
should I have dreamed of so eccentric a proceeding. I
used the expression in a totally distinct view. I used it
as a reply — nay, I will presume to go one step further
and say, if it be not presumptuous to say it — I used it as

LORD GEOSVENOE'S MOTION. 141
a reproof, to the language of some of the opponents of
the BiU. And in that view, I justify and abide by the
use of it. Sir, in my opinion there are times in debate,
when extraordinary errors are best met by the declara
tion of elementary truths. When I heard it stated by a
Gentleman of ability that to touch the question of en
franchising a further portion of the working class was
domestic revolution, I thought it time to remind him that
the simple performance of the duties of citizenship does
give some presumption of capacity for civil rights, and that
the burden of proof, that exclusion from such rights is
warrantable or wise or (as it may be) necessary, lies
upon those who exclude, rather than upon those who
admit. That, as I think, very simple declaration was
magnified into revolutionary doctrine ; and great service
has it once more done to-night to the leader of the Tory
party. On the same grounds, when I heard my right
honourable Friend declaring these working men at
from seven to ten pounds, and that not once only as it
must now be said, to be an invading army, and even
something more, to be an invading ambush, to be a band
of enemies, which was to bring ruin and conflagration, as
the purpose of its mission, into a city all fore-doomed ;
and when I heard these opinions, and his portentous
illustration of them, once and again repeated, I thought
it was time to fall back upon elementary truths as the pro
per antagonists to these extraordinary errors ; and to say,
these men whom you are denouncing, not by argument
and reason, but beyond the bounds of all argument and
all reason, are your own flesh and blood. And now. Sir,
having stated thus much, I must so far notice the speech
of the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne) who com
menced this debate to-night, as emphatically to deny

142 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFORM.
that in any one point or particular, when speaking else
where, as he said, and, as -has been said by others, in the
provinces, but as I should say, addressing my own con
stituents, have I gone so much as one jot or tittle beyond
the statements made by me on the floor of this House.
I do not know really whether I am to look to the prin
ciples or to the practice of the noble Lord the Member
for Stamford, as establishing the rule with regard to what
is to be done out of the House by its Members in the use
of tongue or pen. I am quite willing, however, to say,
without further examination of his practice, that I abide
by his precepts ; and this I promise him, I will freely
submit to any censure he can bestow, and if there is
censure to be bestowed I admit he is a good hand at the
operation, when he can show that on any occasion I have
said elsewhere of any Members of this House, or of any
proceeding in this House, that which I have not said
here, or am not ready to say upon this floor, where in
my judgment it is that all our battles may best be
fought. I have however. Sir, a more agreeable admis
sion to make. What I have said iu the nature of plati
tudes, or of truisms, or of revolutionary maxims — and
the condemned dicta have passed under all these desig
nations alternately, as might suit the tastes ofthe different
critics — has been said with reference to declarations
made by persons of the greatest weight in this House,
made, too, not amid the sound merely, but rather amid
a tumult and tempest of cheers; and therefore to be
taken as setting forth the sentiments not of one, but of
many. Yet, I am glad and thankful to admit that those
cheers and tumult, overpowering as they were, did not
represent the universal sentiment on the other side of
the House from which they proceeded. The honourable

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 143
Gentleman the Member for South Lincolnshire explained
that certain cheers, which had led me to suppose he
might be one of those who entertained opinions of the
working class, such as I endeavoured to protest against,
had been incorrectly interpreted, and really referred to
another subject. My honourable and learned Friend
the Member for Suffolk (Sir Fitz-Eoy Kelly), although
he has not taken part in this debate, spoke in another
discussion, upon the malt duty, a few evenings back, on
the character of the working class, in a spirit which
proves that he, at least, entertains none of those un
generous sentiments in regard to them ; and that tone,
I feel assured, notwithstanding some instances leading
to a contrary conclusion, would be found considerably to
pervade the Benches opposite. But I now pass on from
the brief explanation which I have given of the par
ticular epithets and expressions used by myself with
reference to the sentiments of others ; and I think I may
appeal to honourable Members to support me when I
say that it was not I who first introduced into these dis
cussions observations of this colour and description. It
was not in my opening speech that they had their rise ;
and so long as our debates are conducted in the manner
of which the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord
Stanley) has furnished us with so good an example, I
may, I hope, venture to promise him that the House will
never hear from me any more of such expressions, be
they platitudes, be they truths, or be they fairly charac
terised as revolutionary and subversive paradoxes.
And now. Sir, I proceed. Now, I come to take a
retrospect of this debate. It is natural, it is unavoidable,
that my attention should first, and in a principal degree,
rest on the remarkable speech which we heard yesterday

144 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
from my right honourable Friend the Member for Calne.
With that speech I shall not attempt to deal in detail,
and that for many reasons. One of these reasons, per
haps, is a disinclination to measure swords with such a
man. [Hear, hear !] That ch«er, complimentary as
it is, does not, at any rate, precede, but follows, my own
admission. A second reason is in my recollections, and
a third lies in my hopes, with respect to my right
honourable Friend. I cannot forget — although he may
— his connection with the men who sit on these Benches.
I cannot forget the real services which, as a public man,
he has rendered ; and while I know of no language
strong enough to express the grief — nay, the astonish
ment — with which I regard his present extraordinary
opinions and declarations on the question of Eeform,
passing, as they seemed to do, beyond those entertained,
or at least those avowed, by other Members, yet I think
the evident framework of his mind, as well as his recent
conduct on other questions, entitles him to this admis
sion at the hands of his party, both that he is pursuing
the dictates of his conscience, and that upon general
subjects his judgments are frankly liberal. I only hope
that, when he is again doing battle in the ranks, and for
the political objects, of those among whom he sits, he
may display a little more moderation than he has done
in the course of the present struggle. With respect,
however, to his speech, I may be permitted to observe
upon it in either of two aspects. When I look upon it
in the light of a great Parliamentary display ; when I
consider the force of the weapons which he used, the
keenness of their edge, and the skill and rapidity of
the hand by which they were wielded, I am lost, indeed
I was at the time lost, in admiration, though I was

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 145
myself the object of a fair proportion of the cuts and
thrusts which he delivered. But, Sir, when I take
another view of that remarkable discourse ; when I think
of the end and aim to which it was applied — when I
remember how shallow, how unworthy, was the exhibition
which he gave us of this great and noble Constitution of
England, which I, for one, really thought had struck
some roots into our soil, and was fixed there in a manner
to defy the puny efforts of my Lord Eussell and his
Colleagues — when I recollect how my right honourable
Friend exaggerated more and more as he went on his
idle fears and apprehensions, and coloured every object
more and more highly in the phantom visions he had
conjured up — when I found him traveUing back to Aus
tralia, his old abode, and on discovering there that the
public men of that country had, after all, been simply
prosecuting in his absence the career which they com
menced under his auspices — when he ended with this por
tentous discovery, that what he called anarchy must be
arrested in the colonies by the paramount power of Par
liamentary interference from this country, for the purpose
of taking away from our fellow-countrymen at the anti
podes the powers of self-governmgnt which they enjoy,—
then I confess that the admiration I had felt was lost
and swallowed up, I wUl hardly say in shame, but at the
least in grief. WiU my right honourable Friend permit
me to apply to him the story which is told of the mother
of the Eegent Duke of Orleans, Elizabeth the Princess
Palatine of Bavaria ? She said of her son, what I will
venture to apply to my right honourable Friend. Her
story was, that at his birth the fairies were invited to
attend. Each came, and each brought the infant the
gift of a talent. But in sending the invitations one fairy
L

146 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
had unhappily been forgotten. She came unasked, and
said, for her revenge, " Yes, he shall have aU the talents
except one ; that of knowing how, and for what end, to
apply them."
The argument of my right honourable Friend depended
entirely on a series of what I may call enormous, and at
the same time utterly unsound, assumptions. The first
which I shall deal with is the assumption, that the Go
vernment has insulted the House of Commons. Insult,
vilification, degradation, harshness, tyranny, despotism ;
these are some of the flowers of speech which have been
applied in the course of this debate, I think especially
by my noble Friend the Member for Haddington, on the
part of those whom he calls moderate Liberals, but also
by others, to the conduct ofthe Government. But, to do
him justice, my right honourable Friend the Member
for Calne never deals in generalities ; so he fastened on
a phrase. He thinks he substantiated his charge of
insulting ParUament by saying that I had used these
words, " We know with whom we have to deal." The
right honourable Gentleman says that phrase means the
House of Commons; and, consequently, that the House
of Commons is insulted. But did it mean the House of
Commons? It did not. There is no more common
political artifice, as far as my experience goes, than this ;
when a gentleman finds himself stung, or fastened down,
or aptly described, by some particular phrase or senti
ment, he shifts the application of it from liimself, and
he complains that it has been applied, and, of course,
disrespectfully applied, to the House of Commons. Sir,
I did not intend my phrase for the House of Commons.
I will explicitly tell my right honourable Friend to whom
I did not apply it, and, if it be any satisfaction to him.

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 147
I will tell him also to whom I did apply it. I did not
mean it for my right honourable Friend the Member for
• Cambridge University, or for the right honourable Gen
tleman the Member for Oxfordshire, both of whom, as
we perfectly weU know, are friendly to a reduction of
the borough franchise. We may, indeed, have a battle
with my right honourable Friend (Mr. Walpole) at the
proper time ; for he declares, although I own myself
unable to perceive it, that a principle is involved in the
difference between the rates of ten pounds and fourteen
pounds as appUed to the counties, and between the
amounts seven pounds and eight pounds as applied to
the boroughs. But he is friendly to some reduction of the
franchise in boroughs. He has declared his opinions,
and no doubt he will be ready at the proper time to vote
in conformity with them. His whole conduct has been
open and direct. If I had applied such an expression to
him I should have been guUty of the grossest injustice.
I had in my mind very different persons. Does my right
honourable Friend the Member for Calne recollect how,
in one of his plays, that prince of comedians, Aristo
phanes, conveys, through the medium of some character
or other, a rebuke to some prevaUing tendency or sen
timent of the time — I cannot recoUect now what it was
— too many are the years that have sUpped away since
I read it — -but that character, addressing the audience,
says, " And now, my good Athenians, pray recoUect that
I am not speaking of the city, I am not speaking of the
public, I am only speaking of certain depraved and
crooked little men." And if I may be permitted to
make a metaphorical appUcation of these epithets —
confining myself most strictly to the metaphorical use,
speaking only in a political sense, and with exclusive
l2

148 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
reference to this question of Eeform, I would say it was
not of the House of Commons that I used these words,
but of " certain depraved and crooked little men ;" and
I frankly own now in candour that my right honourable
Friend is, according to my judgment and intention, the
very first and foremost among them. " We know with
whom we have to deal ;" because we know we have to
deal with him. My right honourable Friend is opposed
to the lowering of the borough franchise. He knows
that is the object of this BiU. If I understood his speech
aright, and he is so perspicuous that it is hardly possible
to be mistaken, he is opposed to Eeform in every shape
and form ; yet, though he is opposed to the measure as
a whole, he does not oppose the second reading of the
Bill, but has been content to vote for an Amendment
which, in effect, says no more than this, "We think
that is a bad Bill, which is already on the table, but you
must lay another bad Bill on the table, and then we
shall be ready to consider it." I think, therefore, that
I am justified in using the words, significant as I admit
them to be, " We know with whom we have to deal."
We have to deal with Gentlemen who are opposed to
the reduction of the Franchise, but who do not think
proper to express the ground of their opposition by their
vote. The course we have taken is a course that we
have taken avowedly upon a principle. We do not
deny, we do not dispute, that we are contending for the
reduction of the Franchise. We are not now contending
for a particular amount. We may mean to propose, and
we may mean to adhere to, a particular amount ; but
what we are now contending for is a reduction of the
Franchise, especially in towns. But we are opposed by
open antagonists, and we are also opposed by concealed

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 149
antagonists. We wish to strip away the disguise from
this latter class of antagonists. We wish that they
should speak audibly, and in the face of day, that which
they think, that which they mean; and no effort. Sir,
on our part, no amount of endurance, no amount of
labour that we can undergo, shall be wanting to attain
that object, and to take care that the people of England,
as well as we, the Government, shall know with whom
we have to deah
Then the second head of my right honourable Friend's
indictment against us as to insulting this House was
that, after we had produced a certain quantity of sta
tistics, we declared it should not, with our good wUl,
have any more. Sir, we never said, I never said, any
thing of the kind. What I said was, that when ques
tions respecting the social anatomy of class, and the
conditions and the numbers in particular of the working
class, reached a point which, I say frankly, appeared to
me to threaten to assume an invidious and offensive
character — I mean a character justly offensive to them
— what I did say was that it was time such inquiries
should stop, and that, as far as the Govemment was
concerned, we would be no party to their being carried
to such a point. As to the supply of further statistics.
Members know the reverse ; for example, the honourable
Member for Northamptonshire knows weU that,' on the
very same night when this matter was under discus
sion, the Government made not the smallest objection
to the production of the further statistics which he
desfred. But my right honourable Friend says — and I think
this was the third proof he gave that we were insulting
the House — he says that the information on the subject

150 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
of the re-distribution of Seats, that is, the measure which
we intend to propose on that subject, is kept back out
of mere wantonness. And the task he commends to
me is this : I have to show, he conceives, that the mea
sure of re-distribution is so entirely detached from the
considerations applicable to the second reading of our
present Bill, that it ought upon no account to be given
to the House before such second reading, and yet that
it is so intimately intertwined with the considerations
applicable to the Motion for going into Committee, that
it must of necessity be given to the House before it is
about to go into Committee. Sir, I am bound to prove,
and I shall prove, no such thing. It is not we who
have ever held that the measure for re-distribution was
so intertwined with the subject-matter of this Bill, that
it must necessarily be given before we could go into
Committee. On the contrary. Sir, we have frankly
declared, but always knowing, as I said before, with
whom we have to deal, that the great apprehension
which possessed us was not one merely respecting the
course that would on that night be taken by the repre
sentatives of the small boroughs, gentlemen who might
be naturally and not unwarrantably alarmed on behalf
of their constituents. That is a comparatively small
matter. But our main dread was, that the covert ene
mies of the reduction of the Franchise would make use
of that whole wilderness of multitudinous particulars
which belongs to the subject of a re-distribution of Seats,
and would by this means perplex and entangle the
entire question, so as to render progress with it virtually
impracticable within the period likely to be at our com
mand. That was the fear we entertained. But as time
went on we found that many differed from us as to our

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 151
mode of procedure, with respect to whom it would have
been insolence on our part to doubt, that they at the
same time concurred with us in a common object —
namely, in the desire for a reduction of the Franchise.
Without the smallest reserve, therefore, and in defer
ence to those wishes, we departed from the method of
action which our own judgment recommended, and
we incurred what we thought real hazard and incon
venience as far as the progress of the measure is con
cerned. We have, however, adhered all along to the
opinion we originally expressed — that the safest course,
could we have persuaded the House to pursue it^ would
have been a complete separation, for the moment, of
the two subjects. I say for the moment, because I am
now reminded that I omitted to, notice, I believe, at the
proper time, one point in regard to the opinions of the
honourable Member for Birmingham. That particular
opinion of my honourable Friend, that the re-distribution
of Seats was a question to be reserved with a view to an
intermediate ripening of the public mind on the subject,
was an opinion that we have never entertained. It
was an opinion that my honourable Friend might enter
tain with perfect honour ; but for us — as men who had
formerly combined the two subjects, and as men who
now professed to disunite them exclusively upon grounds
of convenience and advantage in point of procedure, for
us to entertain sUch a latent purpose would have been
a base device, would have been conduct unworthy either
of a Government, or of any gentleman or any reputable
man, in whatever capacity or station. And I must confess
it is with pain and with much difficulty that I can allow
myself to believe, that any such jQpinion can have been
entertained of the Government by any single gentle-

152 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
man, who numbers himself among its supporters. I
cannot complain or wonder at its being ascribed to us
by Gentlemen opposite ; for the distinction which the
honourable and gallant Member for Huntingdon has
made between personal and political honour is a dis
tinction, which has been at least conventionally esta
blished to a sufficient degree to deprive us of any title
to complain against charges of that kind. But I must
say that for Gentlemen who have general confidence in
the Government, to think the Government capable of
any such act, is a thing I am at a loss to understand ;
and the advice I would respectfully presume to give
them is, that they withdraw that general confidence
immediately, and make it their first business, not to
carry an indfrect motion like the Amendment now under
consideration, but at once to put the Government out
of office by the most direct and decisive means they can
discover. Thus much. Sir, as to the charge of insulting
the House by withholding information.
And now. Sir, I hope I may say a few words as to
the general charge of an attempt to domineer or tyran
nize over this House. The right honourable Gentleman
opposite has given me a favourable opportunity of ex
plaining my position on that subject to the Liberal
party. If, Sir, I had been the man who at the very
outset of his career, well nigh half a century ago, had
with an almost prophetic foresight fastened upon two
great groups of questions, those great historic questions
of the age, of which the right honourable Gentleman
opposite, to judge from the last portion of his speech,
seems never to have heard; I mean the questions re
lating to the removal of civil disabUities for religious
opinions, and to Parliamentary Eeform — if I had been

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 153
the man who, having thus in his early youth, in the very
first stage of his political career, fixed upon those
questions and made them his own, then went on to prose
cute them with sure and unflagging instinct, untU the
triumph in each had been achieved ; if I had been the
man, whose name has been associated for forty years,
and often in the very first place of eminence, with every
measure of beneficent legislation — in other words, had I
been Earl Eussell, there might have been some tempta
tion to pass into excess in the exercise of authority, and
some excuse for the endeavour to apply to this House a
pressure in itself unjustifiable. But, Sir, I am not Earl
Eussell. The right honourable Gentleman, secure, I
suppose, in the recollection of his own consistency, has
taunted me with the political errors of my boyhood.
The right honourable Gentleman, when he addressed
the honourable Member for Westminster, took occasion
to make a cheap display of magnanimity, for he de
clared that he would not take the philosopher to task
for what he wrote twenty-five years ago. But when he
caught one who thirty-five years ago, when just emerged
from boyhood, and stUl an undergraduate of Oxford,
had expressed an opinion adverse to the Eeform Bill of
1832, of which he had for long years bitterly repented,
then the right honourable Gentleman could not resist
the temptation that offered itself to his appetite for
theatrical effect. He, a Parhamentary champion of
twenty years' standing, and the leader, as he informs us
to-night, of the Tory party, is so ignorant of the House
of Commons, or so simple in the structure of his mind,
that he positively thought he would obtain a Parlia
mentary advantage by exhibiting me to the public view
for reprobation as an opponent of the Eeform Bill of

154 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
1832. Sir, as the right honourable Gentleman has done
me the honour thus to exhibit me, let me for a moment
trespass on the patience of the House by exhibiting
myself. What he has stated is true. I deeply regret
it. But I was bred under the shadow of the great name
of Canning ; every influence connected with that name
governed the first political impressions of my childhood
and my youth ; foUowing Mr. Canning, I rejoiced in
the removal of religious disabilities from the Eoman
Catholic body, and in the free and truly British tone
which he gave to our policy abroad ; following Mr.
Canning, I rejoiced in the opening he boldly and wisely
made towards the establishment of free commercial
interchanges between nations; with Mr. Canning, and
under the attraction of that great name, and under the in
fluence likewise ofthe yet more venerable name of Burke,
I own that my youthful mind and imagination were im
pressed with those same idle and futile fears, which still
bewilder and distract the mature mind of the right
honourable Gentleman. I had conceived that very same
fear, that ungovernable alarm at the first Eeform Bill,
in the days of my undergraduate career at Oxford,
which the right honourable Gentleman now feels at the
measure before the House ; and the only difference
between us is this — I thank him for bringing it into
view by his quotation — that, having those views, I,
as it would appear, moved the Oxford Union Debating
Society to express them clearly, plainly, forcibly, in
downright intelligible English; while the right hon
ourable Gentleman does not dare to let the nation know
what it is that he really thinks, but is content to skulk
under the shelter of the meaningless Amendment which
is proposed by the noble Lord. And now. Sir, I quit the

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 155
right honourable Gentleman ; I leave him to his reflec
tions ; and I envy him not one particle of the polemical
advantage which he has gained by his discreet refer
ence to the proceedings of the Oxford Union Debating
Society in the year of grace 1831.
My position, then. Sir, in regard to the Liberal party,
is in all points the opposite of Earl Eussell's. Earl
Eussell might have been misled possibly, had he been
in this place, into using language which would have
been unfit if coming from another person. But it could
not be the same with me. I am too well aware of the
relations, which subsist between the party and myself. I
have no one of the. claims, which he possesses in such
abundance. I came among you an outcast from those
with whom I associated, driven from their ranks, I
admit, by no arbitrary act, but by the slow and resist
less forces of conviction. I came among you, to make
use of the legal phraseology, in forma pauperis. I had
nothing to offer you, but faithful and honourable ser
vice. You received me, as Dido received the ship
wrecked ^neas :
" Ejectum littore, egentem
Accepi ; "
and I only trust you may not hereafter at any time
have to complete the sentence in regard to me :
" Et regni, demens ! in parte locavi."
You received me with kindness, indulgence, generosity,.
and I may even say with some measure of your confi
dence. And the relation between us has assumed such
a form that you can never be my debtors, but that I
must be for ever in your debt. It is not from me, under
such cfrcumstances, that any word vrill proceed that

156 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
can savour of the character, which the right honourable
Gentleman imputes to the conduct of the Government
with respect to .the present Bill. And now. Sir, let me
state what I take to be the actual condition of the
question that is to be decided to-night. For this is
not only a brilliant and a protracted debate, it is not
only one upon which the House of Commons has freely
lavished from every one of its parties or its sections
the choicest treasures of its wit, its argument, its rhe
torical and its persuasive powers ; it is also an historical
debate. We are now about the process which is caUed
" making history." We are now laying the foundations
of much that is hereafter to happen. This occasion is a
starting-point, from which I presume to think the career
we have to run, as individuals and as parties, will in many
respects take its character and colour. Now, Sfr, the
main charge brought against us is this : that we have
introduced a Franchise BiU alone. Is that, then, such
a very grave offence? There were two reasons that
might, surely, and without reproach, have moved us to
take such a course. One was the reason of policy ; the
desire to avoid giving temptation, unnecessarUy, for a
combination of persons formed from various and opposite
quarters, and uniting, though on different grounds, for the
common but momentary purpose of rejecting the BUI.
If we were influenced by that motive, I do not know that
in confessing the fact we need in any way be ashamed of
it. But the conclusive reason, which swayed us, was
that which I mentioned in introducing the BUI; the
feeling that the passing of a combined BUI must be
regarded as practically impossible ; that, under the cir
cumstances which then existed, it was not wise for
us to ask the House to continue its sittings through the

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 157'
autumn ; that the time which we must reckon as likely
to be consumed in debate upon the double measure
would be more than we could make sure, within the
ordinary limits of the Session, we should be able to devote
to it ; and that, consequently, if we should introduce a
measure which we knew could not in the ordinary course
of things pass the House in the time available for its
discussion, not only would there be another failure to
be added to the already long list of Parliamentary mis
carriages, but a failure, too, attended on our part with
gross dishonour. We should have met with all, and
more than all, the opposition which has encountered us,
although not, perhaps, from the same quarters. And
we should have had, to boot, the reproach from within,
that we had adopted an indirect method of proceeding,
and had claimed credit for being the friends of Eeform,
while we had laid upon the table a measure which we
ourselves knew it was impossible to carry through. This
second and conclusive reason was, then, the question of
time. It was the twelve-day or twenty-four day argu
ment, which has attained such considerable celebrity;
and on which my mind dwells with peculiar satisfaction,
because it seems to have been the only point of all those
mooted in this debate, on which everybody has been
agreed. No one, at least, has challenged it.
That argument of time was also for us, under the
circumstances, an argument of honour ; and the noble
Lord the Member for King's Lynn has fairly owned,
that the alternative to our method of proceeding was
the postponement of the whole question to next Session,
Now, after what has passed, let the noble Lord place
himself in our position. I ask the noble Lord, for I
have confidence in his fairness, to place himself in our

158 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
position. We were the authors, most of us, of measures
which had resulted in two or three former failures. We
had taken part, most of us, in the strong and decisive
measure, which resulted in the ejection of the Govern
ment of Lord Derby, upon a Bill relating to this very
same subject. We had postponed, for several years
after that resolution, the resumption of the subject
which had been dropped in 1860, We found upon in
qufry last autumn, that we could obtain, in time to
legislate, aU the information which appeared to us to be
needed in order to enable Parliament to deal with the
Franchise. Was it, then, so great an offence, an offence
which deserved to be visited with such severity, that
we thought it more honourable to ourselves, and more
honourable to our party, to do at once that which we
found we could do at once, and to postpone to a later
stage that which absolutely required to be postponed ?
Was it so strange a thing that, after four Eeform Bills
had failed, and faUed egregiously, we should think of
varying their form, of removing some of the cargo from
the ship ? Was not that, indeed, the natural course to
pursue, when it had been found impossible to navigate
her with the whole of it aboard ?
And again. Sir, had the House of Commons evinced
a deliberate determination on former occasions only to
deal with the extension of the Franchise and the re-dis-
bution of Seats as one measure, the case would have
been different. But no such determination had been
announced ; nor can any such opinion be found upon
the records, or inferred from the acts, of the House,
In the many debates, which have taken place upon the
BUI with respect to the county franchise, introduced by
my honourable Friend the Member for West Surrey, it

LOED GEOSVENOE'S MOTION, 159
was never urged that that measure mUst of necessity be
combined with a proposal for the re-distribution of Seats,
nor have suggestions of this kind been ordinarily made,
if my memory serves me right, in the debates which have
taken place upon the Bill introduced by my honourable
Friend the Member for Leeds to effect a reduction of the
Franchise in boroughs. Again, Sfr, is not our legislation
for Ireland a case eminently in point ? Does not Ireland
present to us the very smallest borough constituencies
in the kingdom ? And yet we proceeded without scruple,
or difference among ourselves, in the case of Ireland, in
the very same manner we have now adopted. We added
one hundred thousand or one hundred and fifty thou
sand, or, as I have seen it stated, a yet larger number,
of voters to the constituencies of Ireland ; and still we
have never touched the question of re-distribution at all.
And yet, because the Government have adopted a
similar course, our conduct is regarded as something
monstrous, and as justifying every kind of strange and
dishonouring suspicion.
And now. Sir, I will turn to another head of evidence.
Let us see what honourable Gentlemen say when they
go to their constituents. That is a description of evi
dence to whieh, in my opinion, much weight should be
attached ; because the sentiments of honourable Gentle
men on such occasions are dictated not only by reason
but by instinct — by that instinct which, as an inward
monitor, teaches them what to say when they come before
the arbiters of their fate. I have been rather curious in
examining the Addresses of honourable Gentlemen ; and
I find that there were one hundred and seventeen
borough Members who entered into particulars on the
subject of Eeform, and who were not content with a mere

160 PAELIAMENTAEY REFORM.
reference to it in general terms. Out of these, no more
than sixteen referred at all to the question of the re-dis
tribution of Seats ; and I believe that every one of those
sixteen members, who have testified in this unequivocal
manner to thefr belief in the importance of re-distribu
tion of Seats, is going to vote with the Government in
favour of the present Bill. The remaining one hundred
and one declared themselves at the election upon the
Franchise alone. Whether some of them may since have
become conscious of the great importance of the re-dis
tribution of Seats I do not know ; bat on referring to the
names, I find that the vast majority of those, who think
the subject of Eeform is worth introducing at all, refer
to it, while making their profession of a political creed,
simply in connection with what we hold to be its most
important branch, namely, the extension of the Fran
chise. Therefore, Sir, I must say I do not think it
can be shown that any great reproach can attach to the
Government for the course which it has pursued.
Now, Sir, I come to the language that has been held
about the inconvenience of the separation. The noble
Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) has argued this part of
the question (to use the common phrase) very high, I
do not blame the noble Lord for what I certainly
thought a strain of great exaggeration. I will only say
this, I doubt whether it was altogether consistent in the
speaker of the speech. For what was the noble Lord's
own course in 1859 ? The noble Lord objects to any
thing lying in prospect only ; he wants to have everything
in hand. Is that really so ? There are two heads under
which his objection arises ; one is with respect to bound
aries ; and the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Dis
raeli) has shown to-night that this is much the greater

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 161
of the two in his opinion. The other has reference to
the re-distribution of Seats. How did the noble Lord
himself stand in 1859, with respect to the question of
boundaries ? Though the Government, of which he was
a member, had been twelve months in office when they
brought in their BiU, though they had had ample time
for ascertaining all the facts, and for proposing an exact
system of delimitation to Parliament, they made no such
proposal ; all they did was to insert a clause in general
words, directing that inquiries should be made, which in
quiries were to be made after the Bill for Eeform should
have passed, and were then to be followed by a Bill for
fixing boundaries. So that, as to this head, the noble Lord
now flings at us as a charge the very thing which in
1859 he did himself. And what did he do with respect
to re-distribution ? He put only fifteen seats in his
BiU. It was not much, but it was the best part of the
measure. The other provisions of the Bill of 1859 were
such as I would rather not now describe. Well, the
noble Lord with his colleagues dealt, by his BiU, with
fifteen seats ; and having thus satisfied himself, he also
proposed to fix a certain rate for the borough and county
franchise ; and then he held to the House language to this
effect : " Though we give you only fifteen seats now, it
is because we cannot do more at present ; but if you look
at the borough and county franchise, you will see that,
as they are no^v to be identified, by-and-bye you can
re-distribute seats as much as you like." Thus, having
by the BiU thrown the entire question of boundaries
bodUy into the future, and having left the. question of
re-distribution, in a great measure, to stand over for its
real settlement at some time perfectly undetermined, the
noble Lord now comes down and delivers this admirable M

162 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
speech — admirable except because he was the speaker ot
it — on the intolerable inconvenience of making any
separation at all, between the question of the Franchise.
and the determination of the constituencies among
which the seats are to be divided.
And now. Sir, I wish to say one word on an illustra
tion used by the noble Lord. Not the figure about the
buUding of a house ; for that was well answered by my
honourable and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for
Scotland, who reminded him that we were not going to
buUd a house at all, for we have got a very good one
already. But I refer to the iUustration which the noble
Lord drew from the subject of finance. Said the noble
Lord, " In finance you would never proceed as you are
now proceeding, for in finance the House always has the
whole scheme of the year before it." But does the
noble Lord forget that controversy, of historic fame,
which closed about four or five years ago, when, for
the special purpose of the protection of its privileges, the
House thought fit to unite aU the taxes and all the chief
financial measures for the year in one Bill ? Until that
year the practice had been to pass the various financial
proposals as independent BiUs, subject to all the risks
which the noble Lord described, and all the dangers
and inconveniences which he conjured up, and presented
to our view as attendant upon severances of this kind.
But who were the defenders of that separate legislation ?
Why, all its defenders came from behind the noble
Lord; they were the very same men who to-night I
suppose will crowd one of the lobbies of the House to
sustain a vote in extravagant contrariety to the prin
ciple for which they then contended.
My right honourable Friend the Member for Cam-

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. ^163
bridge University made what I must frankly call a
commendable, and in intention a helpful suggestion.
Why do not you proceed by Eesolution ? he asked. I
thank him for his inquiry, because I am certain of the
spirit in which that suggestion was offered. But- had
my right honourable Friend thought of the real mean
ing of proceeding by Eesolution? We could easily
conceive, I think, how our first Eesolution would be
framed ; it might be very short, for the subject would not
require much detaU. Again, it would be easy to put into
a few Eesolutions so much of the BUI as related to the
Franchise ; but I want to know how he would have put
the re-distribution of Seats into the form of Eesolutions ?
Would he have a Eesolution declaring that it is expe
dient to take away so many Members from thirty or
forty boroughs ; and if so, would he name those boroughs?
If he did not name them, the Eesolution would be mean
ingless, a shot fired in the air ; and if he did name them,
what, I ask, would be the difference between the Eeso
lution and a BiU for re-distribution, so far as regards
the main point in issue — namely, the gaining time by
avoiding multiplied topics of debate. Nothing would
be gained by that course. I fuUy appreciate the sug
gestion, but I am bound to say I do not think we have
incurred any evil result, or have deserved any blame, in
not adopting it.
Now, Sir, what is the real state of the case with
regard to re-distribution of Seats ? This is very much
at the root of our present difficulty. My honourable
Friend the Member for Birmingham has said truly that
it is conceivable that you might have a scheme of re
distribution such as altogether to frustrate and to inter
cept the effect of any given reduction of the Franchise.
M 2

164 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
If we were to introduce a scheme of that kind, I admit
that everything that has been said against us would be
just. But, Sir, we are not as persons who have given
no indication in former times of their views of re-distri
bution. My belief is that re-distribution, though an
exceedingly important subject, is, under existing cir
cumstances, secondary altogether to the Franchise ; be
cause it is limited by and regulated upon principles,
which I think afford little room for difference of opinion
among fair-minded and moderate men. The re-distri-
buttons of the BiU of 1854, of the BiU of 1859, and of
the Bill of 1860, have proceeded upon one and the same
set of principles ; namely, to abridge the representation
in one portion of our system, by taking Members from
the boroughs of small populations, and to divide the
seats thus obtained, in such proportion as .might be
thought fair, between, the new towns, and such of the
counties and large towns already represented as might
appear to have just claims to an increase of representa
tion. Such are the principles ; but of course there must
be some variety in the mode of applying them. In that
view of the subject I think any reasonable man will see
that our principles of re-distribution, at least, comprise
nothing at all that can vitally affect in any manner a
BiU which extends the Franchise. The Bill I think of
the right honourable Gentleman and Lord Derby pro
posed to enfranchise seven towns. Birkenhead has since
been enfranchised; but six of those boroughs still re
main, and their population averages twenty thousand,
so that altogether their population numbers one hundred
and twenty thousand. Take, then, one hundred and
twenty thousand people out of the counties ; what is the
number of seven-pound voters which would by such a

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 165
measure be brought into existence? It is not worth
considering for a moment. One distinguished speaker
opposite did, indeed, I think, state that there were two
or three millions of people in the counties that might
properly be withdrawn from them, and included within
the towns. I grant that if you approach the subject of
re-distribution with the intention of what is commonly
called " cooking the constituencies," you will, by seek
ing to destroy the effects of the reduction of the
Franchise through the re-distribution of Seats, make re-
. distribution a most dangerous engine as regards public
liberty. We disclaim and condemn all such intentions.
I think our former conduct ought to acquit us of any
such intentions. But if such intentions be imputed to
us, it ought to be by our enemies ; for such intentions
as these are surely not to be imputed compatibly with
political friendship. We consider it to be the proper
purpose of re-distribution by moderate and reasonable
changes to second the provisions of the law touching
the Franchise, not covertly to neutralize and overturn
them. Now, Sir, -we have been asked to do some things, and
we have done them. But let us just consider what they
are, and what they are not. It has been stated, and
stated assiduously, that we have said that re-distribution
must be postponed for another year, and that nothing
can be done on that subject until the Franchise Bill
became law. We have said neither one nor the other.
We have never refused any request or suggestion to
proceed with re-distribution during the present year.
We have said that we should not proceed with the plan
of re-distribution, until in our judgment the fate of the
Franchise Bill had been secured. But that is a very

166 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
different thing. That security may become apparent at
one or at another stage of the progress of a measure
through Parliament, according as cfrcumstances happen,
which can only be judged of at the moment. But as to
the necessary postponement of the Ee-distribution BUI
for another year, we have not said anything of the sort.
I myself, in the name of the Government, distinctly
pointed out that if it were the pleasure of the House, in
its anxiety for a prompt settlement of the whole subject
of Eeform, to prolong its sittings during the autumn,
the Government would not be the parties to object.
But, strange to say, although that offer was intelligibly
stated, not a single one of the Gentlemen, who are so
keen for considering re-distribution together with the
question of the Franchise, has let fall one syllable show
ing a disposition to agree to that proposal. We said
that in our opinion the re-distribution of Seats formed
an essential part of Eeform ; we said that the poUtical
engagement, on which we stake our existence as a
Government, is not confined to the Franchise BiU, but
extends to the subject of re-distribution ; and we said
that the process of re-distribution, if there were a mind
to undertake it with promptitude and dispose of it with
despatch, should not be intercepted by any tardiness or
laziness of ours. We are taunted, and not altogether
unjustly, by the right honourable Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Disraeli) with having changed our front, because
we have made this further concession, in order to meet
the views of Gentlemen whom we believe to be united
with ourselves in the object that we have in view, that
we wiU lay the BiU for the re-distribution of Seats upon
the table, before asking the House to go into Committee
upon the BiU relating to the Franchise. And now, Sfr

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 167
I may fairly ask, what more is desired ? Let us hear
what is asked ; in order that we may consider whether,
compatibly with the main design we have in view, we
can give our assent to the demand. The noble Lord
the Member for King's Lynn says, " Give us a guarantee
that if the Franchise Bill passes, the Ee-distribution
Bill shall also pass." Is the noble Lord so much afraid
of the consequences of failure, as to forget that if our
plan of re-distribution fails the Government must fail
with it, and consequently that, if he is so keen for re
distribution, he can come into power himseU and cany
some plan of his own? The noble Lord, it seems, is
afraid of a dissolution. But there can, I think, be
nothing more obvious than this, that the Government,
having produced these two Bills, will have every con
ceivable motive of a selfish kind for avoiding a dissolu
tion, until both the one and the other shall have passed.
For while we shaU have concUiated a few, on the other
hand — proceed as cautiously as we may — we shall have
offended many. If you think we may have some favour
and interest with the constituencies likely to be enfran
chised, it is in your power to gain as great an interest
in them, should you but have the wisdom and fore
thought to desist from the course that you are now pur
suing, and to show a little less mistrust of them, of that
portion of your fellow-countrymen ; should you, for
example, henceforward refrain from insisting, that to
allow them to possess the Franchise is to Americanize
the institutions of the country.
I wish, Sfr, to be clearly understood upon the ques
tion connected with the form and manner of proceeding
with the measure, especially after it has been repeatedly
stated in debate that there are various rumours circulat-

168 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
ing in the House. I believe there are Gentlemen who
desire of us more than we have promised to do; who
are not satisfied with our having said that the Ee-dis
tribution Bill should be placed in their possession imme
diately after the second reading of the measure that is
now before them. Let me endeavour, then, to be clear
upon this subject. Our object is to draw a separation
broadly and unequivocally between those who really
desire a reduction of the Franchise in counties, and,
above all, in boroughs, and those who do not, but who
are apparently disposed to make use of the question of
the re-distribution of Seats, and of every other topic, for
the purpose of concealing their hostility, and 3'et of effec
tively prosecuting their opposition to the reduction of
the Franchise. Now, Sir, I have to say that the Go
vernment will be loth to quarrel upon any mere ques
tion of procedure with any Gentleman, in whom we
recognise a community of object and purpose with our
selves. If Gentlemen have but the same end in view, we
shall have every disposition, as far as we can contrive
it, to adopt the same means. We hold every subject of
procedure to be wholly secondary to the purpose for
which it is intended. "What we cannot do, however, is
this ; we cannot undertake to abandon the ground we
have gained, for, in my opinion, we have gained ground.
We will not undertake to forego the frait of those
labours, which the House has bestowed on the subject
during that part of the Session which is past; and
we cannot undertake to waste that portion of the
Session which is yet to come. We will not, as far as
depends upon us, either encourage or endure mere pro
crastination. I 'must in the plainest manner convey to
iny noble Friend the Member for Chester that we will

LORD GEOSVENOE'S MOTION. 169
be no parties to procrastination ; and that no conceal
ment shall subsist if we have the power to pierce it
through, and to unveil to the public whatever may lie
beneath. That, Sir, is the state of the case with regard
to our intentions upon what may happen after the second
reading of this Bill.
Now, Sir, in a great question like this, it is well
understood what is really involved in the second read
ing. Let it be clearly understood that we are not now
debating the rejection or acceptance of clauses second
ary with reference to the main purpose of the Bill.
It is no question of Savings Banks, it is no question
of the dockyard suffrage ; nor is it even a question
concerning the votes of leaseholders in counties. And
here I will, in passing, make an admission to my right
honourable Friend, the Member for North Staffordshfre.
He' has certainly surprised me by the number of votes
which he believes would be added to the Eegister of a
particular division of a county under the operation of
this clause. I do not know that his estimate is pre
cisely correct ; I may have occasion to question it. We
have proposed the clause I am referring to under the
beUef that, as a general and almost universal rule, the
number of those leaseholding votes will be comparatively
small. If that be not so, it is a question undoubtedly
open to re-consideration.
Nor, of course, are we at this moment asking of any
Gentleman to pledge himself as to the particular figure,
at which he wiU fix the reduced franchise in counties,
nor even in boroughs. We do not conceal our inten
tions, especially about the suffrage in towns. We do
not hold out the smallest expectation that we shall
deviate from our positibn in this respect; we cannot

170 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
depart from it. But that is not the point to be decided
to-night. The point we are to decide to-night is whether
the House will, by a majority, vote for the second reading
of this Bill — that is to say, for a measure affirming the
reduction of the franchise in counties, and especially in
towns. That is the question. (" No, no ! ") It may not be
the question in the estimation of the honourable Gentle
man ; but it seems not improper that those who move
the second reading of a Bill should at any rate put the
House in possession of what they know to be the inten
tions of the movers, and what they believe to be, and,
so far as depends on them, intend should be, the true
significance of the vote for which they ask. Have we,
then, good reason for asking that this Bill should be
read a second time, in lieu of adopting the Motion of
the noble Earl ? I think we have very sound reasons
for asking it. They are these. We gave notice that
we would introduce a measure of Eeform, and we pro
duced the BiU. We were saluted by my noble Friend
with a hostile Motion, and a Motion framed in concert
with the party in' Opposition. On a former occasion I
endeavoured to do justice to the moderation of my
noble Friend's character. I wish now to bear testi
mony also to the moderation and mildness of his lan
guage. But the moderation and mildness of his language
cannot blind the Government to the severity of his
act. He spoke of his being a follower of Earl Eussell;
but the Amendment, coming as it does from my noble
Friend, has been concerted with the party opposite.
(An honourable Member: I do not believe it was.) I
am bound to say that I am unable to recognise the
honourable Member as the leader of the party opposite.
I recognise the right honourable Gentleman the Member

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 171
for Bucks as filUng that position, and no one else. But,
returning to the Amendment ; I am not aware of any
case, within our Parliamentary experience, or of any case
whatever, _ in which a Government has consented to
accept such an Amendment, so prepared and so pro
duced. I frankly own that if I were to be dragged at
the chariot-wheels of any man, I would be as willing to
be dragged at the chariot-wheels of my noble Friend, as
at those of any one whom I have the honour to know.
But that is a process to which a Government cannot,
and must not, submit. I marked the words of my
noble Friend, as he looked back at his own conduct in
1859. He was then so zealous for a reduction of the
borough franchise, that he would not hear of the pro
posal to read the BUI of that day a second time, because
it did not propose such reduction. My noble Friend
now repents of that refusal. He says it was a very
unwise proceeding. He holds that, having then before
them a Government which had introduced a Eeform
BUI, and which was pledged to stand or fall by it, to stop
the Government in its career was not the way to pro
mote the cause of Eeform, Yet, strange inconsistency
of human nature, not peculiar to my noble Friend, but
only too common in the annals of casuistry and of con
science ! for a moment, and with evident sincerity, he
repents; but, at the same moment, the temptation
again presents itself; and again he falls. In the very
act of making the confession, he revives and repeats the
offence. My noble Friend now in truth asks the House
to do over again what he laments that he did in 1859,
We, on our pai-t, ask that our BiU may be read a second
time. Is our request an unfair one ? My right honour-

172 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
able Friend the Member for Calne quoted yesterday,
and with great effect, a phrase which has been used by
Mr. Hallam. Mr. Hallam says very truly that Ministers
have a double allegiance ; an aUegiance to the Crown,
and an allegiance to this House. It is. their business,
in submitting their measures to the judgment of the
House, to consider what thefr own honour requires; but
it is also their duty, in deciding as they best can what is
expedient for the public interests, to consider what may
be required for the honour, dignity, and efficiency of
the House. Well, Sir, after all that has happened;
after the many BiUs which have been brought in ; after
the many unforeseen obstacles, ending in miscarriage ;
after the equivocal and questionable proceedings that
have at times been taken with reference to these mea
sures, and the jealousies and reproaches, which the
public do not understand, but of which they see the
effect in the total stoppage of the movement of Eeform ;
we have deliberately thought that we were entitled, nay
that we were bound, to ask the House for an answer on
the broad question respecting a reduction of the Fran
chise in counties and boroughs ; a question which
cannot be affected in its substance by any course that
we can pursue with regard to the re-distribution of Seats.
That is what we have thought ; and I think I may ask
my noble Friend whether we are not perfectly entitled
to ask for that answer, with reference not to our own
convenience, or even our own credit, but to the honour,
dignity, and efficiency of the House itself.
Sir, there was a wish expressed by one of the heroes
of that ancient 'war to which my right honourable
Friend and myself have so often referred, a wish

LOED GEOSVENOE'S MOTION. 173
eminently suitable to the present position of Her Ma
jesty's Government. It is this —
" Let us |die in the daylight."
Now, I humbly ask of my noble Friend, that we may
die in the daylight. My noble Friend's hostility to this
Bill — the fact of such hostility is, I fear, notorious, for
it was pretty inteUigibly declared in his address to his
constituents — is not founded upon the circumstance of
its not containing clauses for re-distribution, but on the
fact of its being a Bill for an effective reduction of the
Franchise in boroughs. My noble Friend differs vitally
from the Government on that subject. I do not com
plain of that difference of opinion. On the contrary, I
honour him for acting according to his own convictions.
But I do not think it too much to ask that he should
state it in plain words. He asks, however, for a Ee-dis
tribution Bill, to be joined with the Franchise Bill. But
suppose a Ee-distribution Bill of an unobjectionable cha
racter were introduced, would my noble Friend then
support the Franchise Bill ? — I think that is a fair
challenge. I think that upon the answer to that chal
lenge, or upon the non-answer to it, which will mean
pretty much the same thing, the judgment of the House
and of the countr)"- may very well be taken.
The right honourable Gentleman the Member for
Calne has said, that we have given no reasons for our
BiU; and he likewise said that we know nothing of
those two hundred and four thousand persons, whom it
is proposed to enfranchise in boroughs ; indeed, as I
think, he repeated the assertion several times. What,
Sir, do we know nothing of those two hundred and four
thousand ? If we are thus ignorant, yet does my right

174 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
honourable Friend know nothing of them ? We were
taught to think he knew a good deal about them. We
have not yet wholly forgotten his own significant words so
loudly cheered : " We know what sort of men Uve in these
houses." My right honourable Friend will recollect the
words well enough. They were used in his first speech.
They formed part of his declamatory denunciation against
the admission of any class below the ten-pound voters to
the Franchise. Nor was this all. Who were those Hyper
boreans of the speech of my right honourable Friend ?
And what was the wind that got colder as the traveller
went further north ? Was not the comparison this — that
as on the earth's surface the cold increases as we move
in that dfrection, so in the downward figures of the Fran
chise the voters became progressively more drunken, or
more venal ; or, to refrain from recalling those unhappy
words, I would say simply more and more unfit ? Now,
Sir, we too know something of those men ; but what we
know is very different from the supposed knowledge of
my right honourable Friend. The right honourable
Gentleman asked, " Do you think the Franchise is good
in itself, or do you wish to improve the institutions of
the country ? " Sir, I find here no dUemma. My answer
to both questions is, emphatically. Aye ! The extension
of the Franchise, within safe and proper limits, is good,
in and of itself. It will array more persons in support
of the institutions of the country ; and that is another
good. The composition and the working of this House
is admirable, and its performances have long since
placed it at the head of aU the legislative assemblies of
the world. It does not follow, however, that it cannot
be improved. I will not say with my right honourable
Friend that it is perfect. I am not sure, indeed, that

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 175
ne said so in terms ; but he seemed to mean if not to
say it I am not prepared to pay the worship of idolatry,
even to this House. I will mention a point of far-
reaching importance, in which I think it might be
improved. It is this. I need not say I am scarcely
speaking of the present House, which has but just
entered upon its labours. I am speaking of the Ee-
formed Parliament in general. There is a saying which
has been ascribed to a very eminent person, still alive,
whose name I will not mention, because I have no means
of knowing whether it has been truly ascribed to him or
not, but I wUl quote it for its own sake. It is to this
effect, that the unreformed Parliament used, in the
common phrase, to job for individuals, while the re
formed Parliament jobs for classes. I do not adopt the
rudeness of the expression; but the substance of the
observation is, in my opinion, just. I think that
the influence of separate classes is here too strong ; and
that the influence of the public interest properly so
called, as distinguished from the interests of sets, groups,
and knots of men, is too weak. I fully admit I am not,
perhaps, altogether an impartial judge. I speak much
from my own experience, during a lengthened period,
as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as in a special
degree and sense the guardian of the public purse.
Undoubtedly, if there be a weak point in the composi
tion of the House, this is the department in which it
would most readUy and most clearly show itself, I
believe it to be a weak point. I believe that the com
position of the House might be greatly improved ; and
that the increased representation of the working classes
would supply us more largely with that description of
Members whom we want ; of Members who would look

176 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM,
not to the interests of classes, but to the public interest.
In presuming to say so much as this, I hope I do not
convey any reproach to any party or person; but my
right honourable Friend (Mr. Lowe) challenged Us so
sharply, as if we admitted that no improvement what
ever was possible, that I felt bound thus far to state in
general terms my conviction.
Again, Sir, I return to the broad proposition of my
right honourable Friend. He says we have no reasons.
Perhaps he does not admit as a reason what was stated
the other day by the honourable Member for Birming
ham, that there have been a hundred meetings, public
meetings, held in favour of this BiU. I observed, when
those words were spoken, that loud murmurs arose on
the other side of the House at the mention of the
number ; and I have not the least doubt of their good
faith. I, however, was persuaded that the honourable
Member for Birmingham was right ; and turning to the
Eeport of the Committee on Public Petitions, I counted
the meetings. (An Opposition Member : Got up !) The
meetings are "got up" are they? Then you have
your remedy. Go, and get up meetings against the
measure. It will then be seen, whether it is or is not
an easy matter to obtain an expression of public senti
ment like this, on which to found your operations. I
know not whether they are " got up " or not ; if Gentle
men think they are, it is, as I have said, open to them
who think so to try the experiment the other way. But
this I know, that I counted roughly the petitions pre
sented from pubhc meetings, and signed individually
by the chairmen of these meetings ; and I found that
between the 11th and the 17th of April there were
about one hundred and eighty-seven such petitions, be-

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION, 177
sides five or six hundred thousand signatures from
individuals in favour of this BiU, So much then, Sfr,
I say as respects that description of argument which
may with fairness be drawn, within certain bounds,
from the evident and expressed opinion of the country.
But now I have to grapple with the principal argu
ment, if such it be, of my right honourable Friend the
Member for Calne, and to confront all the dismal pic
tures he draws of the destruction of the British Con
stitution, My answer is, that it is not going to be
destroyed. We are not going to import American
principles. It is not necessary to discuss them, either
for blame or praise. It is not an American principle
to reduce the borough franchise. It is a return to old
Enghsh principles ; it is a restoration of the state and
course of things that subsisted before, and ought to
subsist again. What has happened since 1832 ? I am
now going to state a part of the case on the authority
of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for
Oxfordshire (Mr, Henley) : —
" The working people have been having a less and
less share in the representation. They had a consider
able representation before 1832, through the scot-and-
lot voters and the fr-eemen. I am not going to say
anything either for or against the freemen ; but through
them the . working class had their voice in the repre
sentation. They are gradually dying out." — [3 Hansard,
clii. 1066,]
That was the emphatic statement of the right honour
able Gentleman in 1859 ; and has it been counteracted
since? No; it has not been counteracted, certainly
not to any considerable extent, not even, as I believe,
in the least degree, I will now state the growth of
N

178 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
the numbers of electors in boroughs. And not generally
since 1832, for when I stated what it had been from
1832 to 1865, 1 gave an unjust advantage to my oppo
nents; but since 1851. Now, I pray the House to
observe these figures, which I am about to give. In
1851, the total number of the electors in boroughs was
four hundred and ten thousand ; in 1865-6 it was five
hundred and nine thousand, showing an increase of
ninety-nine thousand: that is to say, an increase of
twenty-four per cent, in fourteen years. That, then,
has been the increase in the number of the electors.
I come next to the increase of population in boroughs.
In the year 1851 it was seven million one hundred and
eighty-six thousand; in 1866 it was by estimate nine
mUlion two hundred and sixty-six thousand, giving an
increase of two mUlion seventy-nine thousand, or, in
other words, of 28-9 per cent, in the population. That
being so, I ask those Gentlemen who speak of the gradual
absorption of the working classes into the constituencies,
and of the Franchise as being within thefr reach, to con
sider, to deal with these fignres. We now see that
we have actuaUy a slower growth of the electors in
boroughs, than of the population. Well, but whUe the
population and the electors have been moving on as
I have described, the wealth of the country among the
middle and upper classes has, according to the best
estimate which I can make, been advancing as foUows.
The income tax in 1851, making due allowance for the
changes which have been since introduced into the
law, may be taken, with sufficient approach to accuracy
for the purpose of comparison, as having been worth
not more than eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds
per penny. This year I am enabled to state that it is

LOED GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 179
¦worth one mUUon four hundred thousand pounds per
penny. That is to say, there has been an increase of
sixty-five per cent, in the wealth of the country liable
to income tax, or at the rate of four per cent, per annum.
But when I remind you, that this vast increase of the
wealth Uable to income tax has been an increase almost
entfrely in the upper and middle classes, and yet that the
total number of electors in the towns does not even keep
pace with the population, I hope we shall hear no more
of this supposed absorption of the working classes into
the enfranchised body. In the figures before us, it is too
plain that there is no room for any such absorption. I
was justified, then, in stating that the working classes
are not adequately represented in this House, even as
compared with 1832, They are not, it is admitted,
represented in any proportion to their numbers ; and
without holding that it would be fit for us to do more
than lessen that disproportion, we contend it is right to
do as much. They are not represented, as I have pre
viously shown, in accordance with their share of the
income of the country. EspeciaUy after the events of
the last few years, I may boldly proceed to say they
are not represented in proportion to their intelligence,
thefr virtue, or their loyalty. Finally, they are less
represented now than they were thirty-six years ago,
when they were admittedly less competent to exercise
the Franchise, A greater amount of representation,
with a less amount of fitness, was not found to be inju
rious, but wholesome, for the State ; and now, when, as
you admit, there is a greater amount of fitness, and, as
you must grant, there is a less amount of representation,
stUl you are not disposed, it seems, to accede to a
'urther measure of enfranchisement. N 2

180 PAELIAMENTAEY REFORM.
If these are not good reasons for extending the
suffrage at the present time, I know not what reasons
can be good. But if honourable Members think they can
hold their ground in a policy of resistance and refusal
for the present, I have to ask' them, how do they regard
the future ? My right honourable Friend the Member
for Calne has prophesied to us, in the most emphatic
terms, the ruin of the British Constitution. His pro
phecies were beautiful, so far as his masterly use of the
English language is concerned. But many prophecies
quite as impressive may be found in the pages of Mr.
Burke or of Mr. Canning, and other almost equaUy
distinguished men. What has been the fate of those
prophecies? What uses do they now serve? They
form admfrable material of declamations for schoolboys ;
capital exercises to be translated into Greek. The pro
phecies of my right honourable Friend, like those of yet
more famous men than he, may some thirty years hence
serve a similar purpose. They may, for the beauty,
force, and clearness of their language, be selected by
teachers at colleges and schools as exercises for their
pupils ; and my right honourable Friend will have his
reward, as others have had theirs : Ut pueris placeas,
et declamatio fias. My right honourable Friend says,
does he ? that we know nothing about the labouring
classes. Is not one single word a sufficient reply ? That
word is Lancashire; Lancashire; associated with the
sufferings of the last four years, so painful and bitter
in themselves to contemplate, but so nobly and gloriously
borne. The qualities then exhibited were the qualities
not of a few men here and there, select among a de
praved multitude, but of the mass of a toiling com
munity. The sufferings were sufferings of the mass.

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 181
The heroism was heroism of the mass. For my own
part, I cannot believe that the men who exhibited those
qualities were a false sample of the people of England,
and that the rest would have wholly failed in exhibiting
the same great qualities, had occasion arisen. I cannot
see what argument could be found for some wise and
temperate experiment of the extension of civil rights
among such people, if the experience of the past few
years does not sufficiently afford it.
And now, Sir, let us for a moment consider the enor
mous and sUent changes which have been going forward
among the labouring population. May I use the words
to honourable and right honourable Gentlemen once
used by way of exhortation by Sfr Eobert Peel to his
opponents? "Elevate your vision," Let us try and
raise our view somewhat above the fears, the suspicions,
the jealousies, the reproaches, and the recriminations
of this place and this occasion. Let us look onward
to the time of our chUdren, and of our children's
chUdren, Let us examine what preparation it behoves
us should be made to meet that coming time. Is there
or is there not, I ask, a steady movement discernible in
the labouring class, and is or is not that movement a
movement onwards, and a movement upwards ? . I will
not say that it falls beneath the eye ; for, like aU' great
processes, it is unobservable in detail ; but as solid and
undeniable, as it is resistless, in its essential character.
It is like those movements of the crust of the earth,
which science teUs us are even now going on in certain
portions of the globe. The sailor courses over these
regions in his ship, and the traveller crosses them by
land, without being conscious of such changes; but
from day to day, from hour to hour, the heaving forces

182 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
are at work, and after a season we discern from actual
experience that the levels are changed by elevation and
depression, that things are not as they were. Has my
right honourable Friend, in whom mistrust rises to its
utmost height, ever really considered the astonishing
phenomena connected with some portion of the conduct
of the labouring classes, especiaUy in the Lancashire
distress ? Has he considered what an amount of self-
denial was exhibited by these men in respect to the
American war ? They knew that the source of their
distress, of their crushing distress, lay in that war ; yet
they never uttered or entertained the wish that any
effort should be made to put an end to it, as they held
it, correctly or erroneously it matters not, to be a war for
justice and for freedom. Could any man have believed
that a conviction so still, so calm, so firm, so energetic,
could have planted itself in the minds of a population,
without becoming a known patent fact throughout the
whole country ? But we knew nothing of it. And yet,
when the day of trial came, then we saw that noble
sympathy on their part with the people of the North ; that
determination that, be their sufferings what they might,
no word should proceed from them that would hurt a
cause which they so firmly believed to be just. On one
side, then, there was a magnificent moral spectacle. On
the other side was there not also a great lesson to us
all, to teach us that in those little tutored, but yet most
reflective minds, by a process of quiet instillation, opi
nions and sentiments gradually form themselves of
which we for a long time remain unaware, but which,
when at last they make their appearance, are found to
be deep-rooted, mature, and ineradicable ?
And now, Sir, I turn to another matter, and I ask

LOED GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 183
my noble Friend, how he proposes to administer the
government of that singularly associated family of per
sons, who adopt his Amendment ? There ought to be
some unity of purpose among those friends and associates,
who have linked themselves together on a question
such as this ; among those who design to overturn
Governments, or to destroy Eeform Bills. I will state
a portion of the contradictions that are to be gathered
out of this debate on one side only. My noble Friend
says we ought to have referred this question to the
Committee of Privy Council, But the right honourable
Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole)
tells him, and tells him truly, that it would be totally
useless ; flrstly, it would do no good ; and secondly, it
would be entirely unconstitutional. That is the first
specimen I give. Next, my right honourable Friend
(Mr, Walpole) says we ought to have introduced a
measure of re-distribution; but the right honourable
Gentleman the Member for Stroud, and the honourable
Member for Galway, say they would have been content,
the one to support our Franchise Bill, and both of them
to entertain and to discuss it, if only we had said nothing
about re-distribution. Again, my honourable Friend,
the Member for Wick, says we ought to proceed with
the two Bills pari passu; but my right honourable
Friend, the Member for Cambridge University, says, and
supports- his opinion with sound reasoning to show, that
such a course of proceeding would only involve increased
delay. The right honourable Member for Calne again
avows, that such a course would remove none of his
objections. The right honourable Member for Bucks, I
think, says the same ; and yet the honourable Member for
Wick announces that, if only we will adopt his advice, he

184 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
will answer for our obtaining every vote on the Liberal
side of the House. The honourable and learned Member
for Belfast thinks, that representation is founded on
classes. My right honourable Friend (Mr. Walpole)
replies, " No, it is not founded on classes, but on com
munities." The honourable and learned Member for
Belfast says fitness is not a ground for enfranchisement ;
and the right honourable Baronet the Member for Herts
proclaims not merely that he would be satisfied, but, with
emphatic and expressive gesture, that he would be de
lighted, if every artizan who is fit for the Franchise could
be admitted to it. The noble Lord the Member for
Galway (Lord DunkeUin) not only declares his adhesion
to Eeform, but states that it is in the capacity of an
ardent Eeformer that he objects to our measure ; while
the right honourable and gallant General the Member
for Huntingdon (General Peel) frames a catalogue of the
mischiefs we have had to endure during the Eeforming
era, and pretty plainly considers that we have had not
only enough of Eeform in Parliament, but even a little
more than enough. The honourable Member for Cam
bridge holds, I think very truly, that Parliament is
pledged in this matter. Not, of course, to do what it
may think wrong ; nobody ever said anything so absurd;
but what is meant is this, that those pledges of Parlia
ment are pledges which, if they are not observed, will
cause discredit to Parliament, and wiU tend to-the dis
paragement of Parliamentary Government with the
people of this country. But while my right honourable
Friend owns that Parliament is pledged, the honourable
Member for Dublin and the right honourable Member
for Bucks have laboured to demonstrate that it is under
no pledge whatever. Lastly, Sir, the noble Lord the

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 185
Member for Haddingtonshire protests he is an ardent
friend of Eeform. I will not contradict him ; that would
not be agreeable to good manners ; neither wUl I even
cite against him the words of any other Gentleman. But
I will cite his own words and opinions. I conceive that
in his judgment — a most untrue and injurious judgment
as I think — he has contradicted himself; because, whUe
he has thus declared his friendliness to Eeform, he has
also avowedly and pointedly, I might almost say osten
tatiously, gloried in Lord Palmerston as being a man
whose life, ff it had only been prolonged, would have
effectuaUy kept at bay any new Eeform BUI. That,
Sir, which I have represented in these references, is the
state of self-contradiction among this party ; a party
gathered together for a chance purpose ; with no bond
of cohesion, with no declared principle, with no avowed
intention; meaning, as I must repeat, one thing and
saying another thing ; saying that which is of compara
tively smaU account, and not saying, but suppressing,
the thing which the most important persons engaged
in the operation deeply feel, and which they would
"'¦" ' ^ say. Such is the state of things among our
¦present opponents. Such is their harmony of language,
their unity of view, upon this the first and only occasion
on which they have been able to co-operate.
Sir, the hour has arrived when this protracted debate
must come to an end. [Cheers.] I cannot resent the
warmth with which that last expression of mine has been
re-echoed. My apologies to the House are sincere. I
feel deeply indebted, not to Gentlemen sitting on this
side of the House only, but also and not less to honour
able Gentlemen opposite, for the patience with which

183 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
they have heard me. But a very few words more, and
I have done. May I speak briefly to honourable Gentle
men on the other side, as some of them have copiously
addressed advice to Gentlemen on this side of the
House ? I would ask them, will you not consider, before
you embark in this new crusade, whether the results
of those other political crusades, in which you have
heretofore engaged, have been so satisfactory to you as
to encourage you to a new venture in the same direction?
Great battles you have fought ; and fought them man
fully. The battle of maintaining civil disabUities on
account of religious belief; the battle of resistance to
the first Eeform Act ; the obstinate and long-continued
battle of Protection ; all these great battles have been
fought by the great party that I now look in the face ;
and, as to some limited portion of those confiicts, I
admit my own share of the responsibility. But I ask
again, have their results, have thefr results towards
yom-selves, been such as that you should be disposed to
renew struggles similar to these ? Certainly those, who
compose the Liberal party in British politics, have, at
least in that capacity, no reason or title to find fault.
The effect of your course has been to give over to your
adversaries for five out of every six, or for six out of
every seven years, since the epoch of the Eeform Act,
the conduct and management of public affairs. The
effect has been to lower, to reduce, and contract your
just influence in the country, and to abridge your legii
timate share in the administration of the Govemment.
It is good for the public interest that you also should
be strong. But if you are to be strong, you can only
be so by showing, in addition to the kindness and the

LORD GROSVENOR'S MOTION. 187
personal generosity which I am sure you feel towards
the people, a public, a political trust and confidence in
the people. What I how say can hardly be said with
an evil motive. I am conscious of no such sentiment
towards any man or any party. But, Sir, we are
assailed, and with us the Bill, of which we think more
seriously than of our ourselves. This Bill is in a state
of crisis and of peril, and the Government along with
it. We stand or fall with it, as has been declared by
- my noble Friend Lord EusseU. We stand with it now ;
we may fall with it a short time hence. If we do so
faU, we, or others in our places, shall rise with it here
after. I shall not attempt to measure with precision
the forces that are to be arrayed against us in the
coming issue. Perhaps the great division of to-night
is not to be the last, but only the first of a series of
divisions. At some point of the contest you may pos
sibly succeed. You may drive us from our seats. You
may slay, you may bury, the measure that we have
introduced. But we wUl write upon its gravestone for
an epitaph this line, with certain confidence in its fulfil
ment: " Exoriere aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor.''
You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our
side. The great social forces which move onwards in
their might and majesty, and which the tumult of these
debates does not for a moment impede or disturb, those
great social forces are against you ; they work with us ;
they are marshalled in our support. And the banner
which we now carry in the fight, though perhaps, at
some moment of the struggle, it may droop over our
sinking heads yet wUl float again in the eye of heaven.

188 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
and will be borne by the firm hands of the united people
of the three kingdoms, perhaps not to an easy, but to a
certain and to a not distant victory.
Question put.
The House divided: — Ayes 318; Noes 313: Majo
rity 5.
Main question put, and agreed to.
BUI read a second time, and committed for Monday
next.

RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL. 189

EE-DI8TEIBUTI0N OP SEATS BILL.
THE CHANCELLOE or the EXCHEQUEE: I
rise. Sir, to ask for leave to bring in a Bill for the
Ee-distribution of Seats. And though my duty will not,
I hope, requfre me to detain the House for any great
length of time, yet I must commence by pointing out
that I shall have to advert to three several subjects —
first, to the re-distribution of Seats, properly so called ;
secondly, to certain questions as to the provisions, which
are most fitting and convenient to be made with regard
to the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs; and
thirdly, I must deal with that question of the procedure
upon these BiUs upon which so much has been said, and
with regard to which so much interest has been excited.
Now, Sir, first as regards the Ee-distribution of Seats.
I wiU say a word, at the commencement, as to the prin
ciples upon which such a re-distribution should proceed.
And I must say on behalf of my colleagues and for
myself that we have never seen any room iot doubt or
any reason to entertain any desire for innovation, or for
departure from previous example, with regard to these
principles. There are, indeed, in detail an almost
boundless number of questions that may be, some
plausibly, and some fairly, raised, if there be a disposi
tion to raise them, in disposing of the subject of re-dis
tribution. And there may also be a fair difference of
opinion as to the scale upon which those principles shall
be applied. The process is a double one; first of all

190 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
there is the process of disfranchisement, of the with
drawal or curtaUment of the privUege of representation
in Parhament; and secondly, there is the process of
enfranchisement. I do not think that, as to either the
one or the other, there has ever been, either in this
House, or among the various Governments that have
dealt with the subject, any vital difference of opinion
entertained, or at least avowed, as to the principles
upon which these two processess should be worked. In
every case in which a BiU for the Ee-distribution of Seats
has been brought in, whether in 1854, in 1859, or in
1860, the seats which it was necessary to obtain have
been obtained not by extinguishing, but by limiting the
principle of the representation of smaU boroughs. To
that method of proceeding, I need scarcely say, we shaU
adhere. Now, Sir, with respect to the subject of smaU
boroughs, it is weU that we should give the House to
understand with what view, and in what sense, we
propose to deal with them. There is an impression
that is too widely spread perhaps in the opinion, at least
in the superficial opinion — if I may so speak — of the
pubhc, that by this sort of either extinction or restraint
of the representation of the small boroughs, to be intro
duced into a Ee-distribution of Seats BiU, we may serve
an invaluable purpose, that of putting a stop to corrup
tion in Parliamentary elections.
Now, Sir, no person, so far as I am aware, who has
ever been cognizant of this subject in a responsible
capacity, has thought of carrying the process of re-dis
tribution of Seats, or of an extinction or restraint of
small boroughs, to any point which would make it in
any manner effectual for the purpose of putting a stop

RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL. 191
to Parliamentary corruption. And, indeed, in order to
correspond in any degree with such an aim, we must
attach to the name of a small borough a signification
far wider than any which it has hitherto ordinarily
bprne. "When we speak of small boroughs, while there
is no precise definition of the class, perhaps we may be
understood generally to mean towns that are under
eight thousand, nine thousand, ten thousand, or twelve
thousand inhabitants, according to the shades of meaning
which people may attach to the term. But it is not the
fact that corruption in this country is exclusively to be
found in boroughs under, say, ten thousand in popula
tion. It is not even the fact that corruption — so far as
I understand the matter — is especially to be found in
those boroughs. I believe that, as far as this subject is
capable of being illustrated by Eeturns, it will be shown
that, at least if you take for your test boroughs which
have been the subject of Parliamentary investigation, on
the score of allegations of bribery, during a considerable
number of years, not only, nor perhaps mainly, the
boroughs from the very lowest figure up to ten thousand
in population, but those from ten thousand to twenty
thousand in a very considerable degree, and then, again,
those from twenty thousand up to forty thousand, if not
even higher, would be found — melancholy as it is to me
to make the confession — to be tainted with this most
disgraceful vice, this leprosy of English politics. There
fore, in proposing a limitation of the representation of
small boroughs, which has, in point of fact, been the
basis of every scheme suggested for the re-distribution
of Seats, we must not attempt to recommend such a
scheme upon the supposition that it has of itself an
effectual tendency to the extermination of the evil of

192 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
corruption. No doubt it will in part have this effect ; it
may strike at certain boroughs, which, being small, are
also corrupt ; and perhaps we may carry our opinion with
justice so far as to say that, where a small borough is
corrupt, it is more difficult to cure the evU than in_ a
large borough, because there is less of sound pubUc
opinion in the constituency to which you can appeal.
And again, the seat so withdrawn is sure to be given to
a constituency less likely to misuse its power.
On the other hand, Sir, there has been in former
time (at least, as far as I know) a widely spread opinion
that, as the small boroughs were liable to the special
demerit of corruption, so also they were entitled to
claim the special merit of opening the door of this House
to some classes of representatives, who could not other
wise find their way within its precinct. I have already
distinctly stated in this House my opinion that, in
former times and cfrcumstances, smaU boroughs did
very extensively serve that purpose, especiaUy in one
particular mode. They introduced into this House a
very important class of young men, whose family con
nections were not of such a nature as effectually to
recommend them to tbe confidence of large consti
tuencies, as candidates who might in the first instance
be taken upon trust. In other words, of young men
sent here on account of thefr own opening promise : a
class which has supplied a large proportton of the
governing minds of this great country. Now, however,
the large constituencies, especially those of counties,
much to their credit and to the advantage of the
country, are usually willing to return as their represen
tatives young men belonging to families which have
traditionally enjoyed their respect, and to look to them

RE-DISTEIBUTION OF SEATS BILL. 193
with hopes for the ftiture. Thus, an opening is found
for the younger members of famUies of rank, birth, and
opulence. But how do we stand as to youths sprung
from families which have not these advantages ?
I am bound to own that, having particularly watched
the working of our small boroughs, especiaUy during
the last two general elections, and having now just
striven to exempt them in some degree from an especial
censure, I do not think we can urge, testing the matter
by experience, that the small boroughs now possess that
special advantage in a degree corresponding with former
periods, or indeed in any degree beyond other classes
of constituencies. Suppose we were to take the cases
of gentlemen — it would be invidious, perhaps, to refer to
names — but suppose we were to take the cases of
gentlemen who, in a Parliamentary sense, might be
justly considered young: and I conceive that Parlia
mentary youth need not be held to expfre before thirty.
I say, then, taking the case of gentlemen not yet above
thirty years of age, elected within the last ten years or
more, or, to bring the matter more closely to a test,
taking those only who now sit here, whether on the one
side or the other, and who have not come into Parlia
ment through the direct exercise of family influence, or
through the credit and position of their famUies in the
places which they represent, I think there is not more
than one single instance in which an honourable Gentle
man at that happy time of life, and of the class I have
named, can be said to hold his seat for a smaU borough
at the present moment. [An honourable Member :
There is not one.] Yes, there is one. I think there is
one instance,* and only one, as far as my researches have
* The case of Mr. Goldsmid, M.P. for Honiton. O

194 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
gone, that too being one in which special circumstances
may have had an influence upon the election, in which
such a gentleman can be said to hold his seat for a
small borough, understanding by a small borough one
under ten thousand in population. All the rest sit for
larger, chiefly for much larger places. One of them I
may name; for it can only be named with honour.
And moreover I draw it from the opposite side. It is
the seat held by an honourable Member, who entered
this House some four or five years ago as the repre
sentative of Canterbury, a place with a population, I
think, of from twenty to thirty thousand. Singular
then although it may be, and contrary to all anticipa
tions, it does not appear that the larger constituencies
are, in the present state of things, more indisposed to
entertain the claims of young men who have no tra
ditional or family influence, and who have not yet had
an opportunity of making a political character for them
selves, than are the very small boroughs. They are,
on the contrary, it would seem, rather more favourably,
or less unfavourably, inclined to return this important
class of our Members.
It is neither then, I think, upon the ground of any
special utility, according to the working of our present
system, that the general retention of small boroughs can
be effectually defended : nor, on the other hand, is it on
the ground of special corruption that their extinction
can be sufficiently recommended. I submit that we
must be prepared to take our stand upon the following
very clear and simple ground. There are large and im
portant communities, many of them growing communi
ties, both in counties and in towns, others of them
.stationary ; but having the one feature in common, that

RE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 195
they are not represented within the walls of this House
in any sort of proportion to what we may fairly call
their just demands. If we are to search for a method
of making the representation of those great commu
nities more adequate, it is quite clear, I think, that we
can most adequately obtain, and, in fact, can only obtain,
the means of meeting the fair demands of justice and of
growing populations, by resorting to a curtailment
of the still very abundant, and, .indeed, superabundant,
measure of representation of smaU boroughs, which
continues to mark our system.
Having said so much. Sir, I may now proceed to
state, that it has been a great object with the Govern
ment to consider in what way they can most conve
niently and most equitably apply this principle to the
small boroughs of the country. At the time of the
Eeform BUI, there were a great many boroughs which
could not be dealt with except by way of extinction
and, indeed, which had become in the public view in
tolerable, as little better than a mockery of the repre
sentative system. Among those boroughs were not only
Gatton and Old Sarum, but many others, which besides
being small and insignificant, were moreover so entirely
close, that the mass of the population, even within those
insignificant boroughs themselves, possessed no interest
in their representatives. It would have been quite
absurd to have sought any means of retaining such
boroughs upon the list of those returning representatives
to ParUament, whether by joining them with other
places less unworthy, or in any other way. A great
change was introduced into this state of things by the
Eeform Act; and every borough, however small or
0 2

196 . PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
however ill-constituted it may be, has, at all evonis^
this to say in its own behalf; that the Member, who
sits for it, does in some way or other represent the
views, as well as the interests, of a real local community.
We therefore approach the question of restraining the
representation of the small boroughs under circumstances
somewhat different from those which the framers of
the Eeform Act had to confront in their treatment of the
same subject. These local communities are, as we find,
in possession of great Parliamentary privileges; but
they are not, as we believe, extensively tainted with
gross corruption. Those of them which are, or shall be
proved upon adequate evidence to be so tainted, will, J
hope, be effectually and decisively dealt with by the
House; and I may diverge ft-om my path for one
moment to express the hope that, even in the case of
any larger boroughs where this corruption is proved
to exist, the House wUl adopt measures entirely different
from those which we pursued some Sessions back, so
feeble and inefficient in thefr character: measures in
some degree at least commensurate with the gravity of
the offence, and such as, it is to be hoped, may have a ten
dency to check, both there and elsewhere, the prevalence
of the evil. I think, however, that the class of small
boroughs ought not, as a class, to be regarded as being
charged with this loathsome taint, but as being in pos
session of Parliamentary privUeges which are brought
into question through no voluntary fault of their own.
Whatever abridgment, then, is to be imposed upon
those privileges, that abridgment ought to be effected
in the mildest manner possible ; and consequently, de
parting from the principle which guided many of those
sitting in the present Cabinet when they framed the

RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL. 197
Bill of 1854, we. have come- to the conclusion that the
equity of the case will be fully met by a course some
what less disagreeable.
We therefore propose, that no borough shall be
absolutely extinguished; and in lieu of extiaction of
boroughs, oi enumeration in what was called Schedule
A, we purpose resorting to a method new, or rather
almost new, to England, but one of which the principle
has been afready very fully adopted in Scotland and in
Wales, that of arranging small boroughs in groups.
And, Sir, there is another reason which has, I think,
weighed with the Government in arriving at this con
clusion. We have now had more than thirty years'
experience of the Eeform Act ; and the whole of that
experience, we are of opinion, goes to show that if any
one class of boroughs, within moderate limits of popu
lation, is entitled to be selected from among the rest
for the praise of at least comparative purity, it is the
grouped boroughs. I doubt very much whether there
have been since 1832 more than two or three petitions
presented against any election for those boroughs in the
kingdom of Scotland. [An honourable Member : Only
one !] I am told there have been two ; but it really
matters little whether there have been two or one, for
in either case with equal justice we can say, that the
annals of these boroughs are almost free from taint, so
far as taint can be measured by transactions connected^
with election petitions, and that, after all, is the main if
not the only source, from which we can derive our
specific information upon this subject.
' The same thing may be said, I think, with regard to
the Welsh boroughs generaUy. And there is no doubt,
when we come to examine the morbid anatomy of cor-

198 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
ruption, and the actual machinery by which its measures
are adjusted and appUed, as the last critical moments
are approaching on a day of election, that a serious
impediment to the indulgence in, or the growth of, those
practices is offered by the fact that the business of the
election has to be conducted simultaneously at a plu
rality of places. We have therefore concluded that the
grouping of these boroughs vvill constitute a real Eeform,
so far as this word expresses whatever tends to freedom
from corruption.
Within what limits these principles should be applied,
appears to be more a question of policy, than of rigid,
or at least of determinate, considerations of equity
and justice. As I have stated, in the year 1854 many
Members of the present Cabinet were parties to the
introduction of a Bill, by which it was proposed to dis
franchise nineteen boroughs altogether, and to take one
Member from between thirty and forty others. We
proposed, I think, to obtain sixty-four seats, or some
such number, by this operation in 1854. In 1860, on
the contrary, we proposed to obtain a total of only
twenty-five seats, by the mild operation of taking one
Member from a certain number of boroughs that were
in possession of the privilege of double representation.
I think it is plain that, bearing in mind the actual state
of things, and the magnitude which this subject has
assumed, especiaUy under recent circumstances, in the
consideration of the public, the last number is not one
which would by its adoption suffice for the settlement
of this question, in that reasonable and substantial sense
of the word settlement which we desire. On the other
hand, by going to the extent advocated by Lord
Aberdeen's Government, and by disturbing so many

RE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 199 .
Seats, we should, I am afraid, equaUy court the risk of
failure. Those who, like ourselves, have looked upon
the settlement ofthe Franchise as the question of Eeform
first in importance and in interest, will probably be
guided to a great extent, in their treatment of the other
branches of the subject, by considerations affecting the
probabUity of arriving at that settlement.
The number of seats we propose to obtain for the
purpose of re-distribution by the Bill I shall ask leave
to lay upon the table of the House is forty-nine ; and
these are to be obtained by a double operation. Firstly,
we purpose taking one Member from every borough which
at present returns two representatives, and which has a
population of under eight thohsand. The second part
of our proposal is, to group as many of these boroughs,
having a population of less than eight thousand, as can
be joined together with geographical convenience. It
appears to us that geographical convenience forms one
of the most important -considerations in dealing with
this subject ; although the term must of course be
understood with a certain latitude, and other considera
tions must also have a place. The consequence will be,
that in some cases the group will consist of two boroughs,
in others of three, and in others of four. The popula
tions of these groups ¦will of course differ, and according
to the difference in the population we propose assigning
to the group one or two Members, as the case may be.
"When the population amounts to less than fifteen
thousand we propose to assign one representative, and
when it exceeds that number we propose to give it two.
I may add that the smallest population in any of these
groups slightly exceeds ten thousand, and the highest is
about twenty or twenty-one thousand. The Eeturn

200 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
for which I have moved, however, will give the-
particulars of the plan, together with other matters
affecting this subject ; and these, I hope, will to-morrow
morning be placed conveniently under the view of
Members. I have now, Sir, stated upon what principles these
groups have been selected, and perhaps the House may
desfre next to learn their names. The first of the pro
posed groups comprises Woodstock, Wallingford, and
Abingdon, and we propose that these towns unitedly
shall return two Members. Bodmin, Liskeard, and
Launceston will return two ; Totnes, Dartmouth, and
Ashburton, one ; Bridport, Honiton, and Lyme Eegis,
one ; Dorchester and Wareham, one ; Maldon and
Harwich, one ; Cirencester, Tewkesbury, and Evesham,
two ; Andover and Lymington, one ; Ludlow and
Leominster, one ; Eye and Thetford, one ; Horsham,
Midhurst, Petersfield, and Arundel, two ; Chippenham,
Malmesbury, and Calne, two ; Westbury and Wells, one;
Devizes and Marlborough, one ; Eipon, Knaresborough,
and Thirsk, two ; and Eichmond and Northallerton, one.
In the case of eight among the towns containing popu
lations of less than eight thousand we have not found it
possible, having regard to various local reasons and to
geographical convenience, to form any groups. These
towns are Bridgnorth, Buckingham, Cockermouth, Hert
ford, Huntingdon, Lichfield, Marlow, and Newport.
We next. Sir, come to the question of enfranchise
ment ; and here again I may say that we have already
stated general rules which are sufficiently clear to leave
very little room for doubt as to the general course which
should be pursued. A considerable portion of the seats
Uberated by disfranchisement have in all cases been

RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL. 201
assigned to divisions of counties, and there has been
a tendency — and a just tendency, perhaps — rather to
increase , the number of seats so disposed of, in propor
tion as the total number set free by disfranchisement
has been large. But the claims of towns have also to
be considered. And these may be divided under two
heads. First, we have the claims of those large urban
populations, which have either reached such a point as
to make it expedient to divide them, or at any rate
to give them some addition to the number of their
representatives; and secondly, we must consider the
claims of those rising communities which, in a country
Uke this, with a rapid and varied development of its
industry and commerce, are continually coming into
existence, and assuming great or appreciable shape and
magnitude. Proceeding upon these principles, we pro
pose to give twenty-six seats to counties in England.
Dividing anew into two districts the southern division
of the county of Lancaster, which has a population of
six hundred and twenty-seven thousand, and which has
three representatives at present, we propose to give three
representatives to each. That leaves us twenty-three
seats out of our twenty-six. We then take, with a single
exception, every county, or division of a county, not
afready possessed of three Members, and having a
population above one hundred and fifty thousand, and
we ask you to give to each of them an additional
Member, This arrangement exhausts the twenty-six
seats, which we propose to divide among the counties;
I should not forget, however, to tell the House that we
have taken the Census of 1861 as our guide with respect
to population, in regard both to the questions of dis
franchisement, and to those of enfranchisement ; and

202 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
that, when I speak of the population of counties, I
exclude from them the population of existing Parlia
mentary boroughs, and also the estimated population
of those towns which we propose to enfranchise,
I will now. Sir, read the divisions of counties to which
we propose to give additional Members. The south-west
division of Lancashire, comprising the hundred of West
Derby, and the south-east division of Lancashire, com
prising the hundred of Salford, To them we now pro
pose to give three representatives each, and we also
propose that the following should each have three
Members: the northern division of Chester, and the
southern division of Chester ; the western division of
CornwaU ; the northern division of Derby ; the northern
division of Devon, and the southern division of Devon ;
the northern division of Durham, and the southern divi
sion of Durham ; the northern division of Essex, and
the southern division of Esssex ; the western division of
Kent, and the eastern division of Kent ; the northern divi
sion of Lancaster ; Lincolnshire, the parts of Lindsey;
the western division of Norfolk ; the eastern division of
Somerset, and the western division of Somerset; the
northern division of Stafford, and the southern division of
Stafford ; the eastern division of Surrey ; the North
Eiding of York, the northern di-vision of the West Hiding
of York, and the southern division of the West Eiding of
York, These among them dispose of the twenty-six
seats, and it will be observed that we have not included
in this list the county of Middlesex,
We have forborne to include it, because we think the
county of Middlesex ought, for the purposes we have now
in view, to be regarded rather with reference to the metro
politan representation, than to the representation of the

RE-DISTEIBUTION OP SEATS BILL, 203
rest of the country. Now, in dealing with the representa
tion of the metropolis, although we shall propose to
make, an increase of it to some extent, yet we do not
propose to increase it on the same scale, as that on which
we propose to increase the representation of more distant
places ; and upon this ground. It is obvious that the re
presentation of the metropolis, owing to its proximity to
the seat of Government, and to the closer relations of
unity subsisting generally between its Members, is on the
whole more efficient, and possesses greater weight in this
House, than a similar numerical quota of representation
from other portions of the country. We do not propose,
therefore, to give to the metropolis the extraordinarily
large number of Members, which it would be entitled to
claim if it were dealt with in respect to its population
alone. Twenty-six seats, then, having been disposed of, we
next propose to give a third Member to four boroughs
having a population that exceeds two hundred thousand ;
namely, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds,
That proposal raises our twenty-six to thirty. We then
propose to give a second Member to Salford ; which'has
but one at present, although it contains a population
exceeding one hundred thousand. It is the only town
in the whole country, which stands in that predicament.
Thus we have disposed of thirty-one seats. We next
propose to divide the borough of the Tower Hamlets,
which has the largest population of any represented
district in the country, exceeding even South Lanca
shfre by about twenty thousand. The population of
the Tower Hamlets, according to the last census, is
six hundred and forty-seven thousand; and our plan
is to separate it into two divisions, and to represent

204 PAELIAMENTAEY REPORM.
each division by two Members. That proposal is tanta
mount to creating an additional Metropolitan borough,
without altering the general standard of number for
the representation of the Metropolitan boroughs. We
also propose to take Chelsea and Kensington, which
had in 1861 a population of one hundred and thirty-
three thousand, out of the county of Middlesex, and
to make them a borough returning two Members. It
will be borne in mind that Chelsea and Kensington
embrace a district of considerable extent, with a very
rapidly growing population, so that their present popu
lation must be much beyond that which I have stated.
We also propose to give one Member to each of six
unrepresented municipal boroughs ; having respectively
either within the municipal or the intended Parlia
mentary boundary, a population of eighteen thousand
persons, and upwards. This arrangement will dispose
of six more seats. Those six boroughs are Burnley,
Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and
Dewsbury. All of these, except Hartlepool, would
preserve at present the existing municipal boundaries ;
and Hartlepool would, I believe, consist of the present
municipal borough of Hartlepool together with the
parish of Staunton. Thus far I have turned to account
forty-one seats out of the forty-nine ; and the forty-
second we propose to give to the constituency of the
University of London ; a learned body, at present very
numerous ; and one constantly and rapidly increasing. •
We have further. Sir, to consider the very important,
and, indeed, irrefragable, claim of Scotland to an
increase in the number of Members by whom it is
represented in this House. Either the basis of popula
tion alone, or the basis of population combined with

EE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 205
property as decided by taxation, will prove that it
is impossible to refuse, or to overlook, the claim of
Scotland to an augmentation of representation. We
do not, indeed, propose to give to Scotland the precise
number of seats which Scotland might, perhaps, have
been entitled to require, had we been engaged in a
complete reconstruction of our parliamentary system ;
but a moderate demand on behalf of Scotland we are
certainly not prepared to resist.
We have, however, had to consider the question
whether that demand should be satisfied by a transfer
of seats from England, or by an addition to the total
number of the House. That question is, as far as
I know, a matter purely of policy and of convenience ;
and we have concluded upon the whole, after some
consideration, that this House would probably be dis
inclined to add to the number of its Members, under
the belief^ whether well or ill founded, that, if the
proposal to increase were once assented to, it would be
difficult to resist the continual intrusion, and continual
concession, of new demands. We, therefore. Sir, pro
pose, although with some reluctance, that England,
out of its abundance, shall minister somewhat to the
poverty of Scotland ; and that the still remaining seven
seats, which form the difference between the forty-two
and the forty-nine that are supposed to be gained by
our process of disfranchisement, shall be given to
Scotland. The gTOunds of that disposal will, perhaps,
be best stated in detail by my learned Friend the Lord
Advocate; but I may mention briefly the places con
cerned. We propose to give an additional Member
to each of the counties of Ayr, Lanark, and Aberdeen ;
a third Member to the City of Glasgow; a third

206 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
Member to the City of Edinburgh ; a second Member to
the town of Dundee ; and one Member to the Scotch
Universities. These eminent and learned bodies, as
weU as the University of London, are already possessed
of a very large constituency, which, as I hope, will
continue to increase from year to year.
That, I think, disposes of all I have to say with
respect to the re-distribution of Seats ; unless, indeed,
I add a word on the subject of Ireland, which appears
to us to stand entirely on its own separate ground.
If we compare the present population of Ireland with
the share which it possesses of the entire representation,
it becomes quite clear that that island, with its hundred
and five representatives, is hardly in a position to
make any new claim, while, on the other hand,
there is clearly no necessity to make any claim
against it.
Neither do we think it necessary to make any pro
position with respect to Wales. The general arrange
ment of the Welsh boroughs, and the working of that
arrangement, are satisfactory, and the very few marked
inequalities that subsist there have not appeared
sufficient to warrant, or at least to require, any dis
turbance of the existing arrangements.
I now come to the question of boundaries ; and, first
of all, I will advert, not in terms of censure, but simply
for the purpose of discussion, to the plan which was
proposed in 1859. The question of boundaries is
manifestly one capable of being extended to a vast
importance. In point of fact, under the terms adopted
in the BiU of 1859, it might have assumed the whole of
that vast importance ; for, in the fifty-seventh clause
of that BiU, it was stated that, wherever the population

RE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 207
properly belonging to a Parliamentary borough ex
tended beyond the Parliamentary limits thereof, the
boundaries of that borough should be so enlarged as
to comprise every part of the population "properly"
(I think I use the language of the BiU) or "sub
stantially " forming part of such borough. And it was
further enacted, that the Inclosure Commissioners
should appoint Assistant Commissioners, who should
visit every borough in England and Wales for the
purpose of examining the boundaries, and who should
report to the Secretary of State wherever any enlarge
ment of boundaries might be in their judgment necessary,
in order to include within the area thereof the popula
tion "properly" belonging to such boroughs respec
tively. Now, the difficulty which occurs to us, and which
appears almost, if not whoUy, insurmountable, is this:
that a general enactment of that kind, creating an
authority to visit every borough in England and Wales,
would supply no adequate guide, by means of such
words as I have cited, to enable any persons appointed
for the purpose to perceive the design of Parliament,
and to interpret the commission under which they were
to act. Again, there is another point which cannot be
excluded from consideration. In England we have
a great many boroughs. Parliamentary boroughs, which
have already been extended not only up to, but far
beyond, thefr natural Umits. It must never be forgotten,
in considering the apparent disparity between the re
presentation of boroughs and that of counties, with
reference to their population, that, quite apart from
the important circumstance that many smaU boroughs
are in point of fact merely head-quarters of the rural

208 PARLIAMENTARY REFORAL
districts to which they belong, a large number of small
boroughs are under a great, sometimes even a dominant,
influence from purely agricultural and farming districts,
which have at previous periods, and mainly at the
great epoch of the Eeform Act, been attached to them.
If, then, we are to adopt this as a principle, that the
Umits of the Parliamentary borough are in all cases
to be the limits of the town, and if, accordingly, we
are to have a general re-consideration of the boundaries
of boroughs on the principle of including everything
that substantially belongs to them, how are we to reply
to the argument that we ought to re-consider these
boundaries with a view to abridgment, in all instances
where by an artiflcial arrangement they now include,
as they do in many, perhaps in scores of cases, rural
districts of the kind I have described? Now, Sir, we
are not willing to set in motion any such universal
disturbance of the boundaries as they exist at this
present time. For if we are to have, by our proposed
legislation, a consideration of the question of the boun
daries of towns, founded upon principles as broad as
those which were included in the BiU of 1859, it seems
impossible to avoid the conclusion that in equity a
double process will be rendered necessary, a process
of curtailing as well as of extending, while we think
that upon such a process it is by no means desirable to
enter. But there is another great difficulty; how in the
world would it be possible for any set of Commissioners
to determine by their own wit what extent of area
of population "properly" belongs, or "substantially"
belongs, to these boroughs? If we look at the large
towns of the country, we see them in a state of general

EE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 209
and somewhat rapid extension ; but that extension
is varied in its forms. There is one kind of extension
which is locally continuous, and which includes all the
various descriptions of building usuaUy composing a
town ; the extension of buUdings for purposes of busi
ness ; along with that, an extension of shops ; and also
an extension of dwellings for the labouring population.
But there is yet another movement of enlargement,
entirely distinct from such an enlargement as I have
last mentioned; and such I may presume roughly to
call a residential extension, effected by or for the
wealthier inhabitants of the borough, who, availing
themselves of the facUities of locomotion now commonly
afforded, seek to enjoy the advantages of something
like a semi-rural residence, and who are loosely scat
tering the outskirts of many boroughs far and wide
through their vicinities. But, it would be, I think,
very difficult indeed, and, indeed, without much more
precise direction absolutely impossible, for any body
of Commissioners to undertake to deal with extensions
of that class. Where the extension is closely and
perfectly, continuous I grant it might, perhaps, be done.
Where, however, the extension is not thus continuous,
I think, flrst of all, the task would be in itself im
mensely difficult ; and in the second place I think it
would probably be found to become impracticable, from
the mixture of political motives and objects, which —
though they might not bias the minds of the gentle
men Parliament might appoint for this purpose — would
necessarily bias our minds, as the representatives of the
counties and the towns, when we came to watch the
re-adjustment of these boundaries, and to scrutinize
the local re-distribution of power in each of the portions

210 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
of the country, with which the Commissioners would
have to deal.
Therefore, Sir, we have sought for some other method
of proceeding, less extensive, but, as we think, more
natural and spontaneous, and unquestionably much more
safe. I will state in detail the whole of what we now
propose to the House. In the first place, we propose
two enactments ; one of a positive and limited cha-'
racter, and another of a more general but a prospective
character. With regard to provisions of a positive cha
racter, although it is not possible to settle any such
boundaries by means of a Bill of this nature, inasmuch
as a consideration of them, if it were to be generally
undertaken, would require too much time, together with
information which we do not at present sufficiently
possess, yet such of the points as we can satisfactorUy
settle and dispose of, we ask the House at once to dis
pose of by positive enactment. These cases of direct
enactment would, however, only extend to a particular
class of places. There are certain places, although we
do not know that they are numerous, where the muni
cipal boundaries appear to include certain districts not
included in the Parliamentary bounds. Wherever that
happens, that we think is a sufficient warrant for our
assuming that the natural limits of the town include
something that is not included within the Parliamentary
boundary ; and therefore we propose a general provision
to the effect that wherever the municipal boundary
includes any area that is not now within the Parlia
mentary boundary, the Parliamentary boundary is to be
so far enlarged as to include that area. The other posi
tive enactment is of a simUar and obvious character.
It is that the Commissioners of Inclosures shall consider

RE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 211
and arrange, subject to the approval of Parliament, both
the boundaries of all the newly-enfranchised towns, and
also the proper boundary to be fixed between the two
proposed sections of the Tower Hamlets. In the mean
time, provisional boundaries are named in the BiU;
foUowing, I think, in that respect, the precedent of the
Eeform Act.
Next I come to the prospective and more comprehen
sive question; and the conclusion at which we have
arrived is this. In order to avoid all feuds and dif
ferences, from the mixture of considerations of practical
convenience with considerations of political power, the
best course we think will be, to adopt a rule for the
future which will tend to sever and disentangle these
confiicting motives. We propose that ParUamentary
boundaries shall prospectively follow the local line ;
that is to say, the line, whatever it may be, which local
considerations may cause, or recommend, to be adopted.
In the growth of our towns, there is a progressive ten
dency to the enlargement of boundaries ; and there is a
law already, by which in certain cases it is provided for.
The question of municipal extensions has lately been
before the House. My right honourable Friend the
Secretary for the Home Department, in answer to an
inquiry in this House a few nights ago, stated his inten
tion to introduce a measure for the purpose of facUitating
and assisting that process ; and the principle of the
measure I will state to the House.
I ought ffrst, however, to remind the House that at
present our Parliamentary boroughs are under three
descriptions of local governments. Most of them are
municipal boroughs, with a regular municipality ; some
are boroughs which have been incorporated under the
p 2

212 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
Local Government Act ; and others are boroughs which
have been incorporated under some special local Act of
their own, for the improvement of the particular town.
I, however, draw no essential distinction between them.
In all three classes of cases there is a local community,
and there is a local authority. And where towns con
tinuously extend themselves, it is commonly the interest
of the inhabitants of the outlying portion, for the pur
poses of police, and for other purposes of self-government,
to seek to be included in the municipal borough, or town
community, however it may be defined. The principle
of the Bill of my right honourable Friend (Sir George
Grey) will be as follows. Wherever the inhabitants,
forming the local community, shall address Her Majesty,
or address the Secretary of State, proposing that certain
districts shall be added to the town, and at the same
time the inhabitants of those districts so to be added
shall express their wiUingness to be joined to the town,
there shall be a power vested in Her Majesty in Council
to sanction the union, subject, however, to the approval
of Parliament ; and the provision which we shall intro
duce into this Bill is that, wherever any such enlarge
ments shall take place, the Parliamentary borough shall
follow the enlargement made for local purposes. In
this way we think we shall avoid the mixture of political
controversy with a question which is properly a*local
one. A local community, whatever it is, should be
represented ; and we think the best and safest definition
of a local community will be obtained by giving facilities
.to the inhabitants for fixing its Umits from time to time,
as considerations relating to their own practical conve
nience may dictate and require. That, Sir, briefiy
described, is the plan which we propose to adopt with

EE-DISTEIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 213
reference to boundaries, and which will be found to be
provided for in clauses contained in the Bill I now ask
to lay on the table ; a BUI which I hope will by to-
morro.w morning be in the hands of Members.
I next, and lastly, come to the question of procedm-e
with reference to these BiUs, on which I propose to say
a very few words. I assume that leave wUl be given
for the introduction of this Bill, and also of the two
other Bills, leave for the introduction of which will be
asked this evening by my honourable and learned Friend
the Lord-Advocate, and by my right honourable Friend
the Chief Secretary for Ireland, respectively. We shall
then have, in fact, on the table of Parliament four Bills
relating to the representation of the people; but the
question of procedure, on which so much interest has
been felt, is a question which mainly relates to the two
measures that affect respectively the Franchise and the
re-distribution of Seats. And what I have to say will be
confined entirely to these two Bills. Now, looking back
to the terms of the Amendment which we recently
debated during a period so protracted,' I find that those
terms have been at this period literally complied with.
The wish expressed in it was, that the whole scheme of
the Government, which was interpreted by common con
sent to signify the measures dealing with the re-distribu
tion of Seats and the boundaries of boroughs, together
with the provisions relating to the Franchise, should be
laid before Parliament at the time when it should
be asked to proceed with the Franchise Bill. But
although this was all which was asked by the Amend
ment itself, more, undoubtedly, was asked in the debate.
And I cannot, perhaps, explain myself more correctly
than by referring to the terms used by the noble Lord

214 PAELIAMENTAEY REPORM.
the Member for King's Lynn. The noble Lord used the
word " guarantee ;" and he said something like this :
that he wanted some guarantee, to make sure that the
two subjects of the Franchise and the re-distribution of
Seats should remain in the hands of one and the same
Parliament. That is the end which the House appears
to have in view, and I may add that it has been an end
invariably in our contemplation. We have never felt
the same degree of jealousy, or the same amount of
apprehension of inconvenience with regard to the pos
sible or casual separation of the two objects, even though
that separation should in th'e extremest case chance to
be attended with an intervening dissolution, which was
expressed by the noble Lord and by others ; but we
have always thought and said that it was convenient,
advantageous, and desirable that these two questions
should be dealt with by the same Parliament.
The modes of attaining that end have been variously
suggested. My right honourable Friend the Member
for Gateshead suggested the addition of something in
the nature of a suspending clause to the Franchise Bill ;
and my honourable Friend the Member for Wick sug
gested that these two BiUs, the Franchise and the Seats
Bills, should proceed pari passu, meaning, I presume,
that the corresponding stages of each BiU should be
taken in succession, one at a time. But then, if our
minds are worked up to a certain high pitch of jealousy,
even that arrangement does not meet the case, inasmuch
as we cannot read two Bills a third time at one and the
same moment. The Speaker must put the Question, on
that as on every other stage, with regard to one of them
before it is put for the other ; and hence there is, at any
rate, an abstract possibility ofthe separation of these two

RE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 215
measures, which it is desired to treat as in the nature of
Siamese twins. Another proposal — 1 do not remember
that it was made in the late debate, but it has been sug
gested at various times — is the incorporation of the two
Bills into one and the same measure. That, no doubt,
would perfectly secure the simultaneous treatment of
the two subjects ; and there is but one point of view in
which we must continue to feel difficulty or hesitation
as to such a combination. However, that point of view
is under the actual circumstances one of much import
ance. When this measure was introduced, we did not
feel ourselves in a condition to say to the House of Com
mons, " We now ask you to amend the representation
of the people, and to make whatever sacrifices of time or
personal convenience may be necessary for any extraor
dinary prolongation of ihe Session with a view to the
complete treatment of the measure." But, at a subse
quent stage of ouv discussion, I did state to the House
that we had no objection whatever to go on contempora
neously or successively with these subjects, provided it
were understood that they were not to be dropped on the
score of mere want of time, but that we were' to persevere,
and to labour at the oar, until they should have been
disposed of. That was the correct meaning of the state
ment, in which I adverted to the question of an autumn
sitting. An autumn sitting does not necessarily mean
an autumn Session ; because, as the House is aware,
there is another method of proceeding besides Proroga
tion, which has on rare occasions been adopted, and
which might be adopted again, so as to prevent the
dropping for the year of a weighty measure under con
sideration ; namely, a lengthened adjournment of the
House in July or August, until the month of September

216 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
or October, when the remainder of the work might be
performed. [Laughter and cries of " Oh, oh !"] It is
quite evident from the way that observation has been
received that some honourable Gentlemen at least are
not exceedingly anxious about the combination of the
two Bills. What, however, I wish to do is to describe
simply, frankly, and clearly to the House the position of
the Government. What the Govemment object to is,
the loss of the year. We are not willing to be parties
to the loss of the year by the postponement of the sub
ject. We may have been right or we may have been
wrong, in thinking it wise to bring forward this subject
in the present year. We believe that we were right.
But I think it must be obvious that, having proposed it,
we ought not to recede from it. Our intention is to per
severe with what we have proposed. If it be the desire,
the general desire, of the House to adopt any method —
and other methods may be suggested besides those that
I have named — of attaining the object which the noble
Lord has in view — namely, a guarantee that these
questions shall not be separated, we are perfectly ready
to consider of and adopt that method, subject only to
the condition that we shall go forward, and shall not
throw over the subject, I do not say for consideration,
it would be not even for recommencement, but for the
chance of recommencement, in another year.
Looking to what had happened at the period of the
Eeform Act, and taking our measures of time from that
period, I did state on a former night that we had come
to the conclusion that it would be impossible to dispose
in a satisfactory manner of the subject of re-distribution
of Seats within the limits of the Session. But the House
must be aware of the difficulties under which any com-

RE-DISTRIBUTION OP SEATS BILL. 217
putation of that kind is formed. And without doubt, if
there be a disposition to agree upon the re- distribution
of Seats, there is no intrinsic difficulty in the matter, for
there is nothing in the question itself of a nature abso
lutely to require, though there is much to admit of,
prolonged discussion. [Laughter. ] I do not know what
excites the humour of my honourable Friends, I think
that a true and a very plain statement. On the other
hand, if there be a disposition to treat the re-distribution
of Seats as matter of controversy and to stickle upon
every topic as it arises, the points that may be urged,
the varieties of arrangements that may be suggested, are
so numerous, as possibly to create a very large demand
indeed upon the time of Parliament. And it was in the
expectation that there probably would be such a large
demand upon the time of Parliament, that I said we had
come to the conclusion, that we should not be able to dis
pose ofthe whole subject during the Session. But on that
matter we place ourselves in the hands of the House.
We shall be very glad, if it be the pleasure of the
House, to proceed with greater dispatch than we were,
or are, sanguine enough to anticipate ; it would be in our
opinion all the better for us, and all the better for the
country. Now let us consider what is required by the
objectors and by us respectively. The point urged on
us is that the subjects should not be separated, but that
one should securely and certainly follow in the train of
the other. The point we have to urge is, that the year
should not be lost. And therefore, if it be proposed to
combine the subjects, whether by consolidation ofthe
two Bills into one, or by any other method less stringent
but stiU satisfactory to the House, we shall give a wiUing
consideration to the proposal, if only it be understood

218 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
that we adhere to our original proposition, and that we
have no intention to advise the prorogation of Parliament
until the whole subject — meaning by the whole subject
nothing less than the question of the Franchise and the
question of the re-distribution of Seats— shall have been
disposed of by the judgment of the House.
What I have said I think and hope will convey in a
clear manner the general position which the Govern
ment desire it to be understood that they occupy. At
the present moment I will add nothing specific with
respect to any point of the procedure upon this BUI for
the re-distribution of Seats. Our impression is, that
Members of this House have been -^'aiting until to-day
to learn the character and substance of the Bill, and
that, on being apprised of its character and substance,
that they will naturally and reasonably proceed to form
a final judgment as to the question of procedure. I have
said our desire is not to quarrel with any portion of
the House which is really agreed with us as to the end
in view, about any question of mere procedure. If we
have had debates involving matter of warmth and deep
political interest, the whole of those debates I put out of
view and memory, for the present purpose ; and I assume
that we are met now with a view to the prosecution of
this Bill, and of the subject, with all the d ispatch com
patible with its due consideration. There is no element,
as I hope the House will see, of reproach or controversy
in the declaration that I now make. We are ready
frankly to enter into such arrangements as wUl give the
House the best security for retaining in its own hands
the power of dealing with the whole subject ; our only
and I think legitimate desire being, that we may not lose
the time and labour that have been already spent, and

EE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL. 219
that we may not be forced to trust the matter so long
agitated, and now overripe for settlement, to chance, to
the unopened future, to the accidents of another Session,
or of the interval before it arrives. I have only to add
that, in saying Her Majesty's Government would not
wish to advise a prorogation until the whole matter has
been disposed of, if it be the desfre of the House to com
bine the two BiUs into one, of course I must be under
stood as reserving, with respect to prorogation, all causes
of public policy or exigency, arising aliunde, for any
exercise of any Eoyal Prerogative. I mean that, in the
absence of such causes, in the usual course of business,
prorogation ought not, according to our view, to be
advised, until this subject shall have been disposed of.
In some manner or other, I cannot but entertain the
hope that some method of proceeding with this question
in a manner enabling us to arrive at a definite issue wiU
be attained. I am sure it will be eminently satisfactory
to the country that, having addressed ourselves to a
settlement of a question of such vast importance, we
should treat it with that earnestness of purpose, which
on every account it demands at our hands.
Sfr, I move for leave to introduce a BUI to make pro
vision for the Ee-distribution of Seats.

220 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

CAPTAIN HAYTEE'S AMENDMENT.
THE CHANCELLOE of the EXCHEQUEE:
Mr. Speaker, the right honourable Gentleman the
Member for the University of Dublin complained, I
think, that there was no reality in this debate. Well,
Sir, I know not if that be so ; but if it be, I must say
that it is not our fault. Every step we have taken, both
since and before the period when our Franchise Bfll
was introduced to the House, has been a real step, and
has been grounded upon the best consideration we could
give to the actual circumstances of the case.
Now, let me briefly remind the House of what has
taken place. In the first place it has been objected
that we introduced a single, not a compound or com
plete. Bill ; and in the second place it has been ob
jected, that we did not introduce it till the 12th of
March. With respect to the question of the single Bill, I only
notice it because the honourable and learned Member
for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), in his able speech on
Friday night, inadvertently stated that the Government
had admitted they were in error in their attempt to
separate the two parts of the subject. Sir, the Govern
ment have never made any such admission, and have
never entertained any such belief. I need not now say
more, but so much it was requisite to say.
. With regard to the introduction of the Bill on the
12th of March, I must own I have felt it somewhat

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 221
difficult to reconcile the two opinions expressed by the
right honourable Baronet the Member for Droitwich
(Sir John Pakington) ; who, with a curious eagerness, in
the very same speech both found fault with us for not
having postponed the measure altogether, with a view
to more adequate consideration qf the subject, until the
year 1867, and then only a few minutes afterwards
severely blamed us for not having introduced it, if we
were to introduce it all, at the very commencement of
the present Session. Now, if the right honourable
Gentleman finds fault, as he did, with the measure as
being immature — if he has complained of its hasty pre
paration when we had expended all the time till March
in considering and preparing the measure, what would
he have said of it if we had introduced it the first week
in February ? But, in point of fact, this question of the
12th of March has been made more of than it deserves.
It was not in our power to have introduced the Bill, if
we had been perfectly prepared with it, within the first
few weeks of the Session. Have we forgotten the ener
getic and ardent appeals to us from the benches opposite
to postpone Jamaica, to postpone every public question,
to postpone Eeform among the rest, until we had com
pleted our legislation with reference to the Cattle
plague ? But I venture to say that, if. the measure had
been introduced on the earliest available day of the
Session, it would have made little or no sensible differ
ence in the position in which it now stands ; because we
were enabled, by its postponement till the 12th of
March, to make such progTess in the essential business
of the year, connected with the annual supplies required
for the service of the country, as would enable us — I say
it without fear of contradiction — to devote a great por-:

222 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
tion of the Session to the consideration of Eeform ; I
believe we have not lost in reality so much as a week ;
and whatever may be urged on this subject, I do not
feel that the circumstances of the introduction of the
BiU on the 12th of March wiU in any degree justify us
in receding from any position which we have taken up
with respect to the progress of the question.
It has been said repeatedly in these debates, and it
has been repeated in the discussion to-night, that we
have pursued the evil course of listening to men of
extreme opinions, and have not consulted either with
the more moderate portion of our supporters, or with
our opponents.
Now, Sir, in regard to consultation with opponents,
every one should know that, on questions of political
controversy, it may, as a general rule, be said to be
practically impossible. Speaking of the matter by way
of general rule, there would be no more dangerous prac
tice. For what it would result in would be this ; under
the name and pretext of conciliation, it would end in a
series of shabby attempts by Governments to devolve
responsibility on those to whom it does not properly
belong. But, Sir, did we not practicaUy consult, that is,
did we not in every way endeavour to anticipate and to
meet, the wishes even of opponents ? Did we not prac
ticaUy endeavour to conciliate them in the actual pro
visions of our measure ? In framing a Eeform Bill, was
not the natural starting-point for this Government the
measure of 1860? That Bill was introduced into the
House with the express sanction of Lord Palmerston,
whose Conservative tendencies are sometimes contrasted
by speakers opposite with our dangerous leanings ; and
yet, did we not alter our Bill in respect to the counties

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 223
frora a ten-pound franchise, which had the double sanc
tion of Lord Palmerston and of the Government of
Lord Derby, to a fourteen-pound Franchise; and in
respect to the borough franchise, did we not alter the
figure six pounds to the figure seven pounds, cutting off
the very large section of persons whom the figure six
pounds would have enfranchised? My noble Friend
(Lord Grosvenor) and any one else are at perfect liberty,
if they so choose, to say these great concessions are not
sufficient to satisfy them. But, at least, I am entitled
to refer to facts like these as indicating most unequivo
cally the anxiety of the Government to anticipate, as
far as we could, the wishes and feelings that might be
entertained in the various quarters of the House, and to
make our mission with respect to Eeform a reconcUing
mission. Well, the course we took was to bring in a single
measure on the subject of the Franchise. We had been
warned, before the measure appeared, that in some
quarters our plan was disapproved; and after it made
its appearance, it seemed unsatisfactory to a consider
able portion of the House. We have more recently
been censured for giving way, and for not adhering to
our original decision to introduce and prosecute steadily
the subject of the Franchise without allowing, so far as
depended upon us, the mixture of that subject with any
other question. Undoubtedly we did make concessions ;
two very important concessions. The first of them was
this. As we saw that suspicion was entertained with
respect to our intentions, as it appeared to be believed
that some plot on our part was connected with the
measure to be introduced for the re-distribution of SeatSj
we were bound, however gross we might deem the in-

224 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. ,
justice done us, to relieve ourselves from that suspicion,
and to lay a Bill for the re-distribution of Seats on the
table. We did it not willingly ; yet we endeavoured not
ungraciously to accede to the desire expressed. We did
not do it willingly, because it was impossible not to fore
see, as my honourable Friend the Member for Montrose
has lately observed, that the difficulties of making pro
gress with the first Bill would be increased, from the
moment that the second BiU was produced. But we
saw it was no more or less than a question between
making progress on those terms of additional difficulty
and discouragement, or, on the other hand, breaking at
once with the majority of the House on the subject of
Eeform. I believe we took the more prudent course ; but,
at any rate, we took a conciliatory course, in departing
from our original intention, while we manifestly exposed
ourselves to the not unreasonable taunts of the right
honourable Gentleman the leader of the Opposition in
laying that Bill on the table. The immediate result,
however, undoubtedly was, that we were enabled to
surmount the difficulty and danger of the formidable
Motion of the noble Lord (Grosvenor) behind me. So
far, we had our reward. But then sprung up a new
demand, that the two BiUs should be imited. Again, it
was impossible for us to overlook the fact that, by the
union of these two Bills, we should load the measure so
as greatly to increase the difficulty of passing it. But
what was the alternative ? Once more the only alterna
tive was, rupture with a coiisiderable majority of this
House. Again, therefore, we gave way to the prevalent
feeling ; we have been censured for doing so ; but what
ever else it indicates, at least the fact indicates our
intention to conciliate. The reason why I refer thus

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 225
carefully and in detail to facts which I think prove this
disposition to concede is, because I feel that much hangs
upon the issue of this controversy; and that we all,
whether we belong to the Government or the Opposi
tion, shall have a strict account to render for the success
or non-success of this new attempt to settle the question
of our Parliamentary representation. {A laugh.) If
there be, as there seems to be, some one single Gentle
man in the House, who can indicate by his laughter
a dissent from the proposition, it only proves more
pointedly the serious nature of the juncture at which we
have arrived, and the need that some at least even
among the representatives of the people should open
their eyes to perceive material facts, which they have
not yet been enabled to discern.
I must allow that it was a discouraging circumstance
when, the very moment after, with our assent, the two
Bills had been united, a majority of this House deter
mined to import into a measure already aiming at the
settlement of the Franchise and for the re-distribution of
Seats provisions relating to the enormously important,
and not less critical and difficult, subject of corrupt
practices at elections. This was done in spite of our
remonstrance ; in opposition to all precedent ; in opposi
tion, I must add, to all authority. One authority I will
quote. It ought to have had weight with those who
gave the vote that I now lament. It is that of a peer
of great eminence — Lord Derby — who, speaking on the
occasion of the discussion on Eeform, under the Govern
ment of Lord Aberdeen, said —
" I trust that your Lordships will never consent to
couple together as parts of one system, or belonging
to the same system, two questions which are essentiaUy

226 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
different froni each other, however they may bear upon
your electoral system — I mean measures for the pur
pose of preventing corruption and bribeiy at elections,
and. measures for the alteration of constituencies and
the extension of the ft-anchise,"
The House knows the success that we met with, in
the endeavour to, give effect to Lord Derby's earnest
appeal. And then, in answer to these various, these perhaps
crude but certainly well-intended efforts in the way of
conciliation, we have had next to confront the Amend
ment of my honourable and gallant Friend (Captain
Hayter), with respect to which the right honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) now complains that there is
no reality in the debate. However, there appeared to
be at the period when the motion was made consider
able reality. There was my honourable and gallant
Friend behind me ; there was a well-compacted phalanx
in our front ; there were all the indications, nay, there
were more than aU the usual indications, of deliberate
concert between those in front of us, and some few of
the Gentlemen sitting in our rear. Because, when the
honourable and gallant Gentleman ended his speech by
moving an Amendment quite different frona, and I think
much worse than, the motion of which he had given
notice, and when casually, with one or two of my col
leagues near me, I took notice of the difference as you.
Sir, were reading the Motion from the chair, the right
honourable Gentleman (Mr, Disraeli) immediately, from
an explanatory observation which he passed across the
House, indicated that he was already privy to the va
riations of form, through which this Motion had passed,
[Mr. Disraeli : No !] The right honourable Gentle-

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 227
man says it is not so. Then, by some divining faculty
he attained, at any rate, to that knowledge, for he in
troduced some words " in explanation of the difference
between the two forms of the Motion. However, I need
dweU no longer on the incident, for my honourable and
gallant Friend, in I must say the most ingenuous and
fairest manner, for which he is entitled to all respect,
distinctly announced that it was an Amendment which
he moved not only in concert with some gentlemen
sitting on this side of the House, but in concert with
others, whom he believed to represent the party oppo
site. That is the state of things at which we have
an-ived; and, therefore, if reality has been expelled
from the debate, it has not been by any proceeding of
ours. It is even a little hard upon men who have been
sitting here in the nervous condition that generally
befals those who believe they are arraigned upon a
matter of Ufe and death — it is a little hard, when one,
probably numbered among the arch-designers against
us, thinks fit to come and charge us with the want of
reality in the debate, when, in point of fact, that want
of reahty only depends upon the breaking down, better
known, however, perhaps to him than to us, of certain
combinations, of which whatever else we may say or
think, they appeared to be real and certain enough.
Now, with regard to the speech of my honourable
and gaUant Friend (Captain Hayter), and with respect
to some other speeches that have proceeded from Mem
bers representing the boroughs grouped in the Bill for
re-distribution of Seats, I make no complaint at all of
those speeches. I make no complaint of my honourable
and gallant Friend for his reference to the letter and
the authority of Sir William Hayter. No one, that was
Q 2

228 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
ever brought into relation with Sir William Hayter,
can hear otherwise than with pleasure the mention of
his name ; and on this occasion in particular we do not
at all shrink from recurrence to the authority of Sir
WiUiam Hayter, because, if he now objects to the union
between WeUs and another town, and if the distin
guished Baronet exercises his great paternal influence
to induce the honourable and gallant Gentleman, who
now represents that cathedral city, to object to our
system of grouping, it need never be forgotten that
there is another alternative. I should not have sup
posed, indeed, that it would have been more agreeable
to my honourable and gallant Friend ; but still I see
that in everything he follows his father's footsteps ; and,
therefore, I do not fear to mention that Sir William
Hayter was the attached, faithful, and able Secretary
to the Treasury in the year 1854, when a Eeform BUI
was introduced, to which I for one was a party, by the
Government to which Sir William Hayter belonged, and
which contained a schedule that provided for, not indeed
the grouping, but the disfranchisement of WeUs. It is
perfectly open, therefore, to my honourable and gallant
Friend at once to satisfy all the instincts of filial affec
tion, and likewise to perform his duty to his party and
his country, if he thinks fit, by suggesting that other
and sharper alternative.
However, Sir, speaking generally, I do not think we
ought to criticise too severely the votes or expressions
of those who may be called grouped Members ; but on
the contrary, we should consider whether, in any manner
compatible with the demands of justice to the nation at
large, we can either meet their views, or at any rate
aUeviate their embarrassments. Their position, rela^

CAPTAIN HAYTEE'S AMENDMENT. 229
tively to the towns they represent, on an occasion of
this kind, is one which must be admitted on all sides to
be one of grave and serious difficulty. It reminds me
of a remarkable and almost historical passage in a great
speech of Lord Brougham, deUvered in defence of Queen
Caroline, In that passage he says —
"An advocate, by the great duty which he owes his
client, knows in the discharge of that office but one
person in the world — that client and none other. To
save that client by all expedient means, he must not
regard the alarm, the suffering, the torment, the de
struction which he may bring upon any other. In
separating even the duties of a patriot from those of
an advocate, and casting them off to the winds, he must
go on, reckless of the consequences, if his fate should
be to involve his country in confusion for his client's
protection," And so I find no fault with my honourable and
gallant Friend if he was willing not only to displace the
Government, which is a small matter, but even to arrest
the course of this national question, and to plunge us
once more into political confusion, for the sake of saving
the representation of the ancient, independent, and
venerable city of Wells.
Whether- the plan of grouping which we propose is
a wise one, I shall presently inquire ; but I cannot but
think that gentlemen, who are in the position of my
honourable and gallant Friend, would do well to repre
sent to themselves this one consideration : that the
system of grouping adopted by the Government, even
if it were chargeable with all the faults which have been
so freely imputed to it, was at least not one adopted ih
a spirit of hostility to those small boroughs. It was

230 . PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
intended to mitigate the severity of a stroke, which
the public good required they should receive, but which
might not unnaturally seem harsh enough in many cases
to their friends. And it would perhaps be well for those
concerned to bear in mind, that the ejectment of that
system of grouping from the provisions of the Govern
ment BiU might result in a less favourable, and not
in a more favourable, mode of treatment for those
boroughs, I beg now. Sir, for one moment to notice a charge
which has run all along the thread of the debate on the
opposite side of the House — namely, the charge of pre
cipitancy in the preparation of the BiU for the re-dis
tribution of seats. Do not let it again be said, as it has
been said from time to time, " Oh ! it could not but be
a crude and precipitate affair, because her Majesty's
Government only took twelve days to prepare it,"
When the honourable and learned Member for BeUast
mentioned something of the kind, I made a sign of
dissent, and he thereupon very liberally enlarged the
time to eighteen or twenty-four days, which is, at all
events, better than twelve. But I am not satisfied with
this concession. It was not a very short time, that was
allowed for the preparation of the Bill, Unless I am
very much mistaken, the official promise for the intro
duction of the Bill was given on the 23rd of March, and
the Bill was introduced on the 7th of May ; that was a
term of at least forty-five days, or nearly four times the
period which the honourable and learned Gentleman at
first allowed us, and neaily twice the period of which
the honourable and learned Gentleman, after all his
obliging re-consideration, could give us the benefit. And
here I must observe that in the Cabinet there were many

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 231
ministers, who had been concerned in previously con
structing either two or three BiUs which contained a
system for the re-distribution of Seats ; and really. Sir,
upon the whole, if that Cabinet had not been able in forty-
five days to prepare a BUI of this nature, depend on it
the fault would have lain deeper than in the mere want
of time. It is the truth that the Bill has been delibe
rately prepared, and deUberately laid on the table.
With regard to the general charge that anomalies
are created by this Bill, I deny that it creates a single
anomaly in the true and proper sense of the word, I
ask of those who make the charge. Did the Eeform Act
create anomalies, or not, by disfranchisement and re
distribution of Seats ? If you choose to say that the
man who destroys a gross anomaly, and substitutes a
much milder form of the very same thing, creates an
anomaly, to that charge we are open ; and to that
charge the Eeform Act was open. The Eeform Act
enfranchised Frome with one Member, while it left
close by the city of Wells, having less than half of its
population, with two. Members, Did the Eeform Act
on that account create an anomaly ? It is an abuse of
terms to say so. The Eeform Act mitigated anomaUes,
diminished their range, cut off the extremes and ex
travagances of those anomalies, and confined them
within contracted limits ; and though to some extent
it of necessity reproduced them, it was only in a con
tracted and in a very far from natural sense, that it
could be said that even a single anomaly was in these
respects created by the Eeform Act,
So much for matters bearing generally on the arg-u
ment as to anomaly; and now let me refer to what
has passed in the debate. Of course, it is necessary for

232 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
me to advert to the speech deUvered by my right hon^
ourable Friend the Member for Calne : but as far as re
gards the general strain of his reasoning, I do not think
there was anything in it to call for special notice from
me. That is my opinion ; for, as far as regards those
parts which specially pointed to the Bill, I do not know
of anything, except indeed the spirit of exaggeration
with which it was delivered, Avhich distinguished his
arguments from the same arguments used by other
honourable Gentlemen on the opposite benches. But I
must protest against one portion of the speech of my
right honourable Friend, and that is the portion in
which he undertook to treat largely of the honour of
the Government. He gave his view of the Government
as composed of persons who needed not be particular,
and who were not in a condition indeed to be fastidious,
on such a subject ; and he spoke, I think, with marked
emphasis on the word, of "a truckle bed" in which
they were to lie. I frankly state that, in my opinion,
all that portion of his speech was one gross and con
tinued error both of taste and judgment. Because, Sir,
in these matters we must look, not only at the merits
of the sermon, but at the individuality of the preacher ;
and I want to know what charge is to be made against
the Government on this score which cannot be made, at
the very least, as easily against my right honourable
Friend ? In that " truckle bed " there may be a bed
fellow ; and the right honourable Gentleman would
learn with some surprise who that bedfellow might be.
No doubt my right honourable Friend thinks he can
defend himself; and so we think we can defend our
selves ; but it is evidently just as well that there should
be a truce between us on this particular part of the

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 233
question. If there is a charge against us on this subject,
I do not object to its being urged ; but let it be urged
from the proper quarter. The right honourable Gentle
man the Member for Droitwich, on the same evening,
had charged us, in no unbecoming terms, with a long
slumber on this question. Those who were connected
with the Government of Lord Derby are entitled to
challenge the conduct of the present Government with
respect to Eeform. But what is the charge? It is
this, that whUe we are now acting on our convictions,
we, for a long time, with a view to our own conveni
ence, allowed our convictions to remain at rest. I would,
then, ask my right honourable Friend the Member for
Calne whether it is only to us that that charge applies,
and whether it would not be better for him to avoid for
the future the dangerous ground on which he has been
bold enough to tread ?
Again, Sir, I was astonished at the feat which my
right honourable Friend performed in that speech. A
Bill had been laid on the table for the re-distribution
of Seats, which may be briefly and simply described as
a Bill for cutting off, in round numbers, half a hundred
seats from the small boroughs, and for distributing those
seats among the great, and populous, and principally the
growing communities of the country. My right honour
able Friend, however, bitterly complained of what he
called the provocation which had been offered him.
This it seems consisted in our not having explained
sufficiently the principle of this BUI. He declared that
when it was produced he could not understand it ; that
he endeavoured to puzzle its principle out for himself,
and that the week which elapsed between its introduc
tion and the second reading was a great deal too short

234 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
a time to enable him to an-ive at a knowledge of what
it was that the Bill could reaUy mean. (Mr. Lowe :
To arrive at a knowledge of its principle.) I am
obliged to my right honourable Friend for the assistance
which he seems disposed to give me. He may, however,
spare himself the trouble. The principle of the BUI
lay, as I conceive, upon the very surface of what I have
stated as the facts of the Bill. I submit to him that it did
not require any further explanation of its principle beyond
that which was furnished to the House when the Minister
rose in his place, and said that the Government pro
posed to carry over forty-nine seats from small, or de
caying, or secondary boroughs, and to distribute those
seats among great towns and counties, and new com
munities. That single sentence fuUy explained, in my
opinion, in -whai the principle of the measure consisted ;
and when I heard my right honourable Friend state
that it took him a week to flnd out the meaning of that
transference of seats, I confess it appeared to me that, in
this latest freak of his fancy, he was endeavouring to
emulate the performances of that portion of the party
opposite — I do not think, I may observe in passing, that
it is quite so large as has been supposed — which has
been pungently described in the works of my honour
able Friend the Member for Westminster, and to which
allusion has very recently been made in debate.
Sir, speaking generaUy, I must observe that my right
honourable Friend allows himself such licence in his
method of handling the whole argument on Eeform,
that, although it is a very great treat to listen to his
speeches regarded as intellectual exercitations, yet no
man must imagine that, if his object be the attainment
of a practical issue, it is of much avail to enter into a

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT, 235
discussion' with such a disputant. What ground, for
example, did my right honourable Friend take with
respect to the small boroughs ? He defended them, so
to speak, through thick and thin, without the slightest
qualification or reserve ; and yet he, in the very same
breath, spoke, and prepared himself to vote, in favour
of the amendment, which pledges the House to the
declaration that it is ready to consider the general sub
ject of re-distribution of Seats, that is to say of a reduc
tion of the representative privileges of small boroughs.
At the same time I admit that my right honourable
Friend is so far consistent with himself that he can
produce an exact precedent from his own previous con
duct. For, on a former night, he delivered a most able
speech against all reduction whatever of the Franchise,
and repeatedly informed us, in heated phrase, that its
reduction would lead to the destruction of the Constitu
tion; yet he, on the very same occasion, voted for a
motion the terms of which gave expression to the
declaration -that the House was prepared to take into its
consideration, and to settle, the subject of Parliamentary
Eeform, which inseparably, as I apprehend, involves
the reduction of the Franchise.
But how, let me ask, can we occupy common ground
vrith my right honourable Friend ? How can we cherish
the slightest hope of mitigating the differences which exist
between u.s, or of arriving at a settlement with one who
approaches a question of this gravity in such a spirit,
and with such a degree of licence so far as regards his
own individual opinion ? On a former occasion the horror
to which my right honourable Friend gave expression
was a horror of democracy. He told us this House was
to be vulgarized, that it was to be filled up with repre-

236 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
sentatives of the seven-pound householders, little supe
rior in character and position to those by whom they
were elected. But when he spoke in the present debate
his tone had undergone a total change. He had wheeled
right about to the other extremity of the argument.
He entered upon another line of inquiry. He thought
it necessary to state — and, in my opinion, greatly to
overstate — the probable expenses of elections under the
new system ; and he proceeded to tell us the conse
quence of the Bill would be that the House of Commons
would be filled with millionaires ; that plutocracy, for
sooth, constituted the evil which loomed darkly in the
future. It is no wonder, then, that my right honourable
Friend takes the liberty to contradict us when he
assumes the liberty to contradict himsellj and in the
keenness of his movements does not seem to think it at
all necessary to make the slighest efforts to reduce his
speeches into harmony either with his votes, or with
one another.
My right honourable Friend, I must say, in one
respect confers upon us a very great advantage, I have
listened to the speeches of the honourable and learned
Member for Belfast, whom I have certainly been accus
tomed to look upon as one of the most able and certainly
not of the least keen partizans in this House, I have
heard him, and others who sit on the benches opposite,
argue patiently and point by point the provisions of this
Bill, and with a closeness to the facts of the case which
was perfectly refreshing after the speeches of my right
honourable Friend ; because, although we may think they
criticize unjustly our propositions, and represent them
in colours sufficiently different from the truth, yet, at
all events, we can discern so much of likeness in thefr

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT, 237
delineation of them that at least we know what they are
meant for. But when we find my right honourable Friend
disfiguring and denouncing in terms so inflamed, as it
is his habit and pleasure on each occasion to employ,
the whole of every proposition made by the Govemment,
and every step they take, in whatever direction, and in
whatever sense, it becomes hopeless indeed for us to
deal with matters presented in such a form ; while it
is, on the other hand, positively refreshing, and gives
us more kindly and philanthropic views of the disposi
tion of honourable Gentlemen opposite, when we come
down to the mitigated statements -and language in
which they clothe their opposition to this Bill, and
appreciate their comparative moderation by the force of
contrast, I must now say. Sir, a few words upon the speech of
the right honom'able Member for Buckinghamshire, or
at least upon the plan of re-distribution which he pro
posed; because I think it will be generally admitted
that schemes for the re-distribution of Seats, involving
almost an infinity of alternatives, and a vast number of
questions upon which there may be most naturally, and
even most legitimately, considerable difference of opinion,
cannot weU be judged of, perhaps, on the whole, except
by being compared with other schemes. I shall endea
vour, therefore, to look for a moment at the scheme of
the right honourable Member for Buckinghamshire,
The right honourable Gentleman repudiated a defence,
which I had offered gome years back for the principle of
small boroughs, as an antiquated affair, and presented
one of his own instead. WeU, as to my defence of small
boroughs, I believe at least there has been a time when
it was true. I think that, at the epoch of the old Par-

238 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
liamentary system, what I said with regard at least to
nomination boroughs was strictly true ; that is to say,
that they were made eminently useful, as a means of
introducing to this House young men, who afterwards
won the favour of large and popular constituencies
And in the whole six hours, during which I have had
the advantage of listening to my right honourable
Friend the Member for Calne, there was this one single
sentence or sentiment with which I had the satisfaction
of concurring ; the matter indeed was not agreeable,
yet the concurrence between us in respect to it was
very satisfactory to me, perhaps, because it was so rare ;
I refer now to his statement that, in his belief, the
door of ingress to this House has been in some degree
narrowed by the Eeform Act, The enormous, benefits
conferred upon the country by that Act throw entirely
into the shade any incidental disadvantages attending it
like this ; but I confess that, whether I may be right or
wrong, I agree with him that to some extent such has
been the case. But I do not think, as I have afready
owned, that the defence of the small boroughs drawn
from the experience of a former time, applies to them as
they now exist. The right honourable Gentleman the
Member for Buckinghamshire, however, has formed a
new line of battle in their defence. He contends that
the small boroughs are necessary in order to maintain
that diversity in the character and composition of this
House, whieh, as he truly says, is so essential to its
efficiency. Now, is it true that the small boroughs do
contribute to that diversity? that is to say, do they
contribute to it more than an equal number of seats of
any other class ? It is not enough to go to a particular
small borough and show that it is represented by a verv

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 239
good man, or by a person who has some special qualifi
cation. What is necessary is that, taking boroughs,
say under ten thousand inhabitants, and going over the
whole of the seats which they possess, we should be able
to show that they return classes and descriptions of men
to Parliament, who would find their way thither by no
other channel. Now I say boldly and sweepingly, that
this is not the fact.
The right honourable Gentleman, evidently after
painful and laborious research, completely broke down
in his attempt to show that it was the fact. He quoted
in favour of small boroughs the case of my honourable
Friend the Member for Frome ; but Frome was en
franchised under the Eeform Act. [Mr. Disraeli :
It is a small borough.] It is not a small borough
in the sense in which we are dealing with smaU
boroughs, for our BiU does not touch it; and no
other BiU hitherto introduced into Parliament has
touched it. The right honourable Gentleman went
on to speak of Bridport, Huntingdon, and Peterborough
as small boroughs. Undoubtedly those places are re
presented, as to one seat in each case, by distinguished
mercantile gentlemen ; but what did the right honour
able Gentleman allege at the beginning of liis speech ?
Why, that large constituencies wUl return only land
owners, merchants, and manufacturers. Thus he admits
that merchants find an abundant entrance to this House
by means of the large towns ; and it is true that
no class of men, as a class, obtain a better access to
the confidence of large constituencies, than merchants
as well as manufacturers. Why then should small
boroughs be maintained in order to provide for their
convenience, which is amply provided for by other

240 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
means? These were the special instances as to the
class of merchants given by the right honourable
Gentleman. But he said it was very important that gentlemen
connected with the colonies should be represented in
this House, And so it is. And what gentlemen here
do represent the colonies ? There is my honourable
Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr, Marsh), whose
support upon the main question we were not fortunate
enough to obtain ; but, I admit that he is an ornament
of this House as a gentleman of colonial experience.
He sits for the City of Salisbury, a town not included
in the ordinary category of small boroughs, and not
within the class of boroughs with which any Govern
ment has ever proposed to interfere. The other honour
able Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton), who has
been more recently added to this House, acquired
great distinction at his University, and is a gentleman
well qualified to take a part, with honour to himself,
in our proceedings ; but he does not sit for one of
the small boroughs, to the defence of which the whole
point of the right honourable Gentleman's argument
was directed. My honourable Friend the Secretary
of the Treasury (Mr, Childers) sits for the borough
of Pontefract; again a constituency of moderate size,
but not a small borough in the sense of this Bill,
or of any Bill ever introduced into ParUament by a
Government which undertook to deal with the subject
of small boroughs for the pm-pose of restricting thefr
representation. Lastly, my right honourable Friend,
the Member for Calne, undoubtedly sits for a small
borough at this moment, but he did not find his way
into this House as a representative for a small borough -;

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 241
he in the first instance had successfuUy addressed
himself to an open constituency. He represented a
town of more considerable size ; and having succeeded
in obtaiuing the confidence of that constituency, as a
means of entrance to this House, he distinguished him
self herein such a manner as opened to him the road
to the representation of Calne, So much for members
connected with the Colonies,
But then the right honourable Gentleman likewise
mentioned Members connected with India. And was
it not a little extraordinary that, in order to buttress
his argument, and to find an instance connected with
India, which was suitable to his point, he went back
to the case of Sir James Hogg, who sat for Honiton
several Sessions if not several Parliaments ago — not
less, I think, than seven years ago ? But, I ask, who
are the men connected with India now sitting in this
House, and what are the small boroughs that return
them ? We are dealing with a most important allega
tion ; for, while the right honourable Gentleman re
pudiates, not improperly, my superannuated defence
for small boroughs, he sets up, forsooth, a bran new
defence of his own. Who, then, are at this moment
the chief representatives of Indian affafrs, and Indian
knowledge, in this House ? My noble and gaUant
Friend who sits for Taunton (Lord WiUiam Hay), which
is not in the sense of this BUI a small borough ; the
Friend of the right honourable Gentleman who sits
for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett), which is a county
constituency ; and again, my honourable and gallant
Friend who generally sits on the . third bench behind
me (Colonel Sykes), is Member for the large city
of Aberdeen. I take the instances that come first
R

242 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
to my mind. But I ought not to conclude without
referring to my honourable Friend the Member for the
city of London (Mr. Crawford), who, representing the
vast metropoUtan constituency, completes the list of
those who may be quoted as representing Indian
interests and special Indian knowledge in this House.
Now, Sir, it will not do for the right honourable Gen
tleman to say that Salisbury, Pontefract, and Kidder
minster are towns of moderate size. No one proposes
to attack towns of moderate size. He objects to this
Bill because it de^ls largely with small boroughs. He
upholds small boroughs, and I must say that his
defence, depending, as he himself made it depend, upon
particular instances, has entirely and absolutely failed.
Now, as I understand the right honourable Gentle
man, he has himself a plan of disfranchisement. He
says that the grouping of represented boroughs is a
scheme totally unknown to England, and that the
grouping of unrepresented boroughs is a method un
known to Scotland. As regards the first of those
propositions, it is nearly true, but even this is not
true altogether; for there are two or three sets of
boroughs grouped in England — namely, the Cinque
Ports, the Hythe boroughs, and the Monmouth boroughs ;
not to mention Penryn with Falmouth. With regard
to Scotland, the Scotch boroughs were not, as was
erroneously stated by the right honourable Gentleman,
grouped together by the Eeform Act, as unrepresented
towns which were then to receive for the first time
the privilege of representation. They were grouped
as representative boroughs at the period of the Union,
nearly in the manner in which they now stand; and
all the arguments derivable from precedent may be

CAPTAIN HAYTEE'S AMENDMENT. 243
drawn from those Scotch boroughs. But whUe the
right honourable Gentleman objects to grouping done
in our fashion, what does he put in its place ? He
gave us a rough outline of his own plan. As I under
stand him, he would proceed as follows. He would
take the smallest possible number of Members from
the smallest boroughs, probably in the mode of his
Bill of 1859; he did not mention a number, but
say some fifteen or twenty Members. Ha-ving thus
got his little store together, he would give them
to new towns, and would form these new towns in
such a way as, to judge by the instances he gave us,
would pay off the population of this country at the
rate of seventy thousand, eighty thousand, and ninety
thousand of population for each Member that he with
draws from the small boroughs. For he told us what
sort of groups ought to be taken. He enumerated
five or six large towns — Eatley, Dewsbury, Mirfield,
Cleckheaton — six, or, I believe, seven in all, with a
population of ninety-one thousand; whUe the other
groups he gave us had a population, I think, of sixty-
five thousand and seventy-two thousand respectively.
If that is the idea of the right honourable Gentleman,
I can weU understand that by getting twelve or fifteen
Members from the smallest boroughs, he would in that
•way dispose very cheaply of the claims of a population
of one million, or one million five hundred thousand,
inhabiting the new rising towns that are scattered
through the country. Next, he would have an ex
tension of the boundaries of towns. He says we ought
to take out of the counties all those who do not follow
the leading pursuit of the counties — that is, the pursuit
of agriculture. Of course, I do not mean that he would
E 2

244 PAELIAMENTAEY REFORM.
proscribe and exclude from the political area of the
county, pursuits merely subsidiary to agricultural pur
suits; but where a manufacturing hamlet is formed,
or where mining enterprise is developed, or where a
port is constructed ; all these places, according to his
doctrine, ought to be weeded and purged out of the
counties. Besides this, the boundaries of towns, he
says, ought to be so extended as to comprise all the
inhabitants dwelling in the neighbourhood, who follow
thefr ordinary avocations within those towns. By the
double operation of taking some fifteen or possibly
even twenty Members from the small towns for new
enfranchisements, and the enlargement of boundaries
in this extended sense, he might effect his avowed
object of withdrawing from the counties a population
of something like two million souls, and might thus
clearly obtain the double end of leaving the minor
boroughs of the country in possession of nearly the
whole of thefr present ParUamentary force, subject
only to that small reduction ; whUe at the same time
he would reduce the counties to little more than a
simple collection of landlords and tenants, together
with those inhabitants of purely rural villages and
towns, who are immediately dependent on them. If
that be the plan of the right honourable Gentleman,
or anything approaching to it, I can perfectly weU un
derstand his feeUng of suspicion as to what might be
the nature of our scheme for re-distribution. Because
our plan of re-distribution has been based upon the
repudiation of all indirect and secondary aims ; upon
the principle of simply restraining the representation
of smaU boroughs and enfranchising large communities,
without any design thus to disturb and recast, as he

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 245
would disturb and recast them, the distribution of popu
lation and of power.
The object of a scheme of re-distribution ought to be,
and the test of its exceUence must be, the degree in
which it leaves any given extension of the Franchise as
nearly as possible unchecked to its full, legitimate, and
natural operation. If it is asserted, in opposition to our
plan, that re-distribution of Seats is a thing to be mixed
up, as it were on principle, with a complicated scheme for
drawing broad lines of separation between counties and
boroughs, that are totally unknown to the tenor of our
history, and totaUy opposed to the spirit of our Consti
tution, then I must say that, not only am I here pre^
pared to defend our scheme of re-distribution in com
parison with that of the right honourable Member for
Bucks, but to predict with confidence that no such
scheme of re-distribution, as his, will or can ever receive
the final sanction of this House.
I must here. Sir, point out for the consideration of
honourable Gentlemen opposite that which really seems
to be as yet unperceived by them. They appear to
treat the ancient parts of the Constitution as anomalies
and solecisms, whenever those parts of it come
awkwardly across their own views. They say that
the vote of the freeholder, Uving within the limits of a
borough, for the county in which that borough is
situate, is an anomaly. It may be an anomaly according
to their rather new-fangled views; but it is not an
anomaly in itself. Is it not one of the most ancient
parts of the Constitution ? Was not the county repre
sentation the representation of property? And was
not the borough representation the representation of
the people ? And is it not a fact that, before the

246 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
Eeform Bill passed, the freeholder's voting powers in
the two capacities of inhabitant and proprietor were so
distinctly recognised, that the same man actuaUy had
his vote for the borough by virtue of the very same
freehold which qualified him as a county voter ? Can
there be a more distinct assertion of the intention and
sense of the ancient Constitution, and of the line
between the two descriptions of representation ? The
line was not by the Constitution drawn, as the right
honourable Gentleman would draw it, between agricul
tural pursuits on the one side, and manufacturing and
commercial pursuits on the other; but between the
representation of the population through the towns, and
the representation of property through the knights of
the shire, whether that property lay in the town, or
whether it lay in the county. I wUl not detain the
House upon the subject of the leaseholding clause of
this Bill, because, considering the statistics produced
by my right honourable Friend the Member for North
Staffordshire with reference to Birmingham, we have
come to the conclusion that the leaseholding clause
demands further consideration, before the House of
Commons is asked to make any provision with reference
to that part of the subject. It wiU therefore not be
pressed. This, however, I may say, that the spfrit of
this clause, aiming at the extension of the proprietary
part of the county constituencies, is, especially at a
time when we are seeking to extend largely the occu
pation franchise, thoroughly legitimate and entirely
constitutional, as a supplement to that provision of the
Eeform Act which created the copyhold and leasehold
h'anchises in counties.
But I now come to consider the particular charges

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 247
which have been made against our BUI. And I am
here in a position of some difficulty, because the Amend
ment which has been moved, and the debate upon that
Amendment, are to a certain extent in conflict. But in
the first place I contend that the grounds of opposition
to our Bill for the re-distribution of Seats are not good ;
in the second place, that, even if they were good
grounds, they are totally insufficient to justify a vote
against going into Committee upon the BUI. And,
thirdly, I must point out that the Motion, not such as it
stood in the first instance, but such as it stands in the
form in which it has been placed in your hands. Sir, is
a Motion against the terms and form of which I think
we have a right to protest. Save and except certain
wholesale denunciations of all Reform, like those of my
right honourable Friend behind me (Mr. Lowe), there has
been no sound, I might almost say no serious objection
taken to the rest of the BiU, no objection covering the
real breadth of the case, either by the honourable
Member for WeUs, who so ably defended his consti
tuency, or by any of those who succeeded him. But if
you confess the question to be great, if you allow that
it has been again and again recommended to you from
the Throne, then, even if we admit all the objections
raised, I contend that their scope is limited, and that
you are still bound to go into Committee on the Bill.
It has been objected, for example, that eight thousand
is not a right limit of population for partial disfranchise
ment; and we have been urged and recommended to
carry it higher. It has been objected generally, that
our groupings have been ill-advised and unfair ; and it
has been pointed out in detaU, that some few of our
arrangements in that respect may be improved upon.

248 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
It has also been a source of objection, that there has
been no provision made in the Bill for the representa
tion of minorities ; and it was stated that the unicorn
representation of counties ought not to be extended,
but that it would be much better to re-divide those
counties, which have already two divisions, into three
divisions, giving two Members to each of the three. It
has further been made a subject of complaint, that
Members should be taken from England to be given to
Scotland. It has been objected, in the very careful
argument of the honourable and learned Member for
Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), that the plan for the re
adjustment of boundaries is unsatisfactory. I freely
admit that this is one of the most difficult parts of the
whole subject, and I think the honourable and learned
Gentleman will admit also that it is a difficult part of
the subject, upon the settlement of which the most
temperate, as well as the most detailed, argument in
Committee would be required. It has been objected,
again, that we do not enfranchise a sufficient number of
new towns. And as far as I can gather the sense of my
Colleagues — while certainly it is the impression on my
own mind — that is, without doubt, one of the points of
detail in our plan which is most open to criticism. Here
are no less than seven or eight points, all of them of very
considerable importance I admit, but every one of them
questions fairly open to dispassionate discussion, without
any prejudice to the general scope and purport of our
measure. But these six or seven points might be mul
tiplied to sixty or seventy ; because, from the nature of
the question of re-distribution of Seats, the points it
opens to discussion, and moreover to what must be
taken to be bond fide discussion, are almost infinite in

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 249.
number. Undoubtedly the several questions I have
named are questions which, when we go into Com
mittee, it wUl be our duty to hold ourselves ready in an
open and conciliatory spirit to examine, and which we
must endeavour to settle, not upon the basis of any
foregone conclusions of our own, but with a view to
general equity and general satisfaction. But they are,
every one of them, questions which admit of accommo
dation, and which are to be broadly distinguished from
the main points of the plan.
But, Sir, having stated this, I must now say one word
to show how little considered, as I think, have been the
objections which have been taken to our grouping in
general. The great complaint has been the complaint
of distance. And, another head of objection has been a
want of identity of interest among the towns grouped
together. Now, it is admitted that the grouping system
works well in Wales and in Scotland. But there is no
identity of interest whatever among the boroughs
grouped together, under the present law, either in
Wales or in Scotland, Again, what identity of interest
is there in an ordinary county ? Did those who are
now present in the House hear the speech of my honour
able Friend who now sits for Newport, and who once
represented West Kent? He described the various
interests in the neighbourhood of London, those of the
seaport towns lower down on the Thames, and of the
hop district ; then the suburban villas which abound in
that portion of Kent, together with the agricultural
community; and I may well ask, as he did without
receiving a reply, what identity of interest is there in
these? Now with regard to the objection touching
distances. It has been stated that some of the boroughs

250 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
proposed to be grouped are thirty miles apart. This is
the case in perhaps one or two instances, and in these
only. But what is the state of the case in Wales ? In
Wales there are some seven or eight cases of boroughs
thirty, and even above thirty, miles distant from one
a,notlier. How is it, then, in Scotland ? I have before
me four of the groups belonging to that country. The
average distance of the Ayr boroughs from each other is
forty-seven and a half miles, and the maximum distance
is seventy-four. The Dumfries boroughs average twenty-
five and a half miles in distance, while the maximum
is thirty-eight. The average distance of the Elgin
boroughs is thirty-one, the maximum being fifty-eight.
In the Wick boroughs the average distance is forty-nine,
and the maximum is no less than one hundred and eight
miles. Now, really it is somewhat fastidious to produce
some particular instance where a couple of boroughs are
some twenty-six or even thirty miles apart, an instance
of a kind most rarely found in our scheme, and to treat
any such cases, not as matters for consideration, which
they may justly be, with a view to more satisfactory
arrangements in detail if you can make them, but with
those sweeping denunciations which, it was said, by
some laudatory critic with respect to the speeches on
his own side, had demolished, forsooth, the system of
grouping proposed in the Bill.
There is one method proposed by the honourable and
gallant Member for Wells, against the adoption of which,
as a general rule, I must, on the part of the Govern
ment, state the strongest objections ; that is, the plan of
taking in, as a general rule, in order to make up and
supplement the smaU boroughs, the still smaller places
in the neighbourhood. It is remarked that we have got

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 251
in the neighbourhood of some of these places certain
towns of four thousand, or five thousand, or six thousand
inhabitants, and that, if we will add these to the towns
now represented, we shall have a population of seventeen
or twenty thousand ; and that the principle of our
dealings with small boroughs ought to be first to take in
those minor places, which are in their immediate neigh
bourhood. Now, this appears to me to be an extravagant
proposition. There is in this country an enormous regard
for vested interests; but there is surely some limit of
reason applicable even to that regard. You may fairly
say, when we are dealing with those boroughs which
have long enjoyed ParUamentary representation, " Deal
tenderly with them if you think it fit to touch them, but
do not extinguish them. Give them some modified share
of that privilege which they have so long possessed, in
cases where it has not been grossly abused." But it is
really going a little too far to contend that these old
privileges, which are in the nature of a monopoly, and
which are in tendency somewhat adverse to the com
munity atjlarge, because they curtail the representation
given elsewhere to larger and more important commu
nities, shall be held to contain in them such an essence
of diffusive virtue, that it shall spread around them on
all sides, and shall, as it were, consecrate the hamlets,
the viUages, or the little country towns that may be so
fortunate as to be in thefr neighbourhood, for the purpose
of introducing them also to the privilege of being repre
sented in Parliament, in a manner quite out of proportion
to their claims, while wholly unsustained by thefr state
and condition heretofore. At the close of the civil wars of
Augustus, when he settled his soldiers on parcels of land
in the territory of Cremona, weU known as the unfortu-

252 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
nate Cremona, the supply of space there was not found
sufficient for the purpose, and they had to appropriate
some portion of the territory of Mantua to make up the
deficiency. The poet, speaking of the circumstance,
says, in a line often quoted —
" Mantua, v£e miseras nimiilm vioina CremonEe ! "
But it is little less than a ludicrous inversion of that
sentiment, to pick up some little village or market town
in the neighbourhood of Honiton or WeUs, and to pro
vide that that circumstance of neighbourhood shall be a
reason for conferring on such a place a power of return
ing a Member to Parliament, which by the general rules
of right and policy should be given to some large con
stituency. Whether there may or not be instances in
which, upon particular local grounds, a departure from
the general rule may be justified, I will pass no opinion.
This is one of the points that can be best settled after a
general and fair comparison of views mutually enter
tained in Committee ; but, as a general rule, I am sure
that it would be unwise, nay quite impossible^ to induce
Parliament to accede to a system which should patch up
a constituency, or eke out a limit of population, on behalf
of these small towns, by bringing in other small and
insignificant places as their companions, for the purpose
of fastening Parliamentary representation down to those
precise spots on the surface of the country where it has
been fixed by former legislation, adopted under circum
stances the very reverse, as is well known, of those which
now prevail.
I am bound then. Sir, to state frankly and at once,
that there are some kinds of grouping to which we could
not accede. We could not accede to the wholesale

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 253
grouping of new places proposed by the right honourable
Gentleman the Member for Bucks ; nor yet to the arti
ficial grouping of small towns here represented, and some
of them hardly more than viUages, with other small
vUlages and towns that do not now possess the Franchise.
We know that Shakespeare says —
" The strawberry grows underneath the nettle ;
And wholesome berries thrive and ripen best
Neighbour'd by fruit of baser quality."
But we do not believe in such a virtue of mere vicinage,
as among constituencies of this description.
But perhaps the House wiU be surprised if I go on to
say not merely that we are open to consider, and that it
is our duty to consider, the propriety and sagacity with
which each of our actual groups is framed, but that no
declaration has ever been made by Government to the
effect that grouping itself is a vital principle of the
BUI. We have recommended it on grounds which we
thought, and which we continue to think, amply suffi
cient. We think, as we thought, that it is adverse to
bribery. We have not deemed it to be likely to increase
expenditure. And I apprehend that, if honourable
Gentlemen wUl investigate actual cases of expenditure
in grouped boroughs at contested elections, they will see
some ground for that opinion. We have likewise believed
that it would favour the return of an eligible class of
Members to this House ; and that in another view it
might perhaps have this immediate advantage — that if
it should become absolutely necessary to require the
present ParUament to continue to sit for a time, greater
or less, after the Ee-distribution of Seats Bill shall have
been passed, there would undoubtedly be a more glaring

254 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
inconsistency in retaining in this House the representa
tives of constituencies that were absolutely disfranchised,
than those of constituencies about to be conjoined in
groups. But, however that may be, not a word has at
any time been spoken by us, to the effect that we
regarded grouping, much though we approve of it, as
one of the vital or essential principles of the Bill,
Perhaps it may be well. Sir, that I should just remind
the House what have been stated to be those leading
principles. The leading principles of the Bill in its two parts
have, I think, been stated before with sufficient clear
ness to the House ; but it will only require a few
moments to repeat them. The leading principles of the
Franchise Clauses are to complete, in the first place,
those provisions of the law which enfranchise voters at
ten pounds clear annual value and upwards ; to extend
the borough franchise downwards ; and to extend the
county franchise downwards. These are the principles
of the Bill as far as regards the part relating to simple
enfranchisement. As regards the Ee-distribution of Seats,
its principles are to curtail the small borough represen
tation, not to extinguish it ; indeed to leave, I think, a
very large, at the least a very fair, proportion of it ; to
curtail the small borough representation by the removal,
in whatever manner may be thought best, of some fifty
Members, more or less — it is not necessary to adhere
rigidly to any one particular figure — and to distribute
the seats among the great and growing and new com
munities ; and, lastly, to secure to Scotland, from what
ever source, that increase of her representation to which
we contend that her wealth and her numbers justly
entitle her. Now, these I believe to be the principles

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 255
of the Bill. And that claim of Scotland is in my belief
so strong and clear, upon an investigation of the case, as
to convince me that, unless the matter becomes en
venomed by party discussion through some error of
ourselves or others, it is impossible to do otherwise than
to admit it. Whence those seats for the benefit of Scot
land are to be obtained, is another matter ; but in regard
to the claim itself I cannot see any reason why Scotland,
with one-sixth of the population of the United Kingdom,
speaking in round numbers, should be contented, or
should be expected to be contented, with Uttle more than
one-tenth of the representation.
Now, I think, from the manifestations I have recently
observed, that some honourable Gentlemen on the oppo
site side appear to suppose that there is something
questionable or inconsistent, on the part of the Govern
ment, in thus appearing to throw open to discussion a
great number of points connected with the re-distribution
of Seats. I cannot, however, conceive what just accusation
can be brought against the Government on that score.
It was one of the difficulties, and to my mind the greatest
of all the difficulties and objections attending the com
bination of the two subjects, that in dealing with the
question of re-distribution we could not but open so many
views, and touch such a multitude of local and class
interests, each of which would, according to our usual
modes of action, require that its particular claims should
be fully and patiently considered. It was not, therefore,
the principle of the re-distribution of Seats that was
attended with so much embarrassment ; it was the mass
of detail which attends any such measure of Eeform,
and this, I confess, has always appeared to me to be a
strong practical argument in favour of the separation of

256 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
the two subjects. However, I am not arguing now with
a view to reopen a question which has been referred by
us to the decision of this House. We have placed our
selves frankly in the hands of the House ; and we shall
abide by its decision on this point, in our treatment of
the matter. I am only desirous of showing that a very
large part of the subject of re-distribution necessarily
consists of matters which should be held open for discus
sion, and which ought not to be settled according to any
foregone conclusion. To me it has, I confess, always
appeared that the most important branch of the subject
is the enfranchisement of our fellow-countrymen. That
being so, I do not see how we have fairly laid ourselves
open to the charge of inconsistency by our readiness to
concede in the plan of re-distribution, for in the direction
of the Franchise it is that, as we feel, lies our most solemn
and serious responsibility. Sir, these are the principles
of the BiU which we submit, and what we ask from the
House is its fair consideration.
I am bound to say that I do not think the Amend
ment now before us is compatible with any such fair
consideration of the BUI. The Amendment is perfectly
definite so far as regards the object of my honourable
and gaUant Friend ; that is, it condemns, in a form abun
dantly explicit, the system of grouping proposed by the
Government. That is a perfectly fair issue to raise ; and
while my honourable Friend raises that issue, we say in
reply, that we might admit his proposition, though we
do not in any degree admit it, and yet it might be his
duty to go into Committee on the BUI. But the Amend
ment goes on to state that " the scheme is not sufficientiy
matured to form the basis of a satisfactory measure."
Now, it is, even grammatically, of the utmost possible

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT. 257
difficulty to decide what may be the meaning of the
word "scheme" in this motion: the word "Franchise,"
and all references to the subject ofthe Franchise, having
been by some careful expurgator, no doUbt for good
reasons, struck out of the Amendment. ' The Amend
ment, therefore, is Uttle better than unintelligible. It
looks Uke an Amendment which has been framed with
the view of at once getting rid of the measure, and yet
escaping the responsibility of having rejected the Bill or
any of the provisions which it contains, and the risk of
being called to account by constituents. Notwithstanding
the frequency of the " No, noes," which arise from time
to time on the other side, I, however, at this moment am
free to confess that I should be glad to be saluted by a
very storm of those " No, noes," when I proceed to state
my fear, that such was the object ofthe party opposite in
supporting this Amendment of my honourable Friend.
The honourable and learned Member for Belfast (Sir
Hugh Cairns) spoke in terms of high approbation of the
Amendment ; the honourable Mover avowed his concert
with the party opposite ; and if I understand rightly tlie
statements which have appeared in the usual channels oi
Parliamentary information, aU the strength of that party
is to be used in support of it. But I protest in the name
of the Government, I protest on behalf of the character
of Parliament, I protest on the part of my countrymen
at large, against dealing with measures of great import
ance in this House — especially measures of such capital
importance as this — not in the good old English manner
of " Ayes" and " Noes," but in language which nobody
can construe, and which nobody can understand. Here
is a declaration that the scheme of Her Majesty's Govern
ment " is not sufficiently matured to form the basis of a
s

258 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
satisfactory measure." Why, Sir, do not honourable
Gentlemen see that any man, who wanted to resort to
mere cavU or mere trick, for the purpose of escaping
from the real brunt of a controversy, would adopt that
very language? Is it not to those generalities that,
among conflicting States, the lust of ambition resorts for
the prosecution of its wicked purposes ? Do not let any
Member suppose I am speaking of the movements of
political parties. I am speaking rather of those move
ments of which history, unfortunately, is too fuU —
frightful and bloody colUsions, produced between con
tending nations, by that lust of ambition which I am
describing, and which scruples not to employ these
generalities, because their effect is to efface the distinc
tive lines between justice and injustice, between truth
and falsehood ; to prevent the merits of any question
from being brought to a fair issue, and to provide a place
of refuge on behalf of those, who are afraid of the expo
sure they would suffer if the cause were left to reason
and to argument. Such modes of speech, again, have
been too often resorted to in theological controversies,
when objections of a definite character, which could be
embodied in judicial forms, have been avoided, and
vague phrases about " dangerous doctrines," or " savour
ing of heresy," or something of the kind, have been
made use of, showing, in fact, nothing but the cruelty,
the injustice, or the cowardice, of those by whom they
were invented and applied.
I was in hopes. Sir, that when I ascribed this evasive
character, this indirectness of aim, to the Amendment,
I should be met by a tempest of articulate disclaimers,
and that there would be some sympathy with the view
we take of the manner in which warfare such as this

CAPTAIN HAYTEE'S AMENDMENT. 259
shoiUd be conducted. Well, I was in hopes ; but my
hopes are to be disappointed. In the course of a public
Ufe, now somewhat long, I, like other men, have been
disappointed in many things, and I probably may be
again. But we had, as we think, a right to expect some
more open and direct mode of proceeding ; indeed we
had a special right to expect it. It was promised us ;
it was gratuitously promised us ; it was even ostenta
tiously promised us. On the 6th of February, 1866,
Lord Derby used these words : — " I promise the noble
Earl another thing" — he had not been asked for any
pledge at all, but he promised, and promised largely —
"I promise the noble Earl another thing, that this
Bill shall have fair play — that it shall not be thrust
aside by any underhand manoeuvre — that there shall be
no factious movement or combinations against it on the
part of those who can combine for nothing else, but
that it shall be dealt with on, its own merits."
Is it dealing with a measure on its merits to say merely
that it is not sufficiently matured ? When, in the long
course of Parliamentary controversy, was that course
adopted ? What instance, what precedent, is there of a
great party resorting to that mode of warfare? {Cries
of "Fifty-nine" from the Opposition.) In '59? Is '59
your instance ? In 1859 the Bill was condemned upon
grounds perfectly definite and clear ; it was condemned
because it did not reduce the borough franchise. Act
as my noble Friend acted in 1859, and my complaint
falls to the ground. Condemn the Bill, if you can
muster courage for the purpose, because it does reduce
the borough franchise. In your speeches you have said
you objected to its reduction. My right honourable
Friend the member for Calne, my honom-able Friend
s 2

260 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
the Member for North Devon, and the right honourable
Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, objected
in their speeches to a reduction of the borough fran
chise. Let the right honourable Gentleman, let some
one among you, embody that opinion in a motion. Or,
if he do not venture to embody his opinions in a motion
— and I admit that he is not bound to do that unless he
pleases — let him take the usual, the known, and the
established course of opposing' our measure by a nega
tive ; and the country will then know what he means.
It is useless to fall back upon these large, loose, vag-ue,
unmeaning words. You cannot build upon such words
the name and fame of a party. You may embarrass the
Government; you may impede the course of a great
measure ; you may injure for a moment, and for a
moment only, those who are poUtically opposed to you ;
but you cannot lay any solid foundation, by such courses
as these, for the fortunes of yourselves and of your
friends. Do not let us be drawn into these idle, limitless,
and almost wild denunciations about the Constitution.
Every time my right honourable Friend (Mr. Lowe)
addresses the House he gives part of his harangue to
woful prophecies about the Constitution. In his first
speech, drawing upon the works and words of Canning,
from what cause I know not, but I am quite sure it was
not from the poverty of his own imagination, he prophe
sied the destruction of the Constitution ; and every speech
that has come from him since, though he has no longer
foraged among the pastures afforded by the speeches of
that statesman, predicts in a new form, but with darker
and yet darker features, the ruin and the downfaU of the
Constitution. " Do not," he says, " I pray you, discard
rules and maxims that have never faUed, for doctrines

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT, 261
and theories that have never succeeded." "What is the
rule and the maxim that has never faUed? The ten-
pound franchise. What is the doctrine and the theory
that has never succeeded ? The seven-pound franchise.
The seven-pound franchise has not succeeded ; no doubt :
for it has not yet 'been tried. The ten-pound franchise,
before it was tried, was a doctrine and a theory that had
never succeeded; and it was met with the very same
reproaches, and loaded with the very same denunciations,
deUvered with not less earnestness and ability than
those deUvered by my right honourable Friend, My
noble Friend the Member for Leicestershire, in his
speech deUvered to-night, tempts me to ground upon
which, if I had not heard the words of Tennyson from
his mouth I should not have ventured to tread. My
noble Friend described England as —
" A land of old and wide renown,
"Where freedom broadens slowly down,
Prom precedent to precedent,"
Lines taken* from the noble dedication and address,
I believe, of the Poet Laureate to the Queen, My
noble Friend stopped with those Unes, Perhaps it did
not suit his purpose to go on ; but Mr, Tennyson pro
ceeds, and, in his description, he adds these lines, not
a whit less worthy of his fame : —
" And statesmen at her council met,
"Who knew the seasons, when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of Freedom wider yet.

• This is an error. The lines quoted by Lord John Manners are
from an earlier work of the Poet, entitled ' Britain,'

262 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,
By shaping some august decree,
'Which kept her throne unshaken still,
Broad-based upon her people's will.
And compassed by the inviolate sea."
We, who support this BUI, claim to love the Consti
tution, we claim to value the Constitution, we claim
to revere the Constitution, as sincerely and as earnestly
as any of those opposed to us. My right honourable
Friend, the Member for Calne, looks back with some
thing like contempt on those, who opposed the Eeform
Bill of 1831. We have heard him denounce in terms
of the extremest severity the Parliamentary system
which prevaUed before that great measure, but he thuiks
that along with that contempt for the course, that was
then pursued by men of the stamp of the Duke of Well
ington and Sir Eobert Peel, he may join the kind of
opposition which he now offers to the milder measure
of Her Majesty's Government. Sfr, I must say that the
very converse of that view appears to me to be far more
just. The opponents of the Eeform Bill of 1832,
although I can now see that they were wrong, yet had
much to say for the course they pursued. They had to
deal with a system the most complicated in the world ;
the springs and movements of which were hardly trace
able to the common, or even to the philosophic eye,
and which, like some wonderful creation that might
have descended from above, was of such a delicacy of
conformation, that they might, not wholly without reason,
scruple to touch any of its parts, lest by deranging some
hidden spring they should mar its movements; and so
long had this state of things prevailed that even the
wise man, that even the brave man, shrunk back from
the responsibility of attempting such a task. How dif-

CAPTAIN HAYTER'S AMENDMENT, 263
ferent is our case ! We have seen the risks of the ex
periment run ; we have seen the dangers, if such there
were, of enfranchisement defied ; we have seen the fre
quent prophecy, uttered in all solemnity, collapse almost
as soon as delivered ; we have witnessed the happiness
and the blessed fruits of that constitutional change;
and we have found ourselves launched upon a career,
where everything before us is now comparatively plain
and open. We have now to deal, I wiU not say with an
alteration so much as with a growth of circumstances,
with a growth of numbers, with a growth of wealth,
with a growth of intelligence, with a growth of loyalty,
with a growth of confidence in Parliament, and with a
growth of attachment and of love among all classes of
the community. And our view is this, that, under these
circumstances, we are entitled to say that now again
has the time arrived to apply, with circumspection and
¦with caution, yet with firmness and decision, those prin
ciples from the operation of which we have already
reaped such blessed fruits. It is in the prosecution of
that work that we are confronted with the hostility which
has met us in the various stages of this Bill ; hostility
that may be formidable, indeed hostility of which I wUl
not even now presume to predict that it may not meet
•with a momentary success ; but with regard to which I
wUl say that any triumph, which may be gained, will
recoU with tenfold force upon the heads of those who
may achieve it. To be the chief sufferers in a cause
such as that we have in hand is, indeed, to be preferred,
not only to success of such a kind, but even to success
attained in any ordinary cause. For we are well con-
¦vinced that in the discharge of our o^wn duty, in the
redemption of our pledges, and of the pledges of Par-

264 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
liament, as we see and understand them, we are con
sulting at once the honour and the dignity of this House,
the stability of the Throne on which Her Majesty re
ceives the affectionate homage of her subjects, the con
tentment and happiness of the people, and the strength
and endurance of our institutions.

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT, 265

LOED DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT,
THE CHANCELLOE op the EXCHEQUEE : The
honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has
undisguisedly argued for the Amendment of my noble
Friend (Lord Dunkellin) on the ground that it has a
tendency to restrict the suffrage. My noble Friend has,
indeed, said that he does not now propose to fix the Fran
chise at the figure at which it is to stand, but for the
present I merely note the argument of the honourable
Gentleman as indicating the tendency ofthe Amendment.
And I further observe that my noble Friend himself,
whUe disclaiming any intention to bind the House by
his Motion, appeared to express his readiness to adopt as
the standard of the franchise the rateable value of six
pounds, which would' materially curtaU the plan of the
Government, and which would at once prevent our pro
ceeding with the BiU.
Now, Sfr, I wish to point out to my noble Friend, and
to the honourable Gentleman, that in all they have said,
so far as it bears properly on the merits of the Motion, a
fallacy has run through their speeches. They make a com
parison between their proposed system of rateable value,
and the system that now exists of a perfectly inde
pendent judicial examination, before the Eevising Bar
rister, without the aid of the rate-book. AU through the
speech of my noble Friend, there was not a word to
show he was cognizant of the great changes introduced
by the Bill in this respect. I am not sure that my

266 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
noble Friend has so much as examined the table on
which the rating is to be fixed, and seen whether there
is or is not in that table a column of " gross estimated
rental." If he is aware of the column of gross estimated
rental in that table, and of the place it occupies in this
BUI, it is only the more surprising that he shoiUd draw
his contrast all along between the system of rateable
value and the system that now prevails, and that he
should have failed to notice the important change which
we propose to introduce into the law. My noble Friend
says he has drawn his Amendment from the Irish sys
tem. What the Irish system is I leave to be explained
in detail by my honourable and learned Friend the
Attorney-General for Ireland. In the mean time I will
only say, that it is totally different from the system
proposed to be introduced by my noble Friend. It is
different, because it is entirely uniform throughout the
whole country. It is different, because it is adminis
tered by Government officers. It is different, because it
depends upon a basis of rating, which partakes in some
degree of the system of rateable value, and in some
degree of the column of gross estimated rental, but yet
corresponds with neither. The Scotch system, as I
understand it, does very nearly correspond with the
column of gross estimated rental ; and that system gives
as much satisfaction in Scotland as the Irish system
gives in Ireland. I do not find fault with the system
that prevails in Ireland ; but, since in its entirety it is
plainly inapplicable to England, it cannot be copied ;
and, moreover, I contend that it has quite as much
affinity with the system we propose, as it has with the
system of rateable value. That may be no more than
matter of opinion ; I only allude to it for the sake of

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 267
coUateral Ulustration. It is secondary in its bearing on
the present question, because, as I have observed, the
method proposed by the Amendment is not the Irish
method. I will now go to the merits of the question.
After hearing the speech of my noble Friend, I could
not help feeling that I might have saved him trouble, if
I could have been permitted to state distinctly at the
outset of the discussion the issue involved in this por
tion of the clause. My noble Friend, in his speech, has
mingled together three or four questions that are in
reality entirely distinct. He has apparently assumed
that he is to produce, by the Motion which he makes, a
variety of results, and all those he combines one with
another; but in regard to some of them it appears
doubtful whether his Motion would at all have the effect
he desfres, or not. One portion of the clause, which he
proposes to amend, determines the moderate amount of
enfranchisement which the Government seek to effect ;
an amount which I stated at the number of one hundred
and fortyrfour thousand, by the reduction of the seven-
pound franchise, and a further estimated addition of
sixty thousand by the combined operation of the abolition
of the rate-paying clauses, and of the new provisions
relative to compound householders. From that mode
rate amount of enfranchisement, we are not, under any
cfrcumstances or conditions, prepared to recede. By it
we intend to stand. There are various propositions to
be brought before the notice of the House. The honour
able and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. BovUl)
proposes an eight-pound clause, and he would thus, I
beUeve, substitute for the one hundred and forty-four
thousand proposed by the Government an enfranchise
ment of seventy-nine thousand, thus striking off some

268 ' PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
sixty-five thousand. The SmaU Tenements Act, which
draws the hue, not at six pounds, but at ratings over
six pounds, gives an enfranchisement of sixty-seven
thousand, instead of one hundred and forty-four thou
sand. The six-pound rating of my honourable Friend
the Member for Wenlock (Mr. Gaskell) would give
an enfranchisement of about one hundred and five
thousand ; a number which again falls short, this time by
forty thousand, of the number we propose. That project,
which the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down
has had the satisfaction of suggesting to the House —
namely, a seven-pound rating, would, thirty-four years
after the Eeform' BiU, liberally condescend to introduce
a new body of about forty-five thousand to the con
stituency. That would be at a rate of enfranchisement
such as to include on the average an addition of about
twelve hundred or fifteen hundred a year of the popu
lation of this country to the constituency. And cer
tainly, ff the honourable Gentleman can establish such a
rate of enfranchisement as the rule which is to prevail for
the guidance of our own and of future times, he will, I
think, be pretty secure at least against any error in the
way of excess. But, Sir, whether it be forty-five thou
sand or sixty-seven thousand, or one hundred and five
thousand, I embrace all in the same category, and I
frankly state that to no one of them are we prepared to
accede. The political part of this motion is one thing, and the
practical part of it is another. But on the political part
of it I would say that, although my noble Friend does
not profess to fix the standard of the franchise by his
motion, yet he lays down principles in his speech that
would at once strike off sixty thousand from the numbers

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 269
we propose to enfranchise. We propose to abolish the
rate-paying clause; and we introduce provisions that
wUl enable compound householders to be registered with
facility, though they may not be rated individuaUy.
To both of these provisions my noble Friend objects.
Therefore he begins by striking off probably about sixty
thousand from the number that we propose to enfran
chise ; and as he spoke with great favour of a six-pound
rating instead of a seven-pound rental, I may assume thai
he would in this way strike off forty thousand more ; so
that he exactly bisects the effect of our proposal, [Lord
Dunkellin was understood to say that he did not touch
the law relating to compound householders,] I do not
speak of my noble Friend's intention ; but if he would
leave the law respecting compound householders as it
is, that means he would prevent the proposed alteration,
which brings in practically the compound householders.
My noble Friend would leave the law as it is with
respect to compound householders; but, by the com
bined operation of what he says and what he proposes,
he would strike off sixty thousand, and the proposal of
the honourable Member for Wenlock (Mr, Gaskell^
would strike off another forty thousand from our total
enfranchisement ; so that a deduction of one-half from
the total enfranchisement in boroughs seems to be the
aim of the more moderate among our opponents.
Having, then, spoken, I hope plainly and inteUigibly,
on that part of the subject, I come now to the practical
effect of the clause, and to the argument raised by my
noble Friend for a basis of rateable value, in lieu of
the basis of clear yearly value, as proposed by the
Government. And, differing and departing entirely from the method

270 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
pursued in his argument by my noble Friend, who com
pared the thing he proposed with a thing which nobody
proposed at all, I shall take the liberty of comparing
his proposal with that proposal which we make to the
House. Now, there are four questions that in this
matter may be raised, which it is of vital consequence
to keep separate and distinct, but which were inex
tricably mingled in the speech of my noble Friend.
The first is, shall the voter himself personally be rated
as a condition of his obtaining the franchise ? The next
is, shall he before registration be required to pay all
rates which are at the time due from him ? These two
questions are absolutely and totally distinct from each
other. You cannot, indeed, adopt the second provision
¦without also adopting the first, but you may take the
first without the second. Then the third question is,
shall the franchise be ruled as it is ruled in this BUI,
that is, upon the clear annual value, explained, and pre
sumptively or in the first instance ascertained, by the
column of gross estimated rental ; or shaU it be ruled by
the column of rateable value ? That is the thfrd ques
tion; and that I take to be the proper object of my
noble Friend's Motion. But he mixed these questions
as if they had been one question aU the way through
his speech. (" No.") Then, let the matter be quite
understood. If I have mistaken him, I am very glad ;
but I speak after attentively listening to his argument
Let it be understood, at any rate, that we have nothing
to do now with determining whether the man himself
shall be rated or not, or shall have paid his rates ; and
that those two questions are reserved for some future
period. So then, the question now is, whether the value
of the occupation, in right of which he is to vote, is to

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 271
be calculated upon the column of rateable value. But
there is a fourth question of very great importance, and
which my noble Friend — he will correct me if I am
wrong — also treated as involved in his Motion, and that
is as distinct from the third question as the third is dis
tinct from the second and the first. It is the question
whether the valuation made by the local authorities
shaU be final, or whether there shall be an appeal and
a judicial process, should the voter desire it, before the
Eevising Barrister. In his Motion he takes it for granted
that there is to be no appeal to the Eevising Barrister.
(Lord Dunkellin here observed that there is an appeal
against the judgment of the Assessment Committee.)
That I quite understand. My noble Friend proposes to
leave the course of appeal tor the vote such as it now
stands for the purposes of local taxation ; but he pro
poses to do away with the power of appeal to the Ee
vising Barrister for the defence of a political privUege.
Then, the third and fourth of these questions are em
braced in the speech and in the design of the noble
Lord. I am bound to say I believe it to be at least doubtful,
whether they are embraced with parallel effect by the
words of his Motion. That the Motion would have
the effect of fixing upon rateable value as the prima
fade ground on which the franchise of occupation must
be considered and estimated is perfectly clear ; but I
do not know whether the noble Lord has referred to
the very strong language in which the Eevising Bar
rister is authorised by the Eeform Act to insert in the
list of voters the name of every person who shall be
proved to his satisfaction to be entitled on the last day
of July then next preceding. [Mr. Walpole : " That

272 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
is, according to the value." ] Certainly : but I appre
hend it may be doubtful whether that might not be
held to make the title of the voter stiU subject to
review by the Eevising Barrister, and whether the Ee
vising Barrister, not finding that there are any absolute
words which make the rateable value as stated in the
columns of the rate-book decisive for the purposes of
the Act, might not say, " I will take the case on the
ground of the rateable value, but I wUl ascertain
whether the rateable value has been rightly calculated
by the local authorities." That I take to be an am
biguity ; and if so, it is an ambiguity in a matter which
ought to be removed ; I do not, however, take it to be
more. I had better, however, deal with the Motion as it is
intended by my noble Friend, and consider that we have
now before us a proposal which does these two things.
In the first place, it fixes that the occupation, in right
of which a man is to vote, is to be estimated according
to the column of rateable value; and, in the second
place, the Eevising Barrister is to be ousted altogether,
and the course of appeal is to be that which is provided
for the purposes of local taxation, and no other. That
is the intention, with which the Motion is made by my
noble Friend. Then so far, at any rate, we get upon
firm, or at least upon clear, ground. And -we must
accordingly put out of view everything that has been
said about the test of character afforded by the actual
payment of rates and other matters of that kind, for
they are not in any way touched by the motion, and
with them at present we have no concern whatever.
Therefore, Sir, I will address myself to those two ques
tions. And, first, as to the question of rateable value.

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 273
which it is proposed for the first time in this country to
adopt as the basis of the political franchise. We have
argued — and no person has been able to show the re
verse — that rateable value is a test false in principle.
Eateable value is intended to establish the net value of
the property. Eateable value is the just, the obvious,
the legitimate basis of any or of all such operations
as have reference to local taxation. The honourable
Gentleman opposite referred to the clever letter of
Mr. Baxter in the Times of this morning. That
letter shows us that there are eight or ten Acts of Par
liament, which take the rateable value as the basis and
standard of the powers they confer. Certainly, and
most properly, they do ; for every one of them, with
perhaps a single and insignificant exception, applies to
local taxation. But who pays local taxation? The
right honourable Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)
spoke as if the tenant ultimately and really paid local
taxation. Ou the contrary, every economist must admit
that it is borne by the property ; and, as it is borne by
the property, the test of rateable value being that which
enables you to ascertain the true or net value, the value
to the landlord, it is of course with perfect propriety
made the basis of local taxation. And we should be as
inconsistent and incongruous in our plans if we proposed
a departure from the basis of rateable value for the pur
pose of taxing property, as I aver that my noble Friend
is inconsistent in taking rateable value as the basis of
the law for fixing the political franchise. The prope
basis of political franchise, dependent on occupation, is
not the net value of the property to the landlord, but
is the capacity of the occupier to pay. And whether
the sum be seven pounds, ten pounds, foiuieen pounds.
T

274 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
or any other amount that is paid as rent, that is the
just and good test of the capacity of the voter to pay,
whatever may be the rateable value that is set against
his occupation. The rateable value has nothing what
ever to do with the point we have now in view. It goes
to a different end. It is constructed for a different
purpose. And, if we are really to argue this, which,
after all, ought to be a practical question, with reference
to the reason of the case, and are not to be governed by
the latent purposes of honourable Gentlemen opposite,
who may wish to accompUsh restriction under the name
of enfranchisement, and rnay prefer, perhaps, a colourable
motion to one directly aiming at that object, then let
us really follow the true reason of the case, and take
the rateable value for those things to which it is appli
cable, but decline to take it for those things with which
it has no natural connection.
But then I come to the question of inequaUties.
Now, those inequalities are of two descriptions — namely,
inequalities arising from caprice or carelessness, and
inequaUties arising from necessity and the nature of the
case. It is not denied that both kinds of inequality
exist. But, then, my noble Friend draws an ingenious
comparison between the supposed owners of imaginary
properties on two sides of a street. He naturally enough
assigns to tiie old proprietor on the one side of the
street the graceful function of aUowing his property to
be let below its true value; and the new proprietor,
who owns the houses on the other side, he describes on
the other hand as divested of every human feeling,
and intent only upon extorting from the tenants the
last farthing they can pay. WeU, Sir, let that pass.
But my noble Friend thinks that his reference to two

LOED DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 275
sides of a street makes against the gross estimated
rental, and in favour of the rateable value. Now, does
it so make? He says, "Here is a man who is bent on
extracting the last penny out of his fellow-creatures:
and with his gigantic fortune he buys up all the houses
on one side of a street." He put a case where on one
side of the street the landlord is a gentleman descended
from a long line of ancestors — a class, he says, always
free from the slightest taint of avarice — and has a
number of houses paying him seven pounds a year; and
the gentleman owning the property on the other side of
the street has tenants in houses which pay ten poundsj
or a stUl higher figure, while all the time the houses at
seven pounds are as good as the houses at ten pounds ;
and then he says, observe how unequal in its operation
is the gross estimated rental. Well, but precisely the
same inequality, which would thus be established in
the case of gross estimated rental, would also of neces
sity appear in the column of rateable value. But if, in
addition to the inequality thus established, it happens
that one side of the street is in one Union and the other
in another, different rates of deduction being often fixed
in two Unions although adjacent, why, then, I say the
inequality would be not only reproduced, but aggrar
vated. And I challenge any man confidently, who may
argue in this debate, to point out any single source of
error which can come into the column of gross esti
mated rental, and which will not pass on unremedied
into the column of rateable value; whereas we can
point out a number of errors apt to creep into the
column of rateable value which are not to be found,
and which cannot appear, in the column of gross esti-
T 2

276 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
mated rental at all. And this vital point my noble
Friend has wholly omitted to observe.
Sir, I quoted some of the cases applicable to this
argument the other day. The honourable Member for
Northampton was good enough, since the former debate
on rating, to give me a note which he had received,
-contradicting the statement which I had made as to the
case of Bury St. Edmunds ; but I quoted from official
documents, in which the statement was given in detail
(and it is open to the inspection of the honourable
Gentleman), to show that, from houses of the same value
situate in two different parishes of the same town, the
deductions amounted in one case to one-tenth, and in
the other to one-sixth. Now, that is a source of error
in the rateable value column, additional to, and inde
pendent of, any errors which may be found in the
column of gross estimated rental. Does the same hold
good in the Irish system ? [Lord Dunkellin : " No.
There is only one column there."] Then, if there is
only one column, my noble Friend has no right to
argue from the Irish system in favour of his plan of
rateable value. It is for every purpose a different sys
tem from ours ; and the noble Lord has evidently been
misled, by the use of the word " rating," into supposing
that it is the same sj^stem, when for the purposes of the
present argument the fact is entirely otherwise.
Here, again, is the case of Oxford : which gentlemen
may, if they be so minded, study for themselves. They
have not indeed the verified documents before them;
to have presented all the particulars would have entaUed
a great deal of additional and quite needless trouble ; but
I have taken the figures I now^ state from the blue-book,

LOED DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 277
where they are given in a summary form. In the case
of Oxford, the deductions are iu one parish 20 per cent.,
and in another 33J ; and these deductions are not thus
diversely made because in one parish the materials of
the dwellings are good and durable, and in the other
flimsy and unsubstantial, for the rates I have named
are applied to buildings of the same class, according
to value, in the two parishes. If gentlemen will study
these most useful papers, they will find that the in
equaUties there recorded are almost always inequalities
in deductions upon houses of the same class and cha
racter, and that they grow wholly or mainly out of
differences in the views taken by different Assessment
Committees. Again, take the case of Liverpool. At
Everton and Kirkdale the deductions amount to 20
per cent. ; at Toxteth they reach 25 per cent. ; while
in Liverpool itself there is an uniform deduction of 10
per cent. I mean in Liverpool, strictly so called ; but
Everton, Kirkdale, and Toxteth are substantially parts
of Liverpool. Hence, the Motion of the noble Lord is,
I do not hesitate to affirm, a proposal that we should
deliberately establish different political franchises in
the same towns. Men whose circumstances are in every
respect the same, who live in the same place, and under
the same local government, who associate together as
feUow-townsmen, inhabiting houses for which they pay
equal rents, wiU yet be placed at different amounts in
the rate-book, and consequently one will obtain while
the other will be debarred from the franchise, simply
because they happen to reside in different Unions though
in the same town.
But then it is said, " Let the Unions make their rates
more equally." That is all very well to say, but the

278 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFORM.
thing is not done ; and it would be a very difficult thing
to effect. How are we to induce many hundreds of
these local bodies, not liable to penalty, or direct control,
to take precisely the same view of such a subject as that
of the deductions to be made from gross estimated
rental ? We may with time make, by degrees, some
further approximation to equality ; but we shall never
attain equality without introducing a central authority.
If we are prepared to have a central authority (which
manifestly we are not), going round from Union to
Union, and fixing in each the basis upon which local
taxation is to be paid, then, I grant, the thing may be
done; but even then it could only be done in time.
But to this suppression of an important particular of
local self-government, I do not believe that Parliament
¦will consent. And even if it did, and if the system had
worked all we could expect from it, what would happen ?
You would not get rid of the second portion of the
difficulty ; for, though these inequalities which have
reference to the different materials and durability and
solidity of dweUings, are objectionable with respect to
the political franchise, yet for the purposes of local
taxation they are inequalities that ought to be retained.
If there are two houses, the ordinary repafrs of one of
which amount to five per cent., and the other to twenty
per cent., the effect will be, in the case of two men
paying equal rents, that you will enfranchise one and
disfranchise the other. And this, remember, even when
your reefing has been made absolutely perfect. If, on the
other hand, in order to get over that dUficulty and gross
solecism, you compound, and in both cases fix the de
ductions at twelve and a half per cent., you merely
change the injustice from the right hand to the left, and

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 279
you commit just as real and palpable a wrong with
regard to the purposes of local taxation, as you com
mitted before with regard to the purposes of the political
franchise. Again, Sir, I do not think my noble Friend has
remembered that there are certain' descriptions of pro
perty in this country, which are not rated at all.
Under our Bill, there is nothing to be done but to
ascertain the clear annual value, and the owner would
become at once enfranchised ; but according to the
proposal of my noble Friend, the occupier of the pre
mises, inasmuch as they carry no rateable value, could
not appear upon the rate-book at all, nor have his case
examined ; and therefore the effect of his Amendment
in this point would be to disfranchise (for example) all
the owners of mines in Cornwall ; for I suppose as matter
of course that my noble Friend will seek to apply to the
counties the principle for which he contends, and at the
proper season to remodel the clause, that has already
passed the Committee, in accordance with his view.
It is argued, indeed, by my noble Friend, that the
old precedent of scot and lot is in favour of his pro
posal ; but the old precedent of scot and lot has nothing
to do with his argument or his plan. So far as it really
bears upon the present subject, it is an argument that
goes in favour of household suffrage ; and a good deal of
my noble Friend's speech tended, whether with his own
consciousness or not, in that direction. Scot and lot
had no relation whatever to amount. It was perfectly
insignificant whether your rateable value was correct or
incorrect ; whether you were rated at one penny or at
one hundred pounds, was totally immaterial ; it was the

280 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
simple fact of paying a rate that constituted a title by
scot and lot. I will not go back upon the Acts, such as
Local Government Acts, Health of Towns Acts, and
others, which have made such an impression on the
mind of the honourable Member for Shoreham that he
hardly knew what to say, and complained that the
materials which ought to have formed his speech had
been anticipated, he almost seemed to say had been
filched from him, by the references made in Mr. Baxter's
printed letter to thefr provisions. I believe there is one
single case, the Beerhouse Act — rather a narrow foun
dation for a Parliamentary Constitution — where rateable
value is the test, and where the law is notwithstanding
one that does not relate to purposes of taxation. Neither
does it relate to political privilege. The general rule
is that the test of rateable value should in all cases be
connected with local taxation, and with the distribution
of local power. That is a good and rational law, but
good and rational because adapted to its end ; and it
would become bad and irrational, if it were carried over
to the purpose that is now proposed, and applied to an
end for which it has no aptitude whatever.
I come, Sir, to another question of great moment ;
the proposal to oust the Eevising Barrister. I think it
very much to be regretted that this question should be
raised incidentally to another matter, quite difficult and
complex enough in itself; but it was a point, apparently
the main if not the only point, on which^the right
honourable Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire
dwelt the other night. He saw, what I confess I had
not seen at first, that the honourable Member for
Northampton intended to get rid of the Eevising

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 281

Barrister, and to fix the matter of the suffrage
upon a basis admitting of no appeal except to local
authority. Mr. Hunt: As regards the occupiers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: Certainly, as
regards that class of voters who are to vote in respect
of occupation, and not of property.
Mr. Whiteside : The value would determine the
right to the franchise.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : Yes, but it
would determine it in a different mode from the present,
and in a different mode from the mode proposed by the
BUI. This question of the Eevising Barrister is one of very
considerable extent and difficulty. It is also one that I
think it would be very desirable to discuss in a separate
form, and not incidentally to this other matter of
rateable value. I admit that it would be a great object
to get rid of the costs and the trouble of registration,
even as to a portion of the constituency. But the
benefits of that object, if you gained it, would be lost, if
you were to introduce the very same class of questions
upon another arena, to be decided by authorities less
judicial and less competent. The effect of that would
be that, though you might change the tribunal, you
would increase the litigation. Again, it is a very serious
matter — I do not know what precedent for it my
honourable Friend has been able to find in our Parlia
mentary history — it is a veiy serious matter to propose,
that the political rights of the people, in respect of
admission to the franchise, shall be placed in the hands
of local Government and of the local authorities. That
is a very grave and most serious question, which ought

282 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
to receive much more attention from us than it can
receive while hopelessly mixed up with questions, appa
rently as yet so little understood as that of rateable
value. But, again, the large majority of the boroughs of this
country — of course, I mean, of the small boroughs — are
boroughs united to extraneous parishes; united, for
Poor Law purposes, with a great number of rural
parishes in the neighbourhood. Those parishes are
represented on the Board by one or more Guardians.
Every parish, however small, is represented by a
Guardian. The consequence is that the Board is often
constituted, in an overwhelming proportion, of the
Guardians from rural parishes ; and the proposal in all
such cases comes to this, that these Guardians from
rural parishes should practically fix the franchise for the
boroughs. I am glad to see my noble Friend shake his
head. It may be said that there is an appeal ; but even
if that be so, I must observe it is not enough to say you
provide a good appeal. Your business is to provide
a good tribunal in the first instance; but I believe I
am correct in stating that in a large majority of the
boroughs of this country the Guardians of the rural
districts would fix the borough franchise if the Motion
of my noble Friend were carried.
Mr. Hunt : The Assessment Committee of the Union,
and not the Guardians, act in the matter.
The Chancellor op the Exchequer: The Members
of that Committee are the elected representatives of the
Board of Guardians.
Mr. Hunt : The Board of Guardians have to appoint
them. They appoint a certain number of magistrates
and a certain number of ratepayers, and therefore I

LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 283
should think the country parishes will not be able to
override the town parishes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I do not think
the statement of the honourable Gentleman, correct as
it is, has at all improved the case ; because the Board
of Guardians, which is empowered to choose the Assess
ment Committee, may be composed, in an overwhelm
ing proportion, of the Guardians from rural parishes. I
find that by a clause in the Act of 1862 upon parochial
assessments, it is provided that the Guardians shall
appoint from among themselves a committee of not less
than six nor more than twelve members for the assess
ment of the Union, and that one-third of such Com
mittee, at least, shall consist of ex-offido Guardians.
Sir Hugh Cairns : Eead the next clause, which
contains a provision for the appointment of an equal
number by the Town Council.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : Yes, but, as I
perceive, only in those instances where the Union has
the same bounds as the Borough ; that is to say, in the
cases to which I have made no reference whatever. I
was entitled to presume that I might take the meaning
of the clause from the honourable and learned Gentle
man's assurance ; but really, if I had taken it from his
assurance, I should have had reason to regret the con
sequences. I repeat then, Sfr, that it would be a serious
thing to give the fixing of the political franchise to
local persons — persons connected, as, happily I think,
the great bulk of Englishmen are, with political parties,
and not restrained, as a Eevising Barrister is restrained,
from indulging their political proclivities by judicial
habits and judicial knowledge. All this, however, I
urge, not as conclusive at once upon the merits of the

284 PARLIAMENTARY EEFOEM.
case, but as deserving most careful and most dispas
sionate consideration, which it could only receive on a
separate occasion.
Now, I take another point. Supposing that, in a
small borough, an Assessment Committee, with a -view
to political objects, underrated one hundred voters ; one
hundred voters would turn the scale in a small borough.
Suppose an inhabitant of a borough ought to be rated
at seven pounds, but that, instead of rating him at that
amount, the Assessment Committee put him down at
six pounds fifteen shillings — which they might do if the
Member for Shoreham has his way, and if he or his
friends form their Government for the purpose of carry
ing a seven-pound rating franchise into law ; the effect
would be that these inhabitants would not have a vote.
Now, this might be done in one hundred cases, and the
cost would be very small. It would only amount to the
loss of the rate on some twenty or thirty pounds ; and
would it not be worth incurring such a loss to disqualify
one hundred opponents? Nor is it of much avail to
urge that another ratepayer might appeal against this
under-rating of his neighbours. For the appeal would
have but little chance where the divergence from the
true amount was small. Now, Sir, I do not intend to
insinuate, nor do I think, that every man is a rogue.
Suppose, however, that (as I fear we must suppose) some
persons are actually rogues, or suppose a man who, not
being a rogue, is at all events an eager or even an un
scrupulous partisan, or again Avho, without deserving
these epithets, is so far weak or prejudiced as to be
subject to bias on one side or the other; and I ask
whether there would not be afforded to such a person
varied opportunities of depriving a number of opponents

LOED DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 285
of their votes at a very small cost? I may be told,
perhaps, that the ratepayer himself might appeal, and
might have his rate raised. I do not know w-hether it
has been decided that a person can appeal to have his
own rate raised. But I can, on the other hand, imagine
a case in which it might be desirable to procure a few
votes by raising the assessment. Suppose a seven-
pound rating franchise be adopted, and that one hundred
persons were rated at six pounds fifteen shiUings, you
might increase their ratings to seven pounds five shil
lings, or even a smaller sum ; thus making votes at a
cost much the same as that to which I referred in con
nection with the contrary process. The whole amount of
loss would perhaps be not more than fifty pounds a year
of the rateable value. I dare say that the Assessment
Committee would, in such a case, take care not to over
rate any one who would not be prepared to bear it, and
ten shillings a year would not be a serious addition to
the assessment. That might easily be arranged ; for
remember that no one else but the person rated could
appeal against the assessment on the ground of excess ;
even if he can appeal, of which I am not aware. The
honourable and learned Member for Belfast will correct
me if I am wrong, and I will take his correction without
a word ; but I think I am correct in stating that beyond
all doubt no one else could appeal in such a case against
the rate.
It appears to me, therefore, that we run some risk of
introducing into our assessments a number of elements,
some of which, apparently, are of considerable danger.
Whether it would be possible, either now or here
after, so to control those elements that we might- ven
ture to encounter the risk, for the sake of the advan-

286 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM,
tages in view, I for one will not pretend to say. I
admit the great value of a test, if it were good in itself,
which would have the effect of getting rid of a great
number of questions which are now raised before the
Eevising Barrister. But the goodness of the test is
the very thing to be established. What we contend for
is not that the local authorities as such are untrust
worthy ; but that the local authorities require to be
kept under check, and that they should not be led into
temptation by being carried, without such a check, beyond
their proper and accustomed province.
Now, what is the test which we propose ? The gross
estimated rental; that is, in our judgment, the first
thing to be got at. Where are the errors in the gross
estimated rental, which are not to be found in the rate
able value ? In looking for the basis which we required,
we called in aid the gross estimated rental. What does
our Bill do? It adheres to the words of the Bill of
1832, in providing that the franchise shall be founded
on the " clear yearly value :" but in the interpretation
clause it states —
" The clear yearly value as applied to any premises
shall mean a sum equivalent in amount to any rent a
tenant might reasonably be expected to pay by the year
for such premises if let to him, he undertaking to pay
all usual tenant's rates and taxes and tithe commutation
rentcharge (if any), but no deductions being made in
respect of the probable annual average cost of repairs,
insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to
maintain the premises in a state to command such rent ;
and for the purposes of this Act the gross estimated
rental for the time being of any premises as ascertained
for the purposes of the poor-rate shall, until the contrary

LOED DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 287
is proved, be deemed to be the clear annual value of
such premises."
Now, the Committee will see from these words, that
we do not reject the rate-book : we go straight to the
rate-book ; as straight as my noble Friend himself goes
to it. The consideration, which weighs on his mind,
weighs on ours. We are satisfied of the great advan
tage of getting the use and assistance of a public docu
ment, made up for distinct purposes, and from inde
pendent sources ; but the difference between us and my
noble Friend is this; we go to the right part of the
rate-book ; he goes to the wrong part of it. We go to
the point, which is nearest to certainty ; while the noble
Lord goes to the point, which is furthest from certainty.
I wish seriously to call the attention of my noble Friend
to the point which I am now going to name, and I
hope, that in all I have said I have given him credit for
every sincerity of purpose. I accused him, indeed, of
confusing some points which should have been kept dis
tinct, but, whether I was right in regard to that charge
or not, at all events what he is now dealing with is,
the valuable principle of making use of the rate-book
as far as we are able. And I say we make use of it.
If he says that he would use it more than we do, in one
sense it may be so ; but I assert, and I think I have
shown, that the true way of amending our procedure is
not the way he proposes. Beyond this, the right
honourable Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire and
the honourable Member for Northamptonshire desire to
oust the Eevising Barrister. Well, there are, I admit,
two sides to that question; and it is one which may
be fairly discussed. But the immediate and essential
question now before the Hous3 is not that of the Ee-

288 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
vising: Barrister ; it is whether we should take for our
basis the column of gross estimated rental, which is the
column that contains the smallest risks and the fewest
sources of error. Now, I put it to my noble Friend
whether every object, which he wishes to attain by
resorting to the rateable value, will not be attained much
more largely and effectuaUy by resorting to the gross esti
mated column. I put it to him that this, at all events,
even on his own showing, must be doubtful. I put it
to him and to the House, that the question as to the
Eevising Barrister is one which requires much con
sideration, and which ought to be made the subject of a
separate discussion. But if my noble Friend is right, and
if the time has come when we can safely oust the Eevising
Barrister — on whicli subject I give no final opinion —
and submit the final adjustment of this matter to the
local authorities, then beyond all dispute the proper
way is to refer to those authorities, not the rateable
value column, but the column of gross estimated rental.
For the gross estimated rental rests in the main on
matters of fact ; and where the law is obeyed, as it com
monly ia even now, and as we hope it would be universally
with the aid of the provisions of our Bill, it comes close
upon the exact truth. But rateable value, involving as
it does many matters of opinion, and likewise requiring,
in order to be good for its own purpose, conditions which
are bad for our purpose, is a test of an inferior order,
which we cannot wisely or consistently adopt.
On these grounds, I hope the House wiU reject the
Motion of my noble Friend. I am not at aU sur
prised that on the former occasion the majority of
honourable Members, who supported the proposal of the
Government, was so small ; because I know very well.

LOED DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 289
and every one who has had much experience in such
affairs must know, that it is extremely difficult, in
minutfe and complicated questions of this kind, to bring
large bodies of persons, even in this House, at once to
a close and accurate knowledge of the facts. For the
last twenty years, there has been a great and growing
sense of the inconveniences and the great expenditure
connected with Eegistration. We share in that con
viction ; and we are ready to take every means to
diminish the evil. The consequence of this feeling has
been a great desire to resort to an external standard.
But, until within the last three years, there was no.
external standard which even in the remotest degree
approached to accuracy, except the standard of rateable
value, and that standard was ' so defective that it was
found unavailable. Then came in my right honourable
Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, and passed
an important Act. And what was that important Act ?
It was a reform, not of the rateable value column, but
of the important executory provisions relating to the
column which gave the gross estimated rental. It laid
down fixed rules for the formation of the column of
gross, estimated rental, and made it a safe and secure
basis for the column of rateable value. But, after we
¦ had all so long accustomed ourselves to speak of the
advantage of making use of the aid which might be
derived from the rate-book, I am not surprised, and I
do not at all (iomplain, that my noble Friend should
have interpreted that reference to the rate-book to mean
exclusively the column of rateable value. But I put it
to him, as a candid man, that every advantage possessed
by his proposition is possessed by ours, as far as the
choice between the two columns is concerned ; that the

290 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
intrinsic superiority of the gross estimated rental column
is indisputable, and, in fact, is almost undisputed in this
House ; and finally, that if he be right in saying that
the decisions of the local authorities should be made
final in this matter, those decisions ought to be founded,
not upon the inferior test of rateable value, but on the
superior criterion of gross estimated rental.

EESIGNATION OP THE MINISTEY. 291

EESIGNATION OP THE MINISTEY.
THE CHANCELLOE of the EXCHEQUEE:
Mr. Speaker, the suspense which the House yester
day so considerately consented to prolong is at an end ;
Her Majesty having been pleased to accept the resigna
tions of our offices, which were last week tendered by
us Her Servants. The House is aware, that, when that
tender was first made. Her Majesty thought fit in her
wisdom to postpone the acceptance of it. It appeared
to Her Majesty, upon the first aspect of the vote which
led to the tender of our resignations, that the subject-
matter of that vote might perhaps be considered as a
matter of machinery and detail susceptible of adjust
ment, rather than as one which went to break up the
framework of the Bill relating to the Eepresentation of
the People ; while Her Majesty also felt — and I think
the House and the country, without distinction of party,
¦wUl agree in that sentiment — that, in the present state
of affairs on the Continent of Europe, there would ne
cessarily be a disadvantage in a change of Government.
Without the slightest approach to any invidious refer
ence, or distinction between parties or individuals, it
may truly be said that, at such a moment, it is not easy
for any in-coming Administration to stgp at once into
exactly the same relations and conditions of intercourse
with Governments and Ministers abroad, which were
enjoyed after long usage by their predecessors ; and the
amount of that difficulty, whatever it may be, is in itself
u 2

292 PAELIAMENTAEY REFORM.
a pubhc disadvantage. Her Majesty upon these grounds
thought fit to postpone her acceptance of our resigna
tions, as the House has been informed, until she should
have had an opportunity of personal conference with my
noble Friend at the head of the Government. This day
I accompanied my noble Friend to Windsor ; and the
opportunity was graciously afforded him of submitting
those explanations, which appeared to us to warrant
the course we had pursued, and of laying before Her
Majesty the full circumstances of the case. Upon re
ceiving those explanations, the tender which had been
postponed was accepted by Her Majesty ; and we now,
by Her Majesty's gracious commands, only retain the
seals of our offices until the time when our successors
shall have been appointed. Having stated thus much,
I think it is due from the Government to the House
that we should not confine ourselves absolutely on such
an occasion to the dry recital of the result arrived at
in the communications with Her Majesty; but that,
while endeavouring to avoid all contested and contro
verted ground, we should submit some explanations to
the House, of a nature to show that, in the step which
we have taken, we have not acted unadvisedly, nor
without aU the care which the subject demands.
After the division. Sir, which took place on Monday,
and during the interval which has since occurred, the
alternative which the Members of the Government have
appeared to have principally before them, as the most
immediate and legitimate subject of consideration in the
present state of the country, has been this'; whether it
was their duty at once to resign their offices, or whether,
on the other hand, they ought to accept the vote which
had been arrived at on the Motion of my noble Friend

RESIGNATION OP THE Mli^TISTRY. 293
the Member for Galway, and to endeavour, so far as
they could, to adapt that vote, and any changes conse
quent upon it, to the framework of their measure, and
to the attainment of its essential object.
Next, Sir, let me state briefly the view which we took
of the nature and effect of the vote. We did, I avow,
carefuUy examine it, in order to see whether it was in
our power to effect such an adaptation as I have spoken
of. The House may, perhaps, recollect that at the
close of the debate the words I ventured to use on the
part of the Government did not amount to an absolute
statement that, if the Amendment of my noble Friend
were carried against us, we should feel it impossible to
conduct the further progress of the BUI ; but they did
express the state of difficulty in which we found ourselves
with respect to the possibility of the adoption of such a
vote ; and I was obliged to say that we could enter into
no engagement as to our conduct in the event of an
adverse decision, but that we must remain free to take
such course as the public interests might appear to
demand. Now, Sfr, when we came to examine the real bearing
of the motion, and to consider whether it was possible
for us to adopt it, we were struck by these difficulties ;
in the flrst place, by the inequalities. of the operation of
a rating franchise in different boroughs ; in the second
place, by the inequalities of its operation in the same
borough ; and, in the third place, by the difficulty, I might
say the impossibility, of choosing any form or figure of
enfranchisement, founded on mere relation to rateable
value, which would express faithfully and exactly, with
out material deviation on one side or the other, the
scale of enfranchisement which we had contemplated

294 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
and submitted to the House, and to which we thought
ourselves bound, not so much by any pedantic reference
to consistency or any merely formal view of the case, as
by a consideration of the public interests. . As to the
operation of a six-pound rating franchise, which was
suggested by the noble Mover of the Amendment, we
found that it would give rise to the inequalities I -will
now state ; and the figures I give can be tested, as to
their substantial accuracy, by any honourable Member
who chooses to refer to the blue-book laid on the table.
We had submitted to the House a plan, under which a
certain number of male occupiers would be enfranchised
by an occupation franchise of seven pounds in boroughs.
We have now asked ourselves, "In the case of each
borough, to what amount of rating franchise must we go
down in order to obtain not less than the number which
¦would be given by an occupation franchise of seven
pounds?" We found the following to be the result.
In sixteen boroughs there would have been enfranchised,
by adopting a franchise founded on a rateable value of
above six pounds, a number equal to or above the
number we proposed to enfranchise. In thirty-nine
boroughs we should have requfred to take not merely
those above six-pound rating, but of six pounds and
upwards. In one hundred and twelve boroughs we must
have gone to five pounds and upwards. In twenty-one
boroughs we must have gone so low as to four pounds
and upwards. In five boroughs it required us to take
in even those rated under four pounds, in order to insure
our having a number not less than that which would be
obtained by a seven-pound rental. Now, I give these
figures as being simply the result of a sum. On their
general accuracy I rely : and thefr general accuracy is

'RESIGNATION OF THE MINISTRY. 295
enough. It is not for me to judge what weight they
may have with others, but in our minds they had con
siderable weight.
We then considered another matter, on which I
need not dwell largely 'at this moment, for it has been
opened and argued in our past debates. We felt very
acutdly the difficulties in which we should be involved
from the establishment of different rates of franchise in
the same borough, owing to the differences of rating
which frequently prevail in different parts of the same
town, when those parts happen to lie within different
Unions. Lastly, we had this to consider ; if we proposed a six-
pound rated franchise, such a proposal involved on the
whole a diminution of enfranchisement, which in our
view was inadmissible. Had we, on the other hand,
proposed a five-pound rated franchise, we should have
exposed ourselves to taunts and objections, the precise
value of which I do not stop to estimate; but un
doubtedly there would have been ground for the state
ment that we had departed materiaUy from the original
framework of, and the standing-ground afforded by, our
BiU, These, Sir, were among the considerations, whieh led
us to the conclusion that the vote on the Motion of my
noble Friend could not be considered as of a minor or
incidental character, but was one which went in a great
degree to break up the framework of the measure. And
even this, I must add, was not the whole, nor nearly
the whole, of our difficulty. We had to consider our
position as a whole ; we had to consider the previous
history of the proceedings on the Bill ; and undoubtedly,
in our particular case, the issue was additionally grave

296 PARLUMENTARY REFORM.
and anxious, because of the pledges we had given in
various forms, and of which we had, not unnaturally nor
improperly, been reminded time after time in the course
of the debates, to stand or fall by our measure. Now,
Sir, those pledges, if they seemed to some to be con
veyed at any time in rhetorical and inflated forms, were
yet, as to their substance, in every case advisedly and
deliberately given. In the opinion of the Cabinet, and
in my own opinion, a pledge on the part of the Govem
ment to stand or fall by a particular measure is a pledge
that should be rarely hazarded. It is the last weapon
in the armoury of a Government; it should not be
lightly taken down from the wall ; and if it is so taken ¦
down it should not lightly be replaced, nor until it has
served the purpose it was meant to fulfll. Sir, that
pledge had been given by us, in the present instance,
under the deepest conviction, whether erroneous or just
it matters not for the present purpose, of our public
duty. We looked back over the course of flfteen years ;
we considered what had been the prior history of this
question ; we did not take into consideration merely the
inherent greatness of the subject; we considered its
inconvenient, its mischievous operation during many of
those years upon the characters of public men, and upon
the character of parties ; and further and yet more,
permit me to say, upon what is higher still, upon the
character of Parliament, and upon the character and
credit of representative institutions. We felt that the
stake was a stake of the highest order ; that the responsi
bility of error was great ; that it was our duty to use
every effort in our power to avoid offence, to conciliate
support, to unite, instead of distracting, the minds of
men ; last, and above all, that it was our duty flrmly

RESIGNATION OF THE MINISTRY, 297
and resolutely to prosecute whatever plan we might
adopt ; and there is, and can be, no such thing as a firm
and resolute prosecution of a subject of such magnitude,
except by attaching the life of the Administration to
the life of the measure they propose.
That, therefore, was the course we took advisedly
and deliberately, not for our own sakes alone, but for the
sake of far higher and far deeper interests, involving
that which is the first condition of good government in
this or in any country ; I mean, the confidence of the
pubUc in the institutions by which, and in the men by
whom, they are ruled. Along with that anxiety we had
a disposition, perhaps erroneous, but most sincere, to
conciUate honourable Members who were timid or fasti
dious, and even such as might be possibly opposed to
us, on the subject of Eeform, at the expense, as I am
bound frankly to say, of those by whom Eeform was
ardently supported. What are the facts ? In 1860 a
measure had been proposed involving as its bases a ten-
pound and a six-pound franchise, which would have
extended the suffrage to not fewer than four hundred
and sixty thousand persons. For those ten-pound and
six-pound franchises, we proposed to substitute franchises
of seven pounds and fourteen pounds. The effect of
this change was, to reduce the number thus to be
enfranchised from four hundred and sixty thousand to
three hundred thousand or thereabouts ; in other words,
to sacrifice about one-third of the enfranchisement which
the provisions that I have cited from the Bill of 1860
would have effected. We thought that was a very large
concession to make ; we thought it was better to make
it early than to make it late ; and, having made it, it
was impossible for us not to see that this very con-

298 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
cession rendered it our duty to attach a stricter interpre
tation, than we might otherwise have been warranted in
giving, to the pledge we had furnished to the country
to stand or fall by our Bill.
I may be permitted likewise to say, as I have said
before, without intending reproach to any one, that it
was our opinion, and an opinion upon which we acted,
that no secondary difficulty, no secondary consideration,
should be allowed to interfere with our making progress
with the Bill. Accordingly we consented to make
changes in our mode of procedure upon the BUI, such
as I believe have been rarely made in the case of any
great measure, introduced deliberately, and persevered
in, by a Government. We agreed cheerfully, though
against our own opinions, to produce a BiU for the Ee-
distribution of Seats ; we agreed that that BiU should
be united with the Bill we had afready submitted to
the House. On both these points, we yielded to the
wish of the majority of the House, waiving, though not
disguising, our own convictions ; because we held that,
however just we might deem our own opinion to be, it
did not warrant the serious public evil of a conflict with
the majority of the House of Commons upon a question
respecting the representation of the people, especially
after what had happened with regard to that represen
tation in former years. In the same manner, when
some provisions of the BiU, which appeared to us,
though valuable, yet to be capable of being parted with,
became matter of objection, we agreed to withdraw
them. We agreed to ¦withdraw the clause respecting
leasehold voters in boroughs. We agreed to modify
the fourth clause in a point which was deemed to be of
much importance. These modifications were acceded

RESIGNATION OF THE MINISTRY. 299
to at the instance of honourable Gentlemen opposite ;
and it will be recollected that the last of them excited
Hvely expostulations from a large number of gentlemen
on our own side of the House, who thought it their duty,
from the strength of the convictions they entertained,
to give expression to them by a division. There re
mained but one point of difference in regard to pro
cedure, and that was upon the earnest wish we enter
tained to pass a measure upon the subject during the
present year. With respect to that matter, when
chaUenged to repeat in strong terms the expression of
our desire, we deUberately waived any such repetition,
' because we felt that it was invidious, and that it might
even be disrespectful, to flourish as it were a declaration
of that nature in the face of the House of Commons ;
while we covered even that remaining subject by a
general declaration, made by me in words expressly
authorised by my colleagues, that we should be loath
indeed to quarrel with the House, or with any portion
of the House which might appear to be agreed with us
as to the object we had in view, upon any question
whatever of procedure.
However, Sir, we find that these, which I will now
enumerate, were the proceedings upon the Bill. On
the 27th of April, my noble Friend the Member for
Chester (Earl Grosvenor) made a Motion as an Amend
ment to the second reading, the effect of which would
have been that we should have been compelled to
produce the Seats BiU, before the House had given any
vote or indication whatever upon the Bill I had laid
upon the table. That Motion, as is known to honour
able Members, was rejected, in a House unprecedentedly
large, by a majority of only five, the numbers being

300 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
three hundred and thirteen for, and three hundred and
eighteen against, the Motion. iThe next step in the
progress of the question, which it may be well to notice,
was that adopted by the House on the 28th of May ;
when the honourable Baronet (Sfr Eainald Knightley)
made a Motion to instruct the Committee on the Eepre
sentation of the People Bill to include in the BiU clauses
for the repression of bribery and corruption. Our
difficulty already was, and was well known to be, the
overweight of the measure, and the almost impossibUity
of finding time to consider it. We remonstrated against
the proposal ; we pointed out that at least that course
had not been pursued on former occasions ; the House
thought fit to overrule the views of the Government;
and by a majority of ten the honourable Baronet carried
his Motion. I do not at this moment ask whether he
was right or wrong. I am only speaking of the obstacles;
which we found besetting us, on our road towards the
end we had in view. But I proceed. On the 4th of
June another Motion was made, in avowed concert with
the party opposite, by my honourable and gallant Friend
the Member for Wells (Captain Hayter), which certainly
ended without a division, but which was debated for
three nights ; and which evidently must have had, and
was intended to have, the effect of setting aside the
consideration of the Bill for the present year. On the
7th of June, the noble Lord the Member for King's
Lynn (Lord Stanley) made a Motion for the purpose of
postponing the clauses of enfranchisement to the clauses
affecting the re-distribution of Seats. Sir, that Motion
was made without any public notice whatever. But it
came within the knowledge of the Government at a
subsequent period that, through channels I am not able

RESIGNATION OP THE MINISTEY. 301
to point out, information that either that Motion, or
some such Motion, would be made on that day and at
that hour, had been conveyed to certain gentlemen on
this side of the House, whose views appeared likely to
be favourable to the Motion. Notwithstanding these
circumstances, a minority of two hundred and sixty
gentlemen supported the Motion of the noble Lord ; it
was, however, rejected by two hundred and eighty-seven.
We were then met by the right honourable Gentleman
the Member for Cambridge University, who proposed
to raise the county franchise from fourteen pounds
to twenty pounds, and thereby to maim, in our view —
at all events, greatly to alter — I withdraw the word
" maim," for I wish to use no. word that can seem to
savour of eagerness or of exaggeration — one of the funda
mental clauses of the Bill. The Motion was rejected,
but rejected by a very smaU majority ; by no more than
fourteen. Then came on, in another form, a Motion
also admitted to have for one of its objects the raising
of the county franchise, I mean the Motion of the
honourable Member for Northampton (Mr. Hunt), to
substitute a rated value of fourteen pounds for the clear
annual value of that amount. That Motion also was
rejected ; but only by a majority of seven. Then, last
of all, came the seventh of these determined struggles,
the Motion of my noble Friend the Member for Galway
(Lord Dunkellin), raising the very same point for the
boroughs which had been rejected for the counties by
this majority of only seven, although it is within the
knowledge of us all that, whatever difficulties attach to
the use of the column of rateable value, be they great
or small, they are undoubtedly difficulties which will be
felt much more in the boroughs, than in the counties.

302 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
That Motion, however, was carried by a majority of
eleven. And it was upon a deliberate review of this
series of facts — from the recital of which I have endea
voured to exclude, and I hope I have excluded, every
colouring epithet — it was upon combining that review
of the previous divisions and debates ¦with what I have
already stated as the nature of the Motion itself, that
we arrived at the conclusion, that effectual progress
with the Bill — progress such as would leave the standing
ground of the House of Commons relatively to the BUI
sensibly different at the end of our labours for the year,
from that which it had been at the beginning — such
progress had become impossible ; and that consequently,
as between the alternatives I have named, of an en
deavour to accept the judgment of the House, and
adapt it to the framework of our Bill, and that other
equally legitimate alternative of resignation, our duty
was, in the first instance, on Tuesday last, to tender the
resignation of our offices; and finally, on having the
opportunity of communication, through Her Majesty's
gracious kindness, with Her Majesty herself to-day, to
persevere in such resignation.
Sir, I hope that, in conveying to the House the
motives which acted upon our minds, I have been fortu
nate enough to make it understood that our sole desire
is to present the subject-matter, with which I have
dealt, simply as we ourselves ¦viewed it ; but that I lay
down no law and imply no opinion for others, and that
I am not using the matter I have stated in the way, I will
not say of reproach, but even of argument. Such, then,
were the considerations which weighed upon our minds.
It is the duty of the members of a retiring Government,
especiaUy in circumstances of gravity, and with regard

RESIGNATION OF THE MINISTRY. 303
to a measure of capital public importance, to place the
House of Commons, so far as their obligations with
regard to the pubUc interests may allow them, in pos
session of the motives and considerations by which they
have been guided. That plea, I trust, will be thought to
excuse the length, at which I have detained the House.
I have no more. Sir, to add than simply this ; that as
we hold our offices only until our successors are ap
pointed, I now propose to move that this House at its
rising do adjourn untU Thursday next ; not at all with
the behef that at so early a date any effectual measures
wiU have been taken for the formation of an Adminis
tration, but rather with the idea that on Thursday there
inay Ije some person with whom we may be enabled to
communicate, and at whose instance, as he will then be
the proper judge of the arrangements for public busi
ness, we may on Thursday be enabled to propose a
further adjournment of the House. I need hardly say
that at the meeting of the House on Thursday, and,
indeed, at its meeting to-day, I am not aware of any
formal rule which would prevent honourable Members
from proceeding with Orders, or other business, which
may stand upon the Notice Paper. But I am quite
sure it wiU be felt that any such prosecution of business
would be inconvenient during the period of what is
actually an abeyance of the functions of the Govern
ment ; unless indeed it be business which is absolutely
essential, and beyond dispute. One sueh exception is
the Yote we propose to take to-day, in order to be able
to make some necessary payments in connexion with the
Packet Service. If that Vote is passed to-day, it may
be reported on Thursday, and the Eeport will then be
in time for the purposes for which it is required.

304 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.

SPEECH ON MOVING THE DISCHAEGE OE THE
OEDEE OF THE DAY FOE FUETHEE PEO-
CEEDING WITH THE BILL.
ME. W. E. GLADSTONE : Sfr, in rising to move
that the Orders of the day for going into Com
mittee on these Bills be discharged, I have to say a
very few words in explanation of the course that I have
now finally taken with reference to them. I did not,
on the resignation of the late Government, at once
move that the Orders should be discharged, under the
conviction, which I shared with my colleagues, that it
was our duty to allow those Orders to stand until our
successors had taken their places, in order that they
might have an opportunity of stating either thefr
general intentions, or any special matter connected with
their views in relation to the BiUs, or to the subject of
Eeform. But the declarations made by various leading
members of the Government in another place, and like
wise in the country, have satisfied us that it is not their
intention to take any steps in reference to these Bills ;
and I beg it, Sir, to be understood, that I by no means
make that circumstance a subject of complaint against
them in the present state of facts. We, however, here
upon determined to propose that the Orders of the day
should be discharged, and the Bills consequently dropped.
But in making that proposal, I did not think it right to
treat the dropping of these Bills as a matter of course ;
and, therefore, I gave previous notice of my intention to

WITHDRAWAL OP THE BILLS. 305
move that the orders be discharged, so that any mem
bers of the House might have an opportunity of ex
pressing their opinion as to the Bills, and as to the
question whether any attempt ought to be made by the
present Government to deal with them. It being now
two hours past midnight, I ¦vrill not long detain the
House at such a period of the sitting, nor, indeed, would
I have detained you. Sir, long at an earlier hour, upon
this subject. I do not think that, under the circum
stances in which I am placed, it would be advisable for
me to attempt any further proceeding with these BiUs ;
but, after all that has happened, it may be expected
that I should say one word with respect to the future.
The great subject of the amendment of the represen
tation of the people is not any longer primarily in my
hands, nor in the hands of those with whom I had the
honour to be associated. It is, of course, to her Majesty's
Gov-emment, in the first instance, that the country
will look for its decision with respect to this important
matter. I do not press the Government upon the
question; I do not make any complaint against the
Government for having declined to give any definite
opinion upon it immediately on their assumption of
office. I shall only say with regard to our successors
in office, that it wUl be a matter of great satisfaction to
myself and my coUeagues when the Government shall
feel themselves in a position enabling them to deal
with this question in an effectual manner. I do not ask
from them, nor am I prepared to give on my own part,
or upon the part of those with whom I have the honour
to act, any pledge with regard to the particulars of
these BiUs or either of them, or with regard to any par
ticular provisions in these or any other Bills dealing

306 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
¦with Parliamentary Eeform. This is not a time when
the matter should be so handled ; but I may say thus
much : we shaU in the future be glad, irrespectively of
all nan-ow and selfish considerations, to support any
measure which we may deem to be at once prudent and
effectual, if such a measure should be introduced by
those who may be more successful than we have been
in the attempt to settle a great imperial question. We
shall sincerely congratulate them upon a result so
happy for the country. At the same time, I also feel
it my duty to say, without reflecting in any way upon
those who have been opposed to us, that we shall feel
bound to resist, to the utmost of our power, any illusory
Or reactionary measure. Beyond what I have now
briefly stated, we only desire that our intentions with
reference to Parhamentary Eeform should be estimated
from what we have afready said and done during the
past Session ; and, whatever course we may feel called
upon to take with regard to any Bill which may be
introduced by the Government, we trust it may be
found consistent with the spirit of our previous conduct.
With these few words I beg leave. Sir, to move that
the order of the day for going into Committee on the
Eepresentation of the People BiUs be discharged.

( 307 )

APPEl^DIX.

No. 1.— LETTEE TO THE LONDON WOEKING
MEN'S ASSOCIATION. " 11, Caeltok-house Terrace,
" Gentlemen, July 2, 1866.
" I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the
29th. In that letter, on behalf of the London Working
Men's Association, you invite me to attend a public
meeting which they propose to hold for the purpose of
thanking me for what I have done, or endeavoured to
do, in vindication against attacks which they term
insults and calumnies, and of winch I must own that
it is difficult to visit them with any terms of censure
more severe than they deserve.
"It is with reluctance that I decline any invitation
proceeding from a portion of my fellow-subjects to
whom our electoral laws, as they exist, accord less
liberally than to others the regular constitutional faci
lities for making known their wishes, and for the
representation of their interests. The force of thi?
consideration is, however, diminished, when I recollect
how well and nobly, during the recent Parliamentary
struggle, the cause which I believe to be not less
the cause of loyalty and of order than of freedom and
of liberal policy, has been defended by the repre
sentatives of the metropolis. If there be a single
X 2

308 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
exception, it only serves to exhibit more conspicuously
the general truth of my assertion.
" I am obliged to excuse myself from accepting your
flattering invitation, first, because I feel that, after the
labours of the last five months, prudence compels me
to look for some comparative repose ; and, secondly,
because I am convinced that I shall best serve the
cause which, in unison with my distinguished col
leagues, and under our long-tried leader, I have had
in hand, by confining my humble efforts in political
debate as far as possible, first, to my place in the
House of Commons, and, secondly, to any occasion
when I meet my numerous constituents in Lancashire.
" In saying this I shall not be supposed to indicate
a disposition to recede from the ground on which we
have stood during the contest. I look upon the recent
resignation by Lord Eussell's Govemment of their
offices as one more onward step towards the accom
plishment of their object, and in the hour of defeat
I have the presentiment of victory.
"By a scrupulous moderation -in fixing the limits of
our original design, by a careful deference to every
wish of the House of Commons in regard to methods of
procedure, and by an unflinching firmness in resisting
every effort, direct or covert, to impair the scheme
or lessen the amount of enfranchisement we had pro
posed, we sought to unite the conditions most likely to
insure success in an undertaking marked in former
years by so many miscarriages and failures. Whether
our plan is finally to be added to the list of these
miscarriages, remains yet to be seen. To wait with
patience the course of present events, to be especially
on our guard against any illusory or reactionary

LETTER TO MR. HUGESSEN. 309
measure simulating the name and character of Eeform
— ^to encourage the calm, serious, orderly, and temperate
expression of opinion — seem to be the chief duties of
the hour ; and in discharging these duties I am per
suaded we shall show we are not less (we even think we
are rather more) entitled than our opponents to the
character of good citizens, of true-hearted Britons, and
of affectionate and loyal subjects.
" I have the honour to be. Gentlemen,
" Your very faithful servant,
"W. E. Gladstone.
" To the President (Mr. George Potter) and
the Secretary (Mr. R. H-artwell) of the
London Workmg Men's Association."

No. 2.— LETTEE TO ME. HUGESSEN.
" 11, Oarlton-housb Tekkaoe,
" Mt dear Hugessen, J'^iy 30, 1866.
" I have received your letter, enclosing a copy of one
addressed by Sir Edward Dering on the 16th of July to
Lieutenant-General WiUiams ; and, as you have asked
my opinion on the case, I shall consider your request
as my warrant for commenting on a matter which is,
indeed, one of great public interest, but in which I
have no title whatever to interfere,
" I cannot say that Sir Edward Dering's reasons for
voting with Lord Dunkellin have, in my view, any
weight. He says it was not proposed by Lord Dunkellin,

310 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
or by any one else, to substitute a seven-pound rating
for a seven-pound rental. But I apprehend this very
thing was proposed by Mr. Cave, the gentleman selected
to second the motion. The mover, I think, stated his
preference for a six-pound rating, which would have
excluded a large number whom we had proposed to
enfranchise. Sir E. Dering will recollect, that the
speakers for the amendment were gentlemen opposed
either to the Bill or to the Franchise clauses. He says
the Government should have proposed a rating Fran
chise of an amount not higher than the seven-pound
rental Franchise. Now, as six-pound rating would have
been materially higher, he must apparently mean that
we ought to have proposed a five-pound rating Fran
chise. But this, the next lowest figure, would have
given an enfranchisement materially larger than that
of the Bill. I wonder Sir E. Dering does not see
that, if we had done this, we should for the first time
have given colour, and even more than colour, to
the charge which has from the beginning been urged
against us with such persistency and such gross and
palpable injustice, the charge of having disregarded
the fears and scruples of the moderate, and of having
leant to the doctrines of extreme politicians. What
he recommends as the obvious and easy remedy for
the dilemma, was, in our view, wholly inadmissible.
But it is one question whether the vote, or the reasons
given for it, are good; and it is another whether I,
if I were an Elector of East Kent, should withhold
my support from Sir E. Dering on account of it.
It ought, I think, now to be the great object of all
who are interested, either in the Liberal party or in
the subject of Parliamentary Eeform, to bring about

LETTER TO ME, HUGESSEN, 311
such an union of sentiment in the party as may obviate
aU risk of the repetition of the late unhappy events,
and may secure a speedy and satisfactory settlement
of the question, I give entire credence to any declara
tion proceeding from Sir E, Dering; and, examining
his letter vrith the view I have described, I find its
meaning unequivocal; especiaUy where he says that,
by proposing an equivalent enfranchisement in an
altered form, we should, ' if beaten on that vital point,'
have 'put ourselves in the right and our opponents
in the wrong.' This proves, without entering into
minute criticism, that Sfr E. Dering was friendly to
the substance of our measure. On that ground, without
in the least degree qualifying my opinion as to that
particular vpte, I not only, if I were one of your
brother-electors, should not vote against Sir E, Dering,
but I should continue to afford him exactly the same
support as if that vote had not been given. I read
his letter, and accept his declarations, in the spirit
of confidence, and not in the spirit of suspicion. We,
the supporters of the Bill, who have had occasion to
feel how the spirit of suspicion poisons the atmosphere
of politics, and renders hopeless what otherwise, though
difficult, was practicable enough, should, I think, set
an example of discarding it, and of interpreting and
treating others as we wish to be treated and interpreted
ourselves, " I remain, my dear Hugessen,
" Sincerely yours,
" W. E. Gladstone.
" E. H. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Esq., M.P."

312 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM,
No, 3,— LETTEE TO ME, H0E8PALL, OF
MANCHESTEE. " 11, Carlton-house Teeeace,
« Sir, August 8, 1866,
" In reply to your letter of the 6th, I beg respectfuUy
to express my desfre that my views respecting reform in
Parliament should be gathered from my own acts,
and from my language, in which they have been amply
stated, I do not agree in the demand either for man
hood or for housebold suffrage ; whUe I own with regret
that the conduct of the opponents of the Govemment
measure of this year has done much to encourage that
demand, which, but for such opposition, would scarcely
have been heard of. You are at liberty to make such
use of this letter as you may think fit,
" And I remain. Sir,
" Your very humble servant,
" W. E, Gladstone.
" William Horsfall, Esq,"

( 313 )

No, 4,— SPEECH ON THE BILL OF ME, BAINES,
IN 1864,

ADVEETISEMENT,
In this Speech ¦will be found the expression of an opinion
that the Legislature should exclude from the franchise on
two grounds only. First, it should exclude those who are,
presumably, in themselves unfitted to exercise it with intelli
gence and integrity. Secondly, it should exclude those with
respect to whom it might appear that, though no personal
unfitness can be alleged against them, yet political danger
might arise from their admission; as, for example, through
the disturbance of the equilibrium of the constituent body, or
through virtual monopoly of power in a single class.
General statements of principle, advanced in debate, if
they are such as, in the view of candid minds, to require
explanation, ought to find it in the context of the Speech
which contains them.
Objection has been taken, and even alarm expressed, with
respect to the breadth of the particular statement now in
question, I carmot make any other reply than to publish it,
as it was delivered, together with its context, and to leave
it, subject only to equitable allowance for faults of hasty
expression, to the discerning consideration of the reader.
Another objection I could more readily have conceived ;
namely this : that a proposition, apparently of wide scope, is
reduced by large and scarcely definable exceptions within
rather narrow limits. Still, the exceptions appeared along
¦with the proposition, and formed part of it.
If, indeed, I am asked whether it was a deliberate and
studied annoimcement, I reply that it was not : it was drawn
forth on the moment by a course of argument from the
opponents of the measure, which appeared to assume that

314 PAELIAMENTAEY REFORM.
the present limitations of the franchise, disavowed as they
have been by such an accumulation of authority, required no
defence from thefr newly-risen advocates, and were to be
accepted ¦without inquiry, as in themselves, at least pre
sumptively, good and normal. But I am aware that this
cfrcumstance, if the opinion be blameable, wiU afford no
apology. Further, I spoke ¦with reference to the present, or rather
indeed with a view to retrieving arrears of the past; and
neither time, nor as I think reason, permitted me to attempt
the solution of problems of real intricacy, which belong
wholly to the future, and which are little likely to become
practical except for another generation.
If I regret the manner in which my declaration has been
interpreted, it is chiefly because of its tendency to produce
in other quarters an exaggerated estimate; likely, when
brought down to the dimensions of fact, to cause disap
pointment. The question is, whether the statement be a gratuitous
and startling novelty, or whether it is rather the practical
revival of a strain which, five years ago^ was usual and
familiar ; which had then derived abundant countenance
from the very highest organs of political articulation, and
which now only sounds strange because within that period it
has fallen into desuetude.
As the opinion of an individual, the whole matter is of
trifling consequence. But the consistency of parties and
of Parliaments is a subject of weight and moment ; for upon
this depends that store of public confidence, which is of such
inexorable necessity, and of such inestimable value, for the
maintenance of our free and happy Government.

SPEECH ON THE BILL OF MR. BAINES, 1864, 315

THE CHANCELLOE op the EXCHEQUEE: I
must begin, Sir, by observing, that the speech of
the honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr, Carr), in my
opinion, went far beyond the scope of the motion which
he has submitted to the House, For it was really a
speech against all extension of the franchise in the
direction of the working classes, and it did not refer
merely to the subject of that particular franchise, which
we have to adopt or reject in connexion with the present
Bill. However, it may be said with truth, that it is
not the speech in question, but the Motion of my hon
ourable Friend on the one side and the Amendment of
the honourable Member opposite on the other, with
which we have principally to deal. Let us, then, con
sider what is the practical issue raised for our present
decision. There are two points bearing upon this question, the
one a matter of fact, and the other a matter of judg
ment, upon which it raay be reasonably supposed there
will be a general concurrence of opinion. With regard
to the raatter of fact, there is no doubt that those, who
sit on the other side, may be said to be unanimous in
deprecating at the present time — and certainly, as far
as the arguraent of the honourable Gentleman, and the
reception cf that argument, afforded an indication, at
anv time — the extension of the franchise. I do not
atterapt to conceal or deny, on the other hand, that the
other great party in the country is not unaniraous on
the subject. No sraall number of those, who profess

316 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
liberal opinions, are indifferent, some may be even
averse, to any change such as is proposed by the Bill,
from a ten-pound to a six-pound franchise in towns.
The second point, upon which I think all parties are
agreed, is this; that at the present period, and in a
state of opinion such as now subsists, it would not be
advisable, I might even say it would not be justifiable,
for the Government of the Queen, however it might be
composed, to submit a measure on this subject to Par
liament. Under these circumstances, and with these
admissions freely made, the question we have before us
for to-day is this : What course ought we to take on
the Motion of my honourable Friend, having regard to
the Amendment which has been moved in favour of
postponement? My honourable Friend, without com
munication with the Government, and acting, as far as
I am aware, entirely in the exercise of his own discre
tion, has brought his proposal before us as a subject
for discussion. I treat tliis, without praise or censure,
merely as a fact. And now I admit it may be said that
the motion of the honourable Gentleman opposite, which
is a motion for time, does, in fact, no more than em
body the admissions I have myself made, namely, that
this is not a period for a Government to deal with this
question, and that even the party which represents the
liberal opinions of the country is not unaniraous on the
subject. Why, then, do I vote against the honourable
Gentleman's raotion? It is because, even when taken
apart from his speech, although much more if taken in
connection with the speech, it appears to me to support,
to justify, and to confirm a state of facts and opinions,
which I deeply deprecate and deplore. Admitting the

SPEECH ON THE BILL OF MR. BAINES, 1864. 317
existence of those opinions within the limits I have
described — and it is useless to shut our eyes to their
existence — I must say that I deeply deplore them. I
wUl not go the whole length of my honourable Friend
in respect to the precise terms he used as to the broken
pledges of Governments and parties, but I will not
scruple to admit that, at least as it appears to me,
so much of our Parliamentary history during the last
thirteen years — I mean during the years since the vote
on Mr. Locke King's Bill in 1851 — as touches Parlia
mentary Eeform, is a most unsatisfactory chapter in
that histoiy ; and has added nothing to the honour of
Parliament, or to the safety and well-being of the
country. Now I cannot expect any sudden change for
the better as likely to arise from any debate or deci
sion on the present Bill. Yet I am convinced that the
discussion of the question in the House of Commons
must, through the gentle process by which Parlia
mentary debates act on the public mind, gradually help
to bring home the conviction that vve have not been so
keenly alive to our duties in this matter as we ought to
have been ; that it is for the interests of the country that
this matter should be entertained ; and that it ought, if
we are wise, to be brought to an early settlement. The
conditions requisite for dealing with it can only be sup
plied by a favourable state of the public mind ; but
the public mind is itself guided, and opinion modified,
in no small degree, by the debates of Parliament.
One especial advantage attends to-day the discussion
of this question, that, at present, at all events, it is not
to be held strictly a party question. I ara afraid, in
deed, if I take as a criterion the cheers with which the

318 PARLIAMENTARY REPaEM.
speech of the honourable Gentleman opposite was re
ceived, and the quarter from which they proceeded,
that the time may come when this may, and will, once
more become a party question. For the present, how
ever, we may discuss it without exclusive reference to
party associations ; and I may take the opportunity of
saying that for this reason I am glad — though for others
I am not so — that my honourable Friend the Member
for Salisbury has stepped into the arena on this occa
sion ; because the circumstance enables us the more
easily to find our way into the discussion of the question
without the apprehension that we are irritating and
exciting those passions and party sentiments, which
necessarily enter into our debates when party interests
are concerned, and which might help to obscure the
true merits of the case. I wiU address myself, then, to
the question actually before us, admitting again that, if
I deeply deplore the state of opinion opposite, I ara far
from being satisfied with the state of opinion on this
side of the House.
My honourable Friend the Member for Salisbury
appears to think that he has made out his case when he
has advanced three propositions : one of them, that no
body desires, nobody petitions for, the Bill ; the next,
that to propose the extension of the franchise down
wards is to propose also the encouragement of bribery ;
and the third, that the working classes have their in
terests well attended to by the House of Commons as
it is at present constituted. Now, Sir, I decline alto
gether to follow my honourable Friend into an argu
ment upon the question whether or not the extension
of the franchise downwards would really .l^ad to the

SPEECH ON THE BILL OP ME. BAINES, 1864. 319
encouragement of bribery. I would simply record my
eniphatic dissent from that statement. Again, with
respect to the allegatioa that the working classes have
their interests weU cared for by this House, far be it
frora me to deny that this House has a strong feeling
of sympathy ¦with the working classes ; hut permit me
to say that that sympathy is not the least strongly felt,
and that its practical exhibition has certainly not been
least remarkable, among those also who are the imme
diate promoters and supporters of this Bill. And next
I come to the assertion that nobody desires a measure
of this sort. But before otherwise dealing with this
assertion, I want to know where, in a discussion such as
is now before us, Ues the burden of proof ? Is the onus
probandi upon those who maintain that the present state
of the representation ought not to be touched, or upon
those who say it ought to be amended? The hon
ourable Member for Shoreham says the case of the
British constitution, after a BUI of this sort, will be
like the case of the man over whom was written the
epitaph, "I was well ; I would be better ; here I ara ;"
and he told us again that to venture on a change such
as is presented in this BiU was to enter on a " domestic
revolution." Sir, I entirely deprecate the application
of language of such a kind to the present Bill. I will
not now enter into the question whether the precise
form of franchise, and the precise figure, which my
honourable Friend has indicated, may or may not be
that which upon full deliberation we ought to choose ;
I will not now inquire whether the franchise should be
founded on ratepaying or on occupation ; neither will
I consider whether or not there should be a lodger's
franchise ; I put aside every question except the very

320 PAELIAMENTAEY EEFOEM.
simple one which I take to be at issue, and on this I
will endeavour not to be misunderstood. I apprehend
my honourable Friend's BiU to mean (and if such be
the meaning I give ray cordial concurrence to the pro
position), that there ought to be, not a wholesale, nor
an excessive, but a sensible and considerable addition to
that portion of the working classes — at present almost
infinitesimal — which is in possession of the franchise.
Now, Sir, if I am asked what I mean by a " sensible
and considerable addition," I reply that I mean such
an addition as I think, and as we at the time contended
in argument,* would have been made by the BiU which
the present Government submitted to the House in
1860. Does then the owms of proof that there is a
necessity for such a measure lie with us? Has the
honourable Member wholly forgotten, or does he set
wholly at nought, all the formal and solemn declara
tions of the years from 1851 to lS60 ? What, again, is
the present state of the constituency, any departure
* " You have got already a borough constituency of four hundred
and iifty thousand : you are going to add one hundred and fifty
thousand, or at the most extravagant estimate two hundred thou
sand  The labouring classes might be two hundred thousand
in a borough constituency of six hundred and fifty thousand : that
is, they would be less than one-third of the whole borough constitu
ency, and only in about one-half of the boroughs, or one-third part
of the seats, returning members for England and Wales, would thus
amount to such numbers as to act with any sensible or appreciable
foi-ce. Now, Sir, is that the lion's share ? and does that justify the
appeals which have been made, and the lecture we have received
to-night on American institutions ? " — Speech of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer on the Bill for Amending the Eepresentation of the
People, May 3, 1860. Hansard, vol. 158, pp. 461, 2 The report
is not a corrected one : and in the extract here given I have cor
rected an error by altering four hundred and ten thousand into four
hundred and fifty thousand.

SPEECH ON THE BILL OP MR. BAINES, 1864. 321
from which the honourable Gentleman deprecates and
stigmatises as a " domestic revolution " ? At present
we have, speaking generally, a constituency of which
between one-tenth and one-twentieth — certainly less
than one-tenth — consists of working men. And what
proportion does that fraction of the working classes,
who are in possession of the franchise, bear to the
whole body of the working classes ? I apprehend I am
correct in saying that those, who possess the franchise,
are less than one-fiftieth of the whole number of the
working classes. Is that a state of things which we
cannot venture to touch or modify ? Is there no choice
between excluding forty-nine out of every fifty working
men on the one hand, and on the other a " domestic
revolution " ? I contend, then, that it is on the hon
ourable Gentleman that the burden of proof must be
held principally to lie ; that it is on those who say it is
necessary to exclude forty-nine-fiftieths that the burden
of proof rests ; that it is for thera to show the unworthi
ness, the incapacity, and the misconduct of the working
classes, in order to make good their argument that no
larger portion of thera than this should be adraitted to
the suffrage. (" Oh, oh ! ") I ara sorry to find that it
is anywhere thought necessary to treat this question
by what, perhaps, to use a mild phrase, I may call
"inarticulate reasoning ;" and I will endeavour not to
provoke more of it from a certain quarter of the House
than I can help. But it is an opinion which I entertain
that if forty-nine-fiftieths of the working classes are to
be excluded from the franchise, it is certainly with
those who maintain that exclusion that it rests to
show its necessity. On the other hand, my honourable
Friend indicates that kind of extension of the suffrage

322 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM,
which would make the working classes a sensible frac
tion of the borough constituency ; an important fraction,
but StiU a decided minority as compared with the other
portion of it. That is the proposition, which we have
before us for our present consideration.
We are' told that the working classes do not agitate
for an extension of the franchise ; but is it desirable
that we should wait until they do agitate ? In my
opinion, agitation by the working classes, upon any
political subject ¦whatever, is a thing not to be waited
for, not to be raade a condition previous to any Parlia
mentary moveraent ; but, on the contrary, it is a thing
to be deprecated, and, if possible, anticipated and pre
vented by wise and provident measures. An agitation
by the working classes is not like an agitation by the
classes above them, the classes possessed of leisure. The
agitation of the classes having leisure is easily con
ducted. It is not with them that every hour of time
has a money value ; their wives and children are not
dependent on the strictly reckoned results of those
hours of labour. When a working man finds himself
in such a condition that he must abandon that daily
labour on which he is strictly dependent for his daily
bread, when he gives up the profitable application of
his time, it is then that, in railway language, " the
danger-signal is turned on;" for he does it only be
cause he feels a strong necessity for action, arid a dis
trust in the rulers who, as he thinks, have driven him
to that necessity. The present state of things, I rejoice
to say, does not indicate that distrust ; but if we admit
this as matter of fact, we must not along with the
a'lmission allege the absence of agitation on the part
of the working classes as a sufficient reason why the

SPEECH ON THE BILL OF MR, BAINES, 1864. 323
ParUament of England, and the public mind of Eng
land, should be indisposed to entertain the discussion of
this question.
I may presume. Sir, to mention that I happen to
have had a recent opportunity of obtaining some in
formation respecting the views of the working classes
on this subject. It arose incidentally ; but I thought
it worth attention at the time, and I still think it may
be worth the attention of the House. It was in con
nexion with the discussions on the Government Annui
ties Bill, when a deputation, representing the most
extensive among all the existing combinations of the
working classes of Liverpool, came to me, and expressed
their own sentiraents and those of their feUows with
respect to that Bill.
Mr. Horsfall. — It was not a deputation from Liver
pool, but from London, (Hear, hear,)
The Chancellor op the Exchequer, — I am not
aware of having said Liverpool, (" Yes, yes,") I beg
pardon, then, I meant London ; and I thank my hon
ourable Friend for the correction he has supplied, as
it enables me to report the views of a body of men
perhaps some six or eight times larger than any corre
sponding body in Liverpool, After disavowing oppo
sition to that, measure, they proceeded to hold language
such as this : " If there has been any suspicion or dis
inclination to this Bill on the part of the working
classes, it is owing in a great measure to their dissatis
faction with the conduct of Parliament during recent
years in reference to the extension of the suffrage,"
Part of my answer to them was, " If you complain of
the conduct of Parliament, depend upon it the conduct
of ParUament has been connected in no small degree
Y 2

324 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
¦with the apparent inaction, and alleged indifference,
of the working classes themselves with respect to the
suffrage," The reply which they then returned was one
which made a deep impression on my mind. They
used language to the foUowing effect : " It is true that,
since the abolition of the corn-laws, we have given up
political agitation; we have begun from that time to
feel that we might place confidence in Parliament ; that
we might look to Parliament to pass beneficial mea
sures without agitation. We were told then to abandon
those habits of political action which had so ranch in
terfered with the ordinary occupations of our lives ; and
we have endeavoured to substitute for them the em
ployment of our evenings in the improvement of om:
minds." I do not hesitate to confess that I was greatiy
struck by that answer. And, after hearing it, I for one
am more than ever unable to turn round on the working
classes and say, that it is plain they do not care for the
extension of the franchise, because they do not agitate
in order to obtain it.
The objection made by the honourable Gentleman
opposite and by many others is, that the working
classes, if admitted even in limited numbers, or at aU
events so as to form any considerable proportion of a
constituency, will go together as a class, and wholly
separate themselves from other classes. I do not wish
to use harsh language, and therefore I will not say that
that is a libel ; but I believe it to be a statement alto
gether unjustified by reference to facts. It is not a
fact, as I believe, that the working men, who are now
invested with the franchise, act together as a class ; and
there is not the slightest reason to suppose that they
would so act together if there were a moderate and

SPEECH ON THE BILL OF MR. BAINES, 1864. 325
fafr extension of the suffrage. If, indeed, we were
to adopt a sudden and sweeping measure, a measure
which might deserve the epithet of revolutionary ; if we
were to do anything which vvould give a monopoly of
power to the working classes ; if, for example, instead
of adopting a measure which would raise the propor
tion of working men in the town constituencies to one-
tlurd, you gave the franchise to two-thirds, there would
be some colour for the anticipation, and some justifi
cation for the language so lightly used; there might
then Be some temptation to set up class interests on
the part of those, who might thus have the means of
obtaining, or at least a temptation to grasp at, a
monopoly of power, and it would, under these circum
stances, be for us to show, if we could, that no danger
would arise. But I appeal to the evidence of all who
know anything of the facts, to say whether we have not
seen the working classes, in places where they pos
sessed the franchise, instead of being disposed to go
together as a class, rather inclined, as a general rule,
and under all ordinary circumstances, to foUow their
superiors, to confide in them, to trust them, and fo hold
thera in high esteem. Their landlords in the country,
their eraployers in the' town, their neighbours, and
those whose personal characters they respect — these are
the men whom the working classes commonly elect to
follow ; and, for my part, I believe, if there is anything
which will induce thera to alter their conduct, and to
make it their rule to band together as a class, it will
be resentment at exclusion, and a sense of injustice.
Whatever tends to denote them as persons open to the
influence of bribery — as persons whose admission within
the pale of the constitution constitutes " a domestic re-

326 PAELIAMENTAEY REPORM.
volution," — whatever tends to raark them as unworthy
of confidence and respect, is calculated to drive them
back to the use of their natural means of self-defence,
and might, possibly, in tiraes and circumstances which
we can conceive, becorae the motive cause of an union
among the working classes which would be adverse to
other classes of the comraunity.
It would. Sir, be worse than idle, after the able and
lurainous speech of my honourable Friend (Mr. Baines),
to detain the House with the statistics of the question.
But I take my stand, in the first place, on a great legis
lative fact ; on the Eeform BiU of 1832. Before 1832
— the epoch of the Eeform Act — although the working-
classes were not supposed to be represented in this
House, yet we had among the constituencies some of an
important character which were in an entirely -pre
ponderating proportion working-class constituencies. I
myself was elected by a scot and lot borough, the borough
of Newark. At the time that I was first returned for
that borough, in December, 1832, the constituency was
close upon sixteen hundred. That same constituency is
now a little more than seven hundred ; nor has it yet, I
believe, reached its minimum ; in fact, it is in progress
of regular decay, until it reaches the limit fixed by the
number of ten-pound houses. That borough was -enfran
chised in the time of Charles IL, when the Crown did
not fear to issue ¦writs calling for the return, in certain
cases, of merabers by constituencies that consisted of all
inhabitants who paid scot and lot. But, since the Act
of 1832, there has been* a large deduction made from
the number of working men in the possession of the
franchise by the changes which have taken place in
the condition of the boroughs called pot-walloping

SPEECH ON THE BILL OF MR. BAINES, 'l864. 327
boroughs, scot and lot boroughs, and by other denomi
nations. I greatly doubt whether, even after making
fair allowance for the bettered circumstances of working
men, as large a proportion of the entire body hold the
suffrage now as held it in December, 1832. If that is
so, is it fair and proper that, in the thirty-two years
which have since elapsed, a reduction should have taken
place in the proportion which they bear to the rest of
the constituency ? Have their condition and character
retrograded in a manner to justify this retrogression
of numbers? Have they no claims to an extension of
the suffrage ? I think the facts are clear, and I think
my honourable Friend has shown that a great portion
of the facts are reducible to figures, and are capable of
being represented in a form and with a force almost
matheraatical, with reference to education and to the
state of the press. Let me, then, refer to one or two
points which are not reducible to figures. We are told, for
instance, that the working classes are given to the prac
tice of strikes. I beUeve it is the experience of the
employers of labour that these strikes are more and
more losing the character of violence and compulsory
interference with the free will of their own comrades
and fellow-workmen, and are assuming that legal, and
under certain circumstances legitimate, character, which
they possess as the only means by which, in the last
resort, labour can fairly assert itself against capital in
the peaceful strife of the labour market. Let us take,
too, that which in former times I believe to have been
the besetting sin of labour, — the disposition of the ma
jority not to recognise the right of the minority, and,
indeed, of every single individual, to sell his labour for
what he thinks fit. On behalf of the labouring classes.

328 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
I must, in passing, say that this doctrine is much harder
for them to practise than for us to preach. In our con
dition of Ufe and feeling, we have nothing analogous to
that which the working man cannot but feel when he
sees his labour being, as he thinks, undersold. Yet stUl
it is our duty to assert in the most rigid terms, and to
carry high the doctrine of the right of every labouring
man, whether with or against the approval of his class,
to sell his labour as high or as low as he pleases. But
with respect to this point, which has certainly been in
other times, and which I fear still is in certain cases, a
point of weakness, I appeal to those who have experi
ence of the working classes, whether there is not reason
to believe that the progress of knowledge, and the expe
rience of good government, and the designs of philan
thropy and religion, have borne their fruit ? Has not
the time come when large portions, at the least, of
working men admit the right of freedom of labour, as
fully as it could possibly be asserted in this House ?
Again, Sfr, let us look for a few moraents at the
altered, the happily altered, relations of the working
classes to the Government, the laws, the institutions,
and, above all, to the throne of this country. Let us
go back — it is no long period in the history of a nation
— to an epoch not very many years before the passing
of the Eeform Bill, and consider what was the state of
things at a time when many of us were unborn, and
when most of us were children ; I mean to the vears
winch immediately succeeded the peace of 1815. We
all know the history of those times ; most of us recollect
the atmosphere and the ideas, under the influence of
which we were brought up. They were not ideas which
belonged to the old current of English history ; nor

SPEECH ON THE BILL OP MR. BAINES, 1864. 329
were they in conformity with the liberal sentiments
which pervadod, at its best periods, the politics of the
country, and which harmonised with the spirit of the
old British Constitution. They were, on the contrary,
ideas referable to those lamentable excesses of the first
French Eevolution, which produced here a terrible re
action, and ¦went far to establish the doctrine that the
masses of every comraunity were in perraanent anta
gonism with the laws under which they Uved, and were
disposed to regard those laws, and the persons by whom
the laws were made and administered, as their natural
enemies. Unhappily, there are but too many indica;
tions to prove that this is no vague or imaginary descrip
tion. The time, to which I now refer, was a time when
deficiencies in the harvest were foUowed fey riots, and
when rioters did not hold sacred even the person of
Majesty itself. In 1817, when the Prince Eegent came
down to open Parliament, his carriage was assailed by
the populace of London : and what was the remedy pro
vided for this state of things ? Why, the remedy was
sought in the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act;
or in the limitation of the action of the press, already
restricted; or in the employment of spies and the
deliberate defence of their employment, who, for the
supposed security of the Government, were sent through
out the country to dog the course of private life, and to
an-est persons, or to check them, in the formation of
conspiracies, real or supposed. And what, let me ask,
is the state of things now ? With truth. Sir, it may be
said that the epoch I have named, reraoved from us, in
mere chronological reckoning, by less than half a cen
tury, is in the political sphere separated from us by a
distance almost immeasurable. For now it may be

330 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
fearlessly asserted that the fixed traditional sentiment
of the working man has begun to be confidence in the
law, in Parliament, and even in the executive Govern
ment. Of this gratifying state of things it fell to my
lot to receive a single, indeed, but a significant proof no
later than yesterday. (Cries of " No, no,'' and laugh
ter.) The quick- witted character of honourable Gentle
men opposite outstrips, I ara afraid, the tardy raove-
ment of ray observations. Let thera only have a very
little patience, and they will, I believe, see cause for
listening to what I shall say.* I was about to proceed
to say, in iUustration of my argument, that only yester
day I had the satisfaction of receiving a deputation of
working men from the Society of Amalgamated En
gineers. That society consists of very large numbers of
highly-skilled workmen, and has two hundred and sixty
branches ; it is a society representing the very class in
which we should most be inclined to look for a spirit of
even jealous independence of all direct relations with
the Government. But the deputation came to state to
me that the society had large balances of raoney open
for investment, and that many of its members could not
feel satisfied unless they were aUowed to place their funds
in the hands of the Government, by means of a modifi
cation in the rules of the Post Office Savings Banks.
Now, that, I think I raay say, without being liable to
any expression of adverse feeling on the part of honour
able Gentleraen opposite, was a very small but yet sig
nificant indication, among thousands of others, of the
altered temper to which I have referred. Instead, how-
* The interruption was understood to refer to another deputation
received on the same day, with reference to the subject of the depar
ture of General Garibaldi.

SPEECH ON THE BILL OP MR. BAINES, 1864. 331
ever, of uttering on the point my own opinions, I should
like to use the words of the working classes themselves.
In an address which, in company with my right honour
able Friend the Member for Stafibrdshire, I heard read
at a meeting which was held in the Potteries last
autumn, they say, of their own spontaneous motion,
uninfluenced by the action of their employers, in rela
tion to the legislation of late years : —
"The great measures that have been passed during
the last twenty years by the British Legislature have
confeiTcd incalculable blessings on the whole com
munity, and particularly on the working classes, by
unfettering the trade and commerce of the country,
cheapening the essentials of our daily sustenance,
placing a large proportion of the comforts and luxuries
of life within our reach, and rendering the obtainment
of knowledge comparatively easy among the great mass
of the sons of toil."
And this is the mode in which they then proceed to
describe their view of the conduct of the upper classes
towards them : —
" Pardon us for alluding to the kindly conduct now
so commonly evinced by the wealthier portions of the
community to assist in the physical and moral improve
ment of the working classes. The well-being of the
toiling mass is now generally adraitted to be an essential
to the national weal. This forms a pleasing contrast to
the opinions cherished half a century ago. The hum
bler classes also are duly mindful of the happy change,
and, without any abatement of manly independence,
fully appreciate the benefits resulting therefrom, con
tentedly fostering a hopeful expectation of the future.
May Heaven favour and promote this happy mutuaUty !

332 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
as we feel confident that all such kindly interchange
materially contributes to the general good."
Now, such language does, in my opinion, the greatest
credit to the parties from whom it proceeds. This is a
point on which no difference of opinion can prevail. I
think I may go a step further, and consider these state
ments as indicating not only the sentiments of a par
ticular body at the particular place frora which they
proceeded, but the general sentiraents of the best con
ducted and most enlightened working men of the
country. It may, however, be said that such statements
prove the existing state of things to be satisfactory.
But surely this is no sufficient answer. Is it right, I
ask, that in the face of such dispositions, the present
law of almost entire exclusion should continue to pre
vail ? Again I call upon the adversary to show cause.
And I venture to say that every man who is not pre
sumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal
unfitness or of poUtical danger is morally entitled to
come within the pale of the Constitution. Of course, in
giving utterance to such a proposition, I do not recede
frora the protest I have previously made against sudden,
or violent, or excessive, or intoxicating change ; but I
apply it with confidence to this effect, that fitness for
the franchise, when it is shown to exist — as I say it is
shown to exist in the case of a select portion of the
working class — is not repelled on sufficient grounds
from the portals of the Constitution by the allegation
that things are well as they are. I contend, moreover,
that persons who have prompted the expression of such
sentiments as those to which I have referred, and whom
I know to have been members of the working class, are
to be presumed worthy and fit to discharge the duties of

SPEECH ON THE BILL OP MR. BAINES, 1864. 333
citizenship, and that to admission to the discharge of
those duties they are well and justly entitled.
The present franchise, I raay add, on the whole —
subject, of course, to sorae exceptions — draws the line
between the lower middle class and the upper order of
the working class. As a general rule, the lower stratum
of the middle class is adraitted to the exercise of the
franchise, while the upper stratum of the working class
is excluded. That I believe to be a fair general descrip
tion of the present formation of the constituencies in
boroughs and towns. Is it a state of things, I would
ask, recoraraended by clear principles of reason? Is
the upper portion of the working classes inferior to the
lowest portion of the middle? That is a question I
should wish to be considered on both sides of the House.
For my own part, it appears to me that the negative of
the proposition may -be held with the greatest con
fidence. Whenever this question comes to be discussed,
with the view to an immediate issue, the conduct of the
general body of the operatives of Lancashire cannot be
forgotten. What are the qualities which fit a man for
the exercise of a privUege such as the franchise ? Self-
coraraand, self-control, respect for order, patience under
suffering, confidence in the law, regard for superiors?
And when, I should like to ask, were all these great
quaUties exhibited in a raanner raore signal, I would
even say more iUustrious, than under the profound
affliction of the winter of 1862 ? I admit the danger of
dealing with enormous masses of men ; but I am now
speaking only of a limited portion of the working class,
and I for one cannot admit that there is that special
virtue in the nature of the middle class which ought to
lead to our drawing a marked distinction, a distinction

334 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
almost purporting to be one of principle, between them
and a select portion of the working classes, so far as
relates to the exercise of the franchise.
But, Sir, this question has received a very remark
able iUustration from the experience of the last few
years. So far as Lancashire is concerned, we have the
most extraordinary evidence — evidence amounting
almost to mathematical demonstration — of the compe
tency of the working man to discharge those duties of
retail trade and the distribution of commodities, which
are commonly intrusted to the lower part of the middle
class. I allude to the evidence afforded by the marvel
lous success in that particular county (and I hope the
example of that county maj' not be too eagerly followed
elsewhere) of the co-operative system. For ray own
part, I am not ashamed to say that, if twenty or ten
years ago anybody had prophesied to rae the success of
that system, as it has recently been exhibited in Eoch
dale and other towns in the north — if I had been told
that labouring men ¦\^'ould so associate together with
mutual advantage, to the exclusion of the retail dealer,
who comes between the producer and the consumer of
comraodities, I should have regarded the prediction as
absurd. There is, in my opinion, no greater social
marvel at the present day than the raanner in which
these societies fiourish in Lancashire, corabined with a
consideration of the apparent soundness of the financial
basis on which they are built ; for the bodies of men
who have had recourse to the co-operative system have
been, as it would appear, those who have stood out with
the most manly resolution against the storms of ad
versity, who have been the last to throw themselves on
the charity of their neighbours, and who have proved

SPEECH ON THE BILL OF MR. BAINES, 1864. 335
theraselves to be best qualified for the discharge of the
duties of independent citizens. And when we have
before us considerable nurabers of men answering to this
description, it is, I think, well worth our while to con
sider what is the title whieh they advance to the gene
rous notice of Parliament in regard to thefr appeal to
be admitted, in such measure as may upon consideration
seem fit, to the exercise of the franchise. I, for myself,
confess that I think the investigation will be far better
conducted if we approach the question at an early date,
in a calm frame of raind, and without having our doors
besieged by crowds, or our table loaded with petitions ;
rather than if we postpone entering upon it until a great
agitation has arisen.
And now. Sir, one word in conclusion. I believe that
it has been given to us of this generation to witness,
advancing as it were under our very eyes from day to
day, the most blessed of all social processes ; I mean
the process which unites together not the interests only
but the feelings of all the several classes of the com
munity, and which throws back into the shadows of
obUvion those discords by which they were kept apart
frora one another. I know of nothing which can con
tribute, in any degree coraparable to that union, to the
welfare of the coramonwealth. It is well, Sir, that we
should be suitably provided with armies, and fleets, and
fortifications ; it is weU, too, that all these should rest
upon and be sustained, as they ought to be, by a sound
system of finance, and out of a revenue not wasted by a
careless Parliament, or by a profligate Administratipn.
But that which is better and more weighty still is that
hearts should be bound together by a reasonable exten
sion, at fitting times, and among selected portions of

336 PARLIAMENTARY REPORM.
the people, of every benefit and every privilege that
can justly be conferred upon them ; and, for one, I am
prepared to give my support to the motion now made
by my honourable Friend (Mr. Baines), because I be
lieve and am persuaded that it ¦will powerfully tend
to that binding and blending and knitting of hearts
together, and thus to the infusion of new vigour into
the old, but in the best sense still young, and flourish
ing, and undecaying British Constitution.

the end.

LONDON ; PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AKD CHARING CROSS.

BEMARLE STREET, LOHDON,
OctoleVf 1866.

MR MUKRAY'S •
GENERAL LIST OF WORKS.

ALBERT'S (The Pkihoe) SPEECHES AND ADDRESSES
ON PUBLIC OCCASIONS; with an Introduction giving some Outlines
of his Character. Portrait. 8vo. IQs. 6d.\ oi: Popular Edition. Portrait.
Fcap. 8vo, is.
ABBOTT'S (Rev. J.) PhiUp Musgrave ; or. Memoirs of a Church of
England Missionary in the North American Colonies. Post 8vo. 2s.
ABERCEOMBIE'S (John) Enquiries concerning the Intellectual
Powers and the Investigation of Truth, lith Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. Qd.
 Philosoj<hy of the Moral Feelings. IZtk Edition.
Fcap. 8to. is.
ACLAlif D'S (Eev. Charles) Popular Account of the Manners and
Customs of India. Post 8vo. 28.
.iiSOP'S FABLES. A New Translation. With Historical
Preface. By Eev. Thomas James. With 100 Woodcuts, hy Tenniel
and Wolf. 60ift Tliimsand. Post 8vo. 2s. M.
AGEICTJLTURAL (The) Journal. Of the Royal Agricultural
Society of England. 8vo. Published half-yearly.
AIDS TO FAITH : a Series of Theological Essays. By various
Writers. Edited by William Thomson, D.D., Archbishop of York.
Svo. 9s.
AMBBRr WITCH (The). The moat interesting Trial for Witch
craft ever known. Translated from the German by Lady Duff
Gordon. Post Svo. 2s.
ARCHITECTURE OP AHMEDABAD, with HistorieaL Sketch
and Architectural Notes by T. 0. Hope, and jAiaES Feegussos, F.R.S.
With 2 Maps, 120 Photographs, and 22 Woodcuts. 4to. 5(. B».
 BEJAPOOR, with Historical Sketch and Ar
chitectural Essay by Col. Meadows Taylor and Jas. Frrgusson.
With 2 Maps, 78 Photograplis, and 13 Woodcuts. Folio. 101. 10s.
 DHARWAR and MYSORE. With Historical

Sketch and Architectural Essay by Col Meadows Taylor anti Jas.
Fergdsson, With 2 Maps,-100 Photographs, and numerous Woodcuts.
FoUo. 121. 12s.
A'RMY lA&T (The). Puhl-ished MontJilyly Authority. 18mo. Is.Gd.
ARTHUR'S (Little) History of England. By Ladt Calloott.
Kew Edition, continued to 1862. Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 23. 6d.
ATKINSON'S (Mrs.) Recollections of Tartar Steppes and their
Inhabitants. Illustrations. Post Svo. 123.
AUNT IDA'S Walks and Talks ; a Story Book for Children. By
a Ladt. Woodcuts. 16mo. Bs.

LIST OF WORKS

fraction Tables. ]
converting Errors of R.A. and N.P.D. VSs,
3rs of Longitude' and Ecliptic P.O. J

AUSTIN'S (John) Leotukes on Jurispkudenob ; or, the Philosophy
of Positive Law. 3 Vols. Svo. 39s.
 (S«iah) Fragments from German Prose Writers.
With Biographical Notes. Post Svo. 10s.
ADMIRALTY PUBLICATIONS ; Issued by direction of the Lords
Commissioners ofthe Admiralty:—
A MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, for the Use of Travellero.
Edited by Sir John F. Hebsohel, and Rev. Robert Main. Third
Edition. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 9s.
AIRY'S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS made at Geeekwioh.
1836 to 1847. Royal 4to. 60s. each.
 ASTRONOMICAL RESULTS. 1848 to 18B8. 4to. 8s. each.
 APPENDICES TO THE ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVA
TIONS.
1836.— I. BesseVs Refraction 1
II. Tables for i
into Errors ( ^
1837.— I. Logarithms of Sines and Cosines" to every Ten)
Seconds of Time. /-8s.
II. Table for converting Sidereal into Mean Solar Time, j
1842.— Catalogue of 1439 Stars. 8s.
1845. — Longitude of Valentia. 8s.
1847. — Twelve Years' Catalogue of Stars. 14s.
1851. — Maskelyne's Ledger of Stars. 6s.
1852. — I. Description of the Transit Circle. 5s.
II. Regulations of the Royal Observatory. 2s.
1853. — Bessel's Refraction Tables. 3s.
1854. — I. Deseript'ion of the Zenith Tube. 3s.
II. Six Years' Catalogue of Stars. 10s.
1856. — Description of the Galvanic Apparatus at Greenwich Ob
servatory. 8s. ^
1862.-1. Seven Years' Catnlogue of Stars. ¦ 10s.
II. Plan of the Buildins; and Ground of the Royal Ob-"j
servatory, Greenwich. \ 3s.
III. Longitude of Valentia. )
 MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVA
TIONS. 1840 to 1847. Royal 4to. BOs.each.
 ASTRONOMICAL, MAGNETICAL, AND METEOROLO
GICAL OBSERVATIONS, 1848 to 1864. Royal 4to. 60s. each.
 ASTRONOMICAL RESULTS. 1848 to 1864. 4to.
 MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL EESULTS.
1848 to 1864. 4to. Ss. each. .
REDUCTION OF THE OBSERVATIONS OP PLANETS.

1760 to 1830. Royal 4to. 50s. LUNAR OBSERVATIONS.

to 1830. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 50s. each.
 IS31 to 1851. . 4lo. 20s.

BERNOULLI'S SEXCENTENARY TABLE, iojiion, 1779. 4to.
BESSEL'S AUXILIARY TABLES FOR HIS METHOD OF CLEAR
ING LUNAR DISTANCES. Svo.
 FUNDAMENTA ASTRONQMI.*!: BeffKmionfii, 1818. Folio. 60s.
BIRD'S METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING MURAL QUADRANTS.
Lmdan, 1768. 4to. 2s. 6d.
 — METHOD OF DIVIDING ASTRONOMICAL INSTRU
MENTS. Londan,n&!. 4to. 2s. 6i«.
COOK, KING, and BAYLY'S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS.
London, 1782. 4to. 21s.

published by MR. MURRAY.

Admiralty Publications — contimied. i ; > i ,
ENCKE'S BERLINER JAHRBUCH, for 1830. Berlin', 1828. Svo. 9«.
GROOMBRIDGE'S CATALOGUE' OP CIRCUMPOLAR STARS.
4to. 10s.
HANSEN'S TABLES DE LA LUNE. 4to. 20s.
HARRISON'S PRINCIPLES OF HIS TIME-KEEPER. Plates
1797. 4to. 6s.
UUTTON'S* TABLES OF THE PRODUCTS AND POWERS OF
NUMBERS. 1781. FoHo. 7s. 6<i.
LAX'S TABLES POR FINDING THE LATITUDE AND LONGI
TUDE. 1821. Svo. 10s.
LUNAR OBSERVATIONS at GREENWICH. 1783 to 1819. Compared
with the Tables, 1821. 4to. 7s. 6d.
MASKELYNE'S ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF HARltlSON'S
WATCH. 1767. 4to. SSs.Bd.
MAYER'S DISTANCES of the MOON'S CENTRE from the.
PLANETS. 1822, 3s.; 1823, 4s. 6(2. 1824 to 1835, Svo. 4s. each.
 THEORIA LUN.ffil JUXTA SYSTBMA NEWTONIANUM.
4to. 2s. ei.
 TABULA MOTUUM SOLIS ET LtfN^. 1770. 4to. Bsi
 ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AT GOT-

TINGEN, from 1766 to 1761. 1826. Folio. 7s. Si.
NAUTICAL ALMANACS, from 1767 to'1870. Svo. 2s. Sd. each,
 SELECTIONS FROJM THE ADDITIONS
up to 1812. Svo. 53. 1834-54. 8vo. , 5s.
SUPPLEMENTS, 1828 to 1883, 1837 and 1838.

Svo. 2s. each.

 TABLE requisite to be used with the N.A.
1781. Svo. 5s.
POND'S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1811 -to i835. 4to. 21s.
each.
RAMSDEN'S ENGINE for Dividino Mathematical Instruments.
4to. 6s.
 ENGINE for Dividing Straight Lines. 4to. 5s.
SABINIi'S PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS to Determine the Figdee
of the Earth. 1825. ¦ 4to. 40s.
SHEPHERD'S TABLES for Corbeotikg LnsAp . Distances., _1772.
Royal 4to. 21s.
 TABLES, GENERAL,. of the MOON'S DISTANCE
from the SUN, and 10 STARS. 1787. Folio. , 5s. 6iJ.
TAYLOR'S SEXAGESIMAL TABLE. 1780. 4to. 16s;
 -, TABLES OF LOGARITHMS. 4to. Bl,
TIARK'S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS for the Lonoitddb
of Madeira. 1822. 4to. 5s.
 CHRONOMETRICAL OBSERVATIONS ,fDr. DllFEBENOEa
of LaiiGiTDDE between Dover, Portsmoot'h, and 'FAlmodth. ' 1823:
4to. 5s.
VENUS and JUPITER: OBSEEVATipNS-of, compared. with th(B,;TABLEB.
London,1822. 4to. 2s.
WALES' AND BAYLY'S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1777. 4to. 21s. , , i
WALES' REDUCTION OP ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS
MADE IN THE SOHTHEBN HEMISPHERE. I764r-1771. 1788. 4tO.
los. ei. 2

LIST OP WORKS

BARBAULD'S (Mrs.) Hymns in Prose for Children. With 112
Original Designs. Small 4to. 5s. Or Fme Paper, Is, 6il.
BARROW'S (Sir John) Autobiographical Memoir. From Early
Life to Advanced Age. Portrait. Svo. 16s.
 Life, Exploits, and Yoyages of Sir Francis Drake.
With numerous Original Letters. Post Svo. 25.
BAEEY (Sir Charles) Life of an Architect. By Eev. Alfred
Barry, D.D. With Portrait and Illustrations. Svo. {Nearly Ready.)
BATES' (H. W.) Records of a Naturalist on the River Amazons
during eleven years of Adventure and Travel. Second Edition. Illus
trations. Post Svo. 12s.
BEES AND FLOWERS. Two Essays. By Rey. Thomas James.
Reprinted from the " Quarterly Review." Fcap. Svo. Is. each.
BERTHA'S Journal during a Visit to her Uncle in England.
Containing a Variety of Interesting and Instructive Information. Seventh
Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. Gd.
BIRCH'S (Samuel) History of Ancient Pottery and Porcelain :
Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan. With 200 Illustra
tions. 2 Vols. Metlium Svo. 42s.
BLUNT'S (Rev. J. J.) Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of
the Old and NewTestament, an Argument of their Veracity : containing
the Books of Moses, Historical and Prophetical Sciipiures, and the
Gospels and Acta. 9<A Edition. Post Svo. Gs.
History of the Church in the First Three Centuries.

Third Edition. Post Svo. 7s. Gd,

Parish Priest; His Duties, Acquirements and Obliga

tions. Fourth Edition. Post Svo. 7s. I

Lectures on the Right Use of the Early Fathers.

Second Edition, Svo. 15s.

Plain Sermons Preached to a Country Congregation.

Second Edition, 3 Vols. Post Svo. 7s. Gd. each.
 Essays ou various subjects. Svo. 12s.

BISSET'S (Andrew) History of England during the Interregnum,
from the Death of Charles I. to the Battle of Dunbar, 1648-60. Chiefly
from the MSS. in the State Paper Office. Svo. 15s.
BERTRAM'S (Jas. G.) Harvest of the Sea : a Contribution to the
Natural and Economic History of British Food Fishes. With 50 Illus
trations. 21s.
BLAKISTON'S (Capt.) Narrative of the Expedition sent to ex
plore the Upper Waters of the Yang-Tsze. Illustrations. Svo. I8s.
BLOMFIELD'S (Bishop) Memoir, with Selections from his Corre
spondence. By his Son. ind Edition. Portrait, post Svo. 12s.
BOOK OP COMMON PRAYER. Illustrated with Coloured
Borders, Initial Letters, and Woodcuts. A new edition. Svo. 18».
cloth ; 3J«. Gd. calf; 863. raorocco.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY.

BORROWS (Geokob) Bible in Spain; or the Journeys, Adventures,
and Imprisonments of an Englishman in an Attempt to circulate the
Scriptures in the Peninsula. 3 Vols. Post Svo. 27s.; ov Popular Edition,
16mo, 3s. 6d.
 Zincali, or the Gipsies of Spain ; their Manners,
Customs, Religion, and Language. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 18s.; or Popular
Edition, 16mo, 3s. Gd.
Lavengro ; The Scholar — The Gipsy — and the Priest.

Portrait. 3 Vols. Post Svo. SOs.

 Romany Rye ; a Sequel to Lavengro. Second
£ Edition, 2 Vols. Post Svo. 21s.
Wild Wales : its People, Language, and Scenery.

Popular Edition. Post Svo.,
BOSWELL'S (James) Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Includ
ing the Tour lo the Hebrides. Edited by Mr. Croker. Portraits. Royal
Svo. 10s.
BRACE'S (C. lL.) History of the Races of the Old World. Post
-,...:., 8vo. 9s.
BEAY'S (Mrs.) Life of Thomas Stothard, R.A. With Personal
Reminiscences. Illustrated with Portrait and 60 Woodcuts of his
chief works, 4to.
BEEWSTEE'S (Sir David) Martyrs of Science; or, Lives of
Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler. Fourth Edition, Fcap. Svo. 4s. 6d.
 . — More Worlds than One. The Creed of the Philo
sopher and the Hope of the Christian. Eighth Edition, Post Svo. 6s.
Stereoscope : its History, Theory, Construction,

and Application to the Arts and to Education. Woodcuts. 12mo.
6s. Gd, Kaleidoscope: its History, Theory, and Construction,

with its application to the Fine and Useful Arts. Second Edition.
Woodcuts. Post Svo. 6s. Gd,

BRITISH ASSOCIATION EEPORTS. 8vo

York and Oxford, 1831-32, 13s. Gd,
Cambridge, 1883, 12s.
Edinburgh, 1834, 15s.
Dublin, 1835, 13s. Gd.
Bristol, 1836, 12s.
Liverpool, 1837, IGs.Gd,
Newcastle, 1838, 15s.
Birmingham, 1839, 13s. Gd
Glasgow, 1840, 15s.
Plymouth, 1841, 13s. Gd.
Manchester, 1842, I'Os. Gd,
Cork, 1843, 12«.
York, 1844, 20s.
Cambridge, 1845, 12s.
Southampton, 1846, 16s.
Oxford, 1847, 18s.
Swansea, 1848, 9s.
BEOUGHTON'S (Lord) Journey through Albania and other
Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to Constautinople, 1809—10.
Third Edition, Illustrations. 2 Vols. Svo. 30s.
 Tisits to Italy. Zrd Edition. 2 vols. Post Svo. 18».

Binningbam, 1849, 10s.
Edinburgh, 1850, 16s.
Ipswlob, 1861, 16s. Gd,
Belfast, 1852, 16s.
Hull, 1853, 10s. Gd,
Liverpool, 1854, IBs.
Glasgow, 1855, 15>.
Cheltenham, 1856, 18s.
Dublin, 1857, 15s.
Leeds, 1858, 20s.
Aberdeen, 1859, 15s.
Oxford, 1860, 26s.
Manchester, 1861, 15s.
Cambridge, 1882, 20s.
Newcastle, 1863, 25s.
Bath, 1864, 18s.
Birmingham, 1865, 25s.

LIST OF WORKS

BRITISH (Murray) CLASSICS. A Series of Standard English
Authors, printed from the most con-ect text, and edited with notes.
Svo. Already Published.
I. GOLDSMITH'S WORKS, Edited by Peter Cunnihgham, r.S.A.
Vignettes. 4 Vols. 30s.
II. GIBBON'S DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
Edited by William Smith, LL.D. Portrait and Maps. 8 Vols. 60s.
III. JOHNSON'S LIVES OP THE ENGLISH POETS. Edited by Peteb
Cunnihgham, F.S.A. 3 Vols. 22s. Gd,
IV. BYRON'S POETICAL WORKS. Edited, with Notes. 6 vols. 46s.
In Preparation.
LIFE AND WORKS OP POPE. Edited by Rev. Whitwkll Elvtln.
HUME'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. Edited, with Notes.
LIFE AND WORKS OF SWIFT. Edited by John Forster.
LIFE AND WORKS OP DRYDEN. Edited, with Notes.
BUBBLES FROM THE BRUNNEN OF NASSAU. By an Old
Man. 7th Edition, with Illustrations. Post Svo. 7e. 6d.
BUNYAN (John) and Oliver Cromwell. Select Biographies. By
Robert Sodthet. Post Svo. 2s.
BURGON'S (Rev. J. W.) Memoir of Patrick Eraser Tytler.
Second Edition. Post Svo. 9s.
 Letters from Rome. Illustrations., Post Svo. 12«.

BURN'S (Col.) Dictionary of Naval and Military Technical
Terms, English and French, and French and English. Fourth Edition.
Crown Svo. 15s.
BUER'S (G. D.) Instructions in Practical Surveying, Topogra
phical Plan Drawing, and on sketching ground without Instnunents.
Fourth Edition, Woodcuts. Post Svo. Gs,
BUTTilAN'S LEXILOGUS; a Critical Examination of the
Meaning of numerous Greek Words, chiefly in Horaer and Hesiod.
Translated by Kev. J. E. Fishlakb. Fiftk Edition. 8to. 125.

 CATALOGUE OF lEREGITLAPt GREEK VERBS.
With all the Tenses extant — th.eir Formation, Meaninp-, and Usage,
accompanied by an Index, Translated, with Notes, by Kev. J. K.
FI3HLAK.E. M/th Edition. Revised by Eev. E. Venables. Post Svo.
BUXTON'S (Sir Fowbll) Memoirs. With Selections from his
Correspondence. By his Son. Portrait. Svo. ISs. Abridged Edition.
Portrait. Fcap. Svo. 2*. 6d.
(Charles, M.P.) Ideas of the Dat on Policy.

A New and Enlarged Edition. Svo.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY.

BYRON'S (Lobd) Life, Letters, and Journals. By Thomas Mooek.
Plates. 6 Tols. Fcap. Svo. 18s.
 ¦ Life, Letters, and Journals. By Thomas Mooue.
Portraits. Royal 8vo. 9s.
.  Poetical Works. Portrait. 6 Vols. Svo. 45.9.
¦  Poetical Works. Plates. 10 Vols. Foap. Svo. 30s.
 Poetical Works. 8 Vols. 24mo. 20*.
 Poetical Works. Plates. Pvoyal Svo. 9,9.
 ¦ Poetical Works. Portrait. Crown Svo. 6s.
 Childe Harold. With 80 Engravings. Small 4to. 21s.
 Childe Harold. 16mo. 2s. 6d.
 Childe Harold. Vignettes. 16mo. 1*.
 Childe Harold. Portrait. 16mo. 6d,
.  ¦ Tales and Poems. 24cio. 2s. 6d.
.  Miscellaneous. 2 Vols. 24ino. 5s.
 Dramas and Plays. 2 Vols. ' 24mo. Ss.
 '. — Don Juan and Beppo. 2 Vols. 24mo. Ss.
 Beauties. Poetry and Prose. Portrait, Fcap. Svo.

3s. Gd,
CARNAEVON'S (Lord) Portugal, Gallicia, and the Btxsque
Provinces. Trom Notes made during a Journey to those Countries.
"Third Edition, PostSvo. Zs,Gd,
 Recollections of the Druses of Lebanon. With
Notes on their Keligion. Third Edition, Post Svo. Ss. Gd. ,
CAMPBELL'S (Lord) Lives of the- Lord Chancellors and Keepers
ofthe Great Seal of England. From the Earliest Times to the Death of
Lord Eldon in 1838. Fourth Edition, 10 Vols. Crown 8vo.- 6s. each.
 Lives of the Chief Justices of England. From the
Norman Conquest to the Death of Lord Tenterdea. Second Edition.
3 Vols. Svo. 42s.
Shakspeare's Legal Acquirements Considered.

Svo. 53. Gd,
 -— Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d.

 (George) Modern India. A Sketch of the System
of Civil Government. With some Account of the Natives and Nativ;j
Institutions. Second Edition, Svo. 16s.
India as it may be. An Outl;::e of, a proposed

Government and Policy. Svo. 12s.
(Thos.) Short Lives of the British Poets. With an

Essay on English Poetry. Post Svo. Ss. Gd.
CALLCOTT'S (Laby) Little Arthur's History of England.
New Edition, brought down to the present time. With Woodcnts. Fcap.
Svo. 2s. Gd,

LIST OF WORKS

CASTLEREAGH (The) DESPATCHES, from the commencement
of the official career of the late Viscount Castlereagh to the close of his
life. Edited by the Maequis OF liONDONDEEKY. 12 Vols. Svo. 14s. each.
CATHCART'S (Sir George) Commentaries on the War in Russia
and Germany, 1812-13. Plans. Svo. 14s.
CAVALCASELLB and CROWE'S History of Painting in
Italy, frora the Second to the Sixleentli Century, from receat re
searches, as well as from personal iuspeetion of the Works of Art in
that Country. With 100 Illustrations. Vols. I. to III. Svo. 63s.
—  Notices of .the Lives and Works of the
Early Flemish Painters. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 12s.
CHILD (G. Chaplin, M.D.) Benedicite; or, Song of the Three
Children ; being Illastrations of the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of
the Creator. 2 Vols. Fcap. Svo.
CHORLEY'S (H. P.) STUDIES OF THE MUSIC OF MANY
NATIONS; including tlie Substance of a Course of Lectures delivered
at the Kojal Institution. Svo. (Ia the Press )
CHUKTON'S (Archdeacon) Gongora. An Historical Essay on the
Age of Philip III. and IV. of Spain. With Translations. Portrait.
2 Vols. Small Svo. 15x.
CICERO : HIS LIFE AND TIMES. With liis Character viewed
as a statesman, Orator, and Fiiend. With a Selection from his Cor
respondence aiid Orations. By William Foesyth, Q.C. New Edition,
With Illustrations, Svo.
OLIVE'S (Lord) Life. By Eev. G. R. Glbig, M.A. Post Svo. 3s. ed.
COLCHESTER (Lord). The Diary and Correspondence of
Charles Abbott, Lord Colchester, Speaker of the House of Commons,
1802-181T. Edited by his Son. Portrait. 3 Vols. Svo. 42s.
COLERIDGE (Samuel Taylor). Specimens of his Table-Talk.
New Edition. Portrait. Fcap, Svo. 6s.
COLONIAL LIBRARY. [See Home and Colonial Library.]
COOK'S (Eev. Canon) Sermons Preached at Lincoln's Inn Chapel,
and ou Special Occasions. Svo. 9s.
COOKERY (Modern Domestic). Founded on Principles of Economy
and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private FamiUes. By a
Lady. New Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 5s.
CORNWALLIS (The) Papers and Correspondence during the
American "War, — Administrations in India,— Union with Ireland, and
Peace of Amiens. Edited by Charles Koss. Second Edition, 3 Vols.
Svo. 63s.
COWPER'S (Mart, Couniess) Diary while Lady of the Bedchamber
to Caroline Princess of Wales, 1714-20. Edited by Hon. Spehoeb
CowPKE. Second Edition. Portrait. Svo. 10s. 6:*.
CEABBE'S (Rev. George) Life, Letters, and Journals. By his Son.
Portrait. Fcap. Svo. 3s.
Life and Poetical Works. Plates. 8 Vols. Fcap.

Svo. 24s.
 Life and Poetical Works. Plates. Royal Svo. 7s.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY.

CROKER'S (J. W.) Progressive Geography for Children.
Mfth Edition,' 18mo, Is.Gd.
 Stories for Children, Selected from the History of
England. Fi/teenth Edition, Woodcuts. 16mo. 2s. Gd,
Boswell's Life of Johnson. Including the Tour to

the Hebrides. Portraits. Royal Svo. 10s.
 Essays on the Early Period of the French Revolution.
8vo. IBs.
 Historical Essay on the Guillotine. Fcap. Svo. Is.
CROMWELL (Oliver) and John Bunyan. By Robert Southey.
Post Svo. 2s.
CROWE'S AND CAVALCASELLE'S Notices of the Early Flemish
Painters ; their Lives and Works. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 12s.
 History of Painting in Italy, from 2nd to 16th
Century. Derived from Historical Eenearches an well as inspection of
the Works of Art in that Country. With'lOO Illustrations. Vols. I.
II. and III. Svo. 21s. each.
CUMMING'S (R. Gordom) Five Years of a Hunter's Life in the
Far Interior of South Africa; with Anecdotes of the Chace, and Notices
of the Native Tribes. New Edition, Woodcuts. Post Svo. 5s.
CUNNINGHAM'S (Allah) Poems and Songs. Now first col
lected and arranged, with Biographical Notice. 24mo. 2s. Gd,
CURETON (Rev. W.) Remains of a very Ancient Recension of
the Four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe. Discovered,
Edited, and Translated. 4to. 24s.
CURTIUS' (Professor) Student's Greek Grammar, for the use of
Colleges and the Upper Forms. Translated under the Author's revi
sion. Edited by De. Wm. Smith. Post Svo.
 Smaller Greek Grammar for the use of the Middle and
Lower Forms, abridged from the above. 12mo. 3s. Gd,
First Greek Course ; containing Delectus, Exercise

Book, and Vocabularies. 12mo. 3s. Gd.
CUEZON'S (Hon. Robert) Abmesia ahd Erzeroum. A Year on
the Frontiers of Russia, Turkey, and Persia. Third Edition. Wood
cuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd,
 Visits to the Monasteries of the Levant. Fifth Edition.
Illustrations. Post Svo. 78. Gd.
GUST'S (Geheral) Annals of the Wars of the 18th&19th Centuries.
9 Vols. Fcap. Svo. 5s. each.
 Lives and Characters ofthe Warriors of the 17th Century
who have Commanded Fleets and Armies before the Enemy. 2 Vols.
Post Svo. 16s.
DARWIN'S (Charles) Journal of Eesearches into the Natural
History of the Countries visited during a Voyage round the World.
Post Svo. 9s.
 Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ;
or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Fourth
Edition, revised. Post Svo. 14s.
Fertilization of .Orchids through Insect Agency, and

as to the good of Intercrossing. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 9s.
 Domesticated Animals and Cultivated Plants; or, the
Principles of Variation, Inheritance, Ke-version, Crossing, Inter
breeding, and Selection under Domestication, With Illustrations.
Post Svo, (In Preparation.)

10 LIST OF WORKS

DAVIS'S {Nathan) Visit to the Euined Cities of Numidia and
Carthaginia. Illustrations. Svo. 16s.
(Sib J. F.)' Chinese Miscellanies: a Collection of Essays

and Notes. Post Svo.
DAVY'S (Sir Humphry) Consolations in Travel; or. Last Days
of a Philosopher. Fifth EdiHon, Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 6s.
Salmonia ; or, Days of Fly Fishing. Fourth Edition.

Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo.
DELEPIEERE'S (Octave) History of Flemish Literature. Frcm
the Twelfth Century. Svo. 9s. •
DENNIS' (George) Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. Plates.
2 Vols. Svo. 42s.
DERBY'S (Edward, Earl op) Translation of the Iliad of Homer
into English Blank Verse. Fifth Euition, Revised. 2 Vols. Svo. 24s.
DE ROS'S (Lord) Memorials of the Tower of London. With Illus
trations. Crown Svo. IDs. Gd.
DIXON'S (W. Hbpwobth) Story of the Life of Lord Bacon. Portrait.
Fcap. Svo. 7s. Gd.
DOG-BREAKING ; the Most Expeditious, Certain, and Easy
Method, whether great excellence or only mediocrity be required. With
a Few Hints for those who Love the Doff and the Gun. By Lieut .-
Gen. Hutchinson. Fourth Edition, With 40 Woodcuts. Crown Svo. 158.
DOMESTIC MODERN COOKERY. ,Foun4ed on. Principles of
Economy ^nd Practical Kr^owledge, and adapted for Private Families.
New Edition, Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 5s.
DOUGLAS'S (General Sir Howard) Life and Adventures ;
From Notes, Conversations, and Correspondence. By S. W. Fullom.
Portrait. Svo. 158.
 Theory and Practice of Gunnery. 5th Edition, Plates.
Svo. 21s.
 Military Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers ia
Military Operations. Third Edition, Plates. 8vo. 21s.; -
 Naval Warfare with Steam. Second Edition. Svo.

Ss. Gd.
 Modern Systems of Fortification. Plans. Svo. 12«.
DRAKE'S (Sir Francis) Life, Voyages, and Exploits, by Sea and
Land.. By John Barrow. Third.Edition. Po^tSyp., 2s.
DRINKWATER'S (John) History of the Siege of Gibraltar,
1779-1783. With a Description and Account of that Garrison from the
Earliest Periods. Post Svo. 2s.
DU CHAILLU'S (Paul B.) EQUATORIAL AFRICA; with
Accounts of the (Sorilla, the Nest-building Ape, Chimpanzee, Croco-
dlle^ &c. Illustrations. 8to. 21^.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 11

DUFFERIN'S (Lord) Letters from High Latitudes, being some
Account of a Yacht Voyage to Iceland, &c., in 1856. Fourtfk Edition.
Woodcuts. Pbst Svo.
Lispings from Low Latitudes, or the Journal , of

the Hon. Impulsia Gushington. With 24 Plates. 4to. 21s.
DYER'S (Thomas H.) History of Modern Europe, from the
taking of Constantinople by the Turks to the close of the War in
the q^imea. 4 Vols. Svo. 60s.
EASTLAKE'S (Sir Charles) Italian Schools of Painting.' i From
the German of Kuglbr. Edited, with Notes. Third Edition. Illus
trated from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 30s.
EASTWICK'S (E. B.) Handbook for Bombay and Madras, with
Directions for Travellers, Officers, &c. Map. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 24s.
EDWARDS' (W. H.) Voyage up the River Amazon, including a
Visit to Para. Post Svo. 2s.
ELDON'S (Lord) Public and Private Life, with Selections from
his Correspondence and Diaries. By Horace Twiss. Third Edition.
Portrait. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 21s.
ELLIS (Rev. W.) Visits to Madagascar, including a Journey to
the Capital, with notices of Natural Histoiy, and Present Civilisation
of the People. Fifth Thousand. Map and Woodcuts. Svo. 16s.
 (Mrs.) Education of Character, with Hints on Moral
Training. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
ELLESMEEE'S (Lord) Two Sieges of Vienna by the Turks.
Translated from the German. Post Svo. 2s.
ELPHINSTONE'S (Hon. Mountstuakt) History of India— the
Hindoo and Mahomedan Periods. Fifth Edition, Revised. Map. Svo. 18s.
EN GEL'S (Carl) Music of the Most Ancient Nations ; particularly
ofthe Assyrians^ Egyptians; and Hebrews; with Special Reference to
the Di.scoveries in Western Asia and in Egypt. With 100 Illustrations.
Svo. 16s.
ENGLAND (Histori oh) from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace
of Versailles, 1713—83. By Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope). Library
Edition, 7 Vols. Svo. 93s. ; or Popular Edition, 7 Vols. Post Svo. 85s.
From the First Invasion by the Romans, dowil'to

the Present Year of Queen Victoria's Reign. By Mrs. Maekham. New
and Cheaper Edition, Woodcuts. 12mo. 4s.
(The Student's Hume). From the Invasion of
Julius Cceanr to the Revolution of lass. By David HuMa. Coirecteii
and continued to 1858. Edited by Wh. Smith, LL.D, Woodcuts. Pott
Svo. 7s. Gd.
A Smaller History of England for Young Persons.

By Dr. Wm. Smith. Woodcuts. ISmo. 3s. Gd.
Little Arthur's History of England. By Ladt

Callcott. Woodcuts. ISmo. 2s. Gd,
ENGLISHWOMAN IN AMERICA. Post Svo. 10s. 6d.
ESKIMAUX and English Vocabulary, for Travellers in the Arctic
Regions. 16mo. 3s. ed. »

12 LIST OF WORKS

ESSAYS PROM "THE TIMES." Being a Selection from the
Literary Papers which have appeared in that Journal, Seventh
ThoMarA 2 vols. Fcap. Svo. 8s.
ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, TRANSACTIONS.
New Series. Vols. I. to IV. Svo.
EXETER'S (Bishop op) Letters to Charles Butler, on his Book of
the Roman Catholic Church. New Edition. Post Svo. 68.
FAMILY RECEIPT-BOOK. A Collection of a Thousand Valuable
and Useful Receipts. Fcap. Svo. 5s. Gd,
FAREAR'S (Rev. A. S.) Critical History of Free Thought iu
reference to the Christian Keligion. Being the Bampton Lectures, 1882.
Svo. 16s.

 (F. W.) Origin of Language, based on Modern
Researches. Fcap. Svo. 5s.
FEATHERSTONHAUGH'S (G. W.) Tour through the Slave States
of North America, from the River Potomac to Texas and the Frontiers
of Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. Svo. 26s.
FERGUSSON'S (James) Palaces of Nineveh and PersepoUs
Restored. Woodcuts. Svo. 16s.

—  History of Architecture in all Countries : from the
Earliest Times to the Present Day. With 1200 Illustrations. 2 Vols.
Svo. Vol.1. 42s.
 History of the Modern Styles of Architecture : form
ing the Third and Concluding Volume of the above work. With 312
Illustrations. Svo. 31s. Gd.
 Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem ;
being the Suh.stance of Two Lectures delivered at the Royal Institu
tion, 1862 and '65. Woodcuts. Svo. 7s. Gd.
FISHER'S (Rev. George) Elements of Geometry, for the Use of
Schools. Fifth Edition. 18mo. Is. Gd,
 ¦  First Principles of Algebra, for the Use of Schools.
Fifth Edition. ISmo. Is. Gd.
FLOWER GARDEN (The). By Rev. Thos. James. Fcap. Svo. Is.
PONNEREAU'S (T. G.) Diary cf a Dutiful Son. Fcap. Svo. ,
4s. Gd.
FORBES' (C. S.) Iceland; its Volcanoes, Geysers, and Glaciers.
Illustrations. Post Svo. 14s.
FORSTER'S (Johh) Arrest of the Five Members by Charles the
First. A Chapter of English History re-written. Post Svo. 12s.

 Grand Remonstrance, 1641. With an Essay on
English freedom under the Plantagenet and Tudor Sovereigns. Second
Edition. Post Svo. 12s.
 Sir John Eliot; a Biography, 1590—1632. With
Portraits. 2 Vols, Crown Svo. 30s,
 Biographies of Oliver Cromwell, Daniel De Foe,
Sir Richard Steele, Charles Churchill, Samuel Foote. Third Edition.
Post Svo. 12s.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 13

FORD'S (Richard) Handbook for Spain, Andalusia, Eonda, Valencia,
Catalonia, Granada, Gallicia, Arragon, Navarre, &c. Third Edition.
2 Vols. Post Svo. 80s.
.  Gatherings from Spain. Post Svo. 3s. ed.
FOESYTH'S (William) Life and Times of Cicero. With Selections
from his Correspondence and Orations. New Edition, Illustrations.
Svo.
FOETUNE'S (Robert) Narrative of Two Visits to the Tea
Countries of China, 1843-52. Third Edition, 'Wooicnts, 2 Vols. Post
Svo. ISs.
 Third Visit to China. 1853-6. Woodcnts. Svo. 16s.
•  Yedo and Peking. With Notices of the Agricul
ture and Trade of China, during a Fourth Visit to that Country. Illus
trations. Svo. 16s.
FOSS' (Edward) Judges of England. With Sketches of their
Lives, and Notices of the Courts at Westminster, from the Conquest to
the Present Time. 9 Vols, Svo, lUs.
FRANCE (History op). From the Conquest by the Gauls to
Recent Tiraes, By Mrs, Markham. New and Cheaper Edition. Wood
cuts. 12mo. 4s.
 (The Student's History of). From ihe Earliest
Times to the Establishment of the Spcond Empire, 1852, By W, H,
Pearson, Edited by Wm, Smith, LL,D, Woodcuts. Post Svo. 78. Gd.
FRENCH (The) in Algiers ; The Soldier of the Foreign Legion —
and the Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir, Translated by Lady Duff Gordon.
Post Svo. 28.
GALTON'S (Francis) Art of Travel ; or, Hints on the Shifts and
Contrivances available in Wild Countries. Third Edition. Wood
cuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd,
GEOGRAPHY, ANCIENT (The Student's Manual op). By Rev.
W. L. Bevas. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 78, 6d.

MODERN (The Student's Manual). By Rev.

W. L. Bkvan. Woodcuts. Post Svo. In the Press,
 Journal of the Eoyal Geographical Society of
London. Svo.
GERMANY (History op). From the Invasion by Marius, to Eecent
times. By Mrs. Markham. Jv^etti and Cheaper Edition, Woodcnts.
12mo. 4s.
GIBBON'S (Edward) History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire. Edited, with Notes, by Dean Milman and M, Gdizot,
A Nno Edition. Preceded by his Autobiography, And Edited, with
Notes, by Dr. Wm. Smith. Maps, 8 Vols, Svo, 60s.
 (The Student's Gibbon) ; Being an Epitome of the
above work, incorporating the Researches of Recent Commentators. By
Dr, Wm. Smith. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
GIFFARD'S (Edward) Deeds of Naval Daring ; or, Anecdotes of
the British Navy. New Edition. Fcap. Svo. 3s. Gd.
GOLDSMITH'S (Oliver) Works. A New Edition. Printed from
the last editions revised by the Author. Edited by Pbtee Cunning.
BA.li. Vignettes. 4 Vols. Svo. 308.

14 LIST OF WORKS

GLADSTONE'S (Right Hon.W. B.) Financial Statements of 1S53,
60, 63, and 64 ; with Speeches on Tax-Bills and Charities. Second Edition.
Svo. 12s. Farewell Address at the University of Edinburgh.

Fourth Edition, Svo. 2s. Gd.
 Speeches on Parliamentary Eeform in 1866. Post
, Syo.
GLEIG'S (Rev. G. E.) Campaigns of the British Army at Washing
ton amd New Orleans. Post Svo. 2s.
 Storj- of the Battle of Waterloo. Post Svo. 3s. ed,
 Narrative of Sale's Brigade in Aflfghanistan. Post Svo. 2s.
 Life of Robert Lord Clive. Post Svo. 3s. ed,
 Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Munro. Post Svo. 3s. ed.
GONGORA; An Historical Essay on the Times of Philip III. and
IV. of Spain. With Illustrations. By Archdeacon Cuurtom. Por
trait. 2 vols. Post Svo. los.
GORDON'S (Sib Alex. Dupp) Sketches of German Life, and Scenes
from the War of Liberation. From the German. Post Svo. 3s. Gd.
(Ladt Duff) Amber- Witch : A Trial for Witch

craft. From the German. Post Svo. 2s.

 French in Algiers. 1. The Soldier of the Foreign
Legion. 2. The Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. From the Frenoh.
Post Svo. 2s.
GOUGER'S (Henry) Personal Narrative of Two Years' Imprison
ment in BuiTnah. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 12s.
GRAMMARS (Latin and Greek). See Curtics ; Smith ; King
Edward VIth., &c. &c.
GREECE (The Student's History of). From the Earliest
Times to the Roman Conquest. By Wm. Smith, LL.D. Wood
cuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 (A Smaller History op, for Younq Persons). By Dr.
Wm. Smith. Woodcuts. 16mo. 3s. 6d.
GRENVILLE (The) PAPEES. Being the Public and Private
Correspondence of George Grenville, including his Private Diary,
Edited by W, J, Smith. 4 Vols. Svo. 16s. each.
GREY (Earl) The Correspondence of the late Earl Grey with King
William IVth. and Sir Herbert Taylor, from November, 1830, to the
Passing of the Reform Act in 1S32. Svo.

 On Parliamentary Government and Reform ; with
Suggestions for the Improvement of our Eepresentative System,
and an Examination ofthe Reform Bills of 1859—61. Second Edition,
Svo. 9s.
 (Sir George) Polynesian Mythology, and Ancient
Traditional History of the New Zealand Race. Woodcuts. Post
Svo, 10s, ed,
SEUNER'S (Lewis) Brickand Terra-Cotta Buildings of Lombardy,
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. From careful Drawings and
Restorations. Engraved and printed in Colours. lUuatratioua. SmaU
folio. Nearly Ready,

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 15

GUIZOT'S (M.) Meditations on the Essence of Christianity, and
on the Religious Questions of the Day. Post Svo. 0s. Gd.
— '.  • Meditations on the Actual State of the Christian Re
Ugion. Post Svo.
GROTE'S (GeoroS) .History of Greece. From the Earliest Times
to the close ofthe generation contemporary with the death of Alexander
the Great. Fourth Edition, Maps. S vols. , Svo. 112s.
 Plato, and tho other Companions of Socrates. Second
Edition. 3 Vols. Svo,
 (Mrs.) Memoir of Ary Scheffer. Post Svo, Ss, 6d,
Collected Papers. Svo. 10s. 6d.

HALLAM'S (Henry) Constitutional History of England, from the
Accession of Hemy the Seventh to the Death of George the Second.
Seventh Edition. 3 Vols. Svo. 30s. Or Popular EditioncS Vols,, Post
Svo, ISs, '.
 History of Europe during the Middle Ages!
Tenth Edition, 3 Vols. Svo. 30s. Or Popular Edition, 3 Vols., Post
Svo, ISs,
 Literary History of Europe, during the 15th, 16th and
. 17th Centuries. Fourth Edition,. 3 yols. Svo. 38s. Or Popular Edition,
4 Vols., Post 8vo„ 24s,
 Historical Works. Containing History of England,
—Middle Ages of Europe,— Literary History of Europe. 10 Vols.
Post Svo. 6s. each. ¦
 (Arthur) Remains ; in Verse and Prose. V/ith Pre
face, Memoir, and Portrait. Fcap. Svo. 7s, Gd.
HAMILTON'S (James) Wanderings in North Africa. With Illastra
tions. Post Svo. 12s.
HART'S ARMY LIST. {Quarterly. and Ann-ucdly.) Svo. 10s. ed.
and 21s. each.
HANNAH'S (Rev. Dr.) Bampton Lectures for 1863; the Divine
and Human Elements in Holy Scripture, Svo, 10s, Gd.
HAY'S (J. H. Drummond) Western Barbany, its wild Tribes and
savage Animals. Post Svo. 2s.
HEAD'S (SirFbahois) Horse and his Eider. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 5s.
 Rapid Journeys across the Pampas. Post Svo. 2s.
 Bubbles from [the Brunnen of Nassau. Illustrations.
Post Svo, ' ,
 Emigrant. Fcap. Svo. 2s. ed.

Stokers and Pokers; or, N.-,Westem Eailway. Post Svo. 2s.
 (Sib Edmund) Shall and Will; or, Future Auxiliary
Verbs, Fcap, Svo, 4s.
HEBER'S (Bishop) Journey through the Upper Provinces of India,
from Calcutta to Bombay, with an Arcnniit of a Journey to Madras
and the Southern Provinces. Twelfth Edition: 2 Vols, Post Svo, 7s,
 Poetical Works, including Palestine, Europe, The Eed
Sea, Hymns, &c. Sixth- Edition. Portrait.' Fcap; 8vo. 6s,
Hymns adaipted to the Weekly Church Service of the

Year, 16mo. Is, Gd.
HERODOTUS. A New English . Version. Edited, with Notes
and Essays, historical, ethnographical, and geographical, by Rev. G.
Kawlinbon, assisted by Sir Hbnet Rawlijjson and Sir J. G. Wil-
KissoK. Second Edition. Maps and Woodcuts. 4 Vols. Svo. 48s.

16 LIST OF WORKS

HAND-BOOE:— TRAVEL-TALK. English, French, German, and
Italian. ISmo. 3s. Gd.
 NORTH GERMANY,— Holiand, Belsium, and
the Rhine to Switzerland. Map. Post Svo. 10s.
 KNAPSACK GUIDE— BELGIUM AND THE

RHINE. Post Svo. {In the Press.)
SOUTH GERMANY, Bavaria, Austria, Styria,

Salzherg, the Austrian and Bavarian Alps, the Tyrol, Hungary, and the
Danube, from Ulm to the Black Sea. Map. Post Svo. 10s.
 KNAPSACK GUIDE— THE TYEOL. Post Svo.

{In the Press.)
 PAINTING. German, Flemish, and Dutch Schools.
Edited by De. Waagen. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 24s.
LIVES OF THE EARLY FLEMISH PAINTERS,

¦with Notices of their Works. By Ceowe and Cavalcaseilb. Illus
trations. Po9t Svo. 12s.
 SWITZERLAND, Alps of Savoy, and Piedmont.
Mapg, Post Svo. Bs.
- KNAPSACK GUIDE — SWITZERLAND. Post

SvD. 5s.
 FRANCE, Normandy, Brittany, the French Alps,
the Rivers Loire, Seine, Rhone, and Garonne, Dauphin^, Provence, and
the Pyrenees. Maps. Post Svo. 10s.
 KNAPSACK GUIDE - FRANCE. Post Svo.

(/yi the Press.)
 PARIS AND ITS Ehvikons. Map. Post Svo. 5s,
SPAIN, Andalusia, Eonda, Granada, Valencia,

Catalonia, Gallicia, Arragon, and Navarre. Maps. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 30s,
 POETUGAL, Lisbon, %c. Map. Post Svo. ds.
NORTH ITALY, Piedmont, Liguria, Venetia,

Lombardy, Parma, Modena, and Romagna'. Map. Post Svo. 12s.
CENTRAL ITALY, Lucca, Tuscany, Florence, The

Marches,Umbria,and the Patrimony of St. Peter's, Map, Post Svo, 10s,
 ROME AND ITS Environs. Map. Post Svo. 9s.
 SOUTH ITALY, Two Sicilies, Naples, Pompeii,
Herculaneum, and Vesuvius. Map. Post Svo. 10s.
 KNAPSACK GUIDE— ITALY. Post Svo. 6s.

 SICILY, Palermo, Messina, Catania, Syracuse, Etna,
and the Ruins of tlie Greek Temples. Map. Post Svo. 12s.
PAINTING. The Italian Schools. From the German

of KuGiER. Edited by Sir Charles Eastlake, R.A. Woodcuts.
2 Vols. Post Svo. 30s.
 LIVES OF THE EARLY ITALIAN PAINTERS,
AND PROGBESS of PAINTING IN ItALV, from ClMABUE to BasSANO. By
Mrs. Jameson. A Nem Editim. Woodcuts. Post Svo. In the Press.
 NOEWAY, Map. Post Svo. 5s.
 DENMARK, Sweden, and Norway. Maps. Post
Svo. 15s.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 17

HAND-BOOK— GREECE, the Ionian Islands, Albania, Thessaly,
and Macedonia. Maps. Post Svo. 15s.
 TURKEY, Malta, Asia Minor, Constantinople,
Armenia, Mesopotamia, &c. Maps. Post Svo.
EGYPT, Thebes, the Nile, Alexandria, Cairo,

the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, <&c. Map. Post Svo. 15s.
SYRIA AND PALESTINE, Peninsula of Sinai,

Eidom, and Syrian Desert. Maps. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 24s.
 BOMBAY AND MADRAS. Map. 2 Vols. Post
Svo. 24s.
 EUSSIA, PoiAND, and Finland. Maps. Post
8vo. 12s.
 MODERN LONDON. A Complete Guide to all
the Sights and Objects of Interest inthe Metropolis. Map. 16mo. Ss.Gd,
 WESTMINSTER ABBEY. Woodcuts. 16mo. Is.
IRELAND — Dublin, Belfast, Donegal, Galway,

Wexford, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, the Lakes of Killarney, Coast of
Munster, &c. Maps. Post Svo. 12s.^
 KENT AND SUSSEX, Canterbury, Dover, Eams-
gatOj Sbeernes^, Rochester, Chatham, Woolwich, Brighton, Chichester,
Worthing, Hastings, Lewes, Arundel, &e. Mnp. Post Svo. 10s.
SUEREY AND HANTS, Kingston, Croydon, Rei

gate, Guildford, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth, and Isle of
^Wight. Maps. Post Svo. 10s.
 BERKS, BUCKS, AND OXON, Windsor, Eton,
Reading, Aylesbury, XJxbridge, Wycombe, Henley, the City and Uni
versity of Oxford, and the Descent of the Thames to Maidenhead and
Windsor. Map. Post Svo. 7s. Gd,
 WILTS, DORSET, AND SOMERSET, Salisbury,
Chippenham, Weymouth, Sherborne, Wells, Bath, Bristol, Taunton,
&o. Map. Post Svo. 7s. 6d,
 DEVON AND CORNWALL, Exeter, Ilfracombe,
Linton, Sidraouth, Dawlish, Telgnmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, Tor
quay, Launceston, Truro, Penzance, Falmouth, &c. Maps. Post Svo. 10s.
 NORTH AND SOUTH WALES, Bangor, Car-
narvon, Beaumaris, Snowdon, Conway, Menai Straits, Carmarthen,
Pembroke, Tenby, Swansea, The Wye, &e. Maps. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 12s.
GLOUCESTER, HEREFORD, AND WORCES

TERSHIRE. Map, Post Svo,
STAFFORD, DERBY, AND LEICESTERSHIRE.

Map. Post Svo. {Just Ready.)
 YORKSHIRE. Map. Post Svo. {just Ready.)'
-THE LAKES. Westmoreland, Cumberland, &c.

Maps, Post Svo, Ss.Gd.
SOUTHERN CATHEDEALS OP ENQLAND-

Winchester, Salisbury, Exeter, Wells, Chichester, Rochester, Canter
bury. With 110 Illustrations. 2 Vols. Crown Svo. 24s.
EASTERN CATHEDEALS OF ENGLAND-

Oxford, Peterborough, Norwich, Ely, and Lincoln. With 90 Illustra
tions. Crown Svo, 18s.
WESTERN CATHEDRALS OF ENGLAND—

Bristol, Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester, and Lichfield, With 50 Illus
trations, Crown Svo, 16s, c

18

LIST OF WORKS

HOME AND COLONIAL LIBRARY. A Series of -Works
adapted for all circles and classes of Readers, having been selected
for their acknowledged interest and ability of the Authors. Post Svo.
Published at 25. and 3s. Gd. each, and arranged nuder two distinctive
heads as follows : —

CLASS A.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, AND
1. SIEGE OP GIBRALTAR. By

John Dkimkwater.
2. THE AMBER-WITCH. - y
Laot Duff Gordon. 2s.
3. CROMWlELL AND BUNYAN.
By ROBBBT SOUTHBV. 2s.
4. LIFE OF SiK FRANCIS DRAKE.
By John Babbow, 2s.
5. CAMPAIGNS AT WASHING
TON. ByREV.G.R.GMlG, 2s,
6, THE FRENCH IN ALGIERS,
By Ladt Duff Gordon, 2s,
7. THE FALL OF THE JESUITS.
2s.
S. LIVONIAN TALES. 2s.
9. LIFE OF CONDE. By Loed Ma
hon. 3s. Gd.

10. SALE'S BRIGADE.
, ,.G. K,. Gleio. 2s.

By Rev.

HISTORIC TALES.
11. THE SIEGES OF VIENNA.
By Lord Ellesmbre. 2s.
12, THE WAYSIDE CROSS. By
Capt, Milman. 2s.
13, SKETCHES OF GERMAN LIFE,
By Sir A, Gordon, 3s, Gd.
14. THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO.
By Rbv. G. R, Gleig, 3s,Gd.
15. AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF STEP-
FENS. 2!.
16. THE BRITISH POETS, By
Thouas Campbell, 3s. 6^. By

17. HISTORICAL Lord Mahon.

ESSAYS.
3s. Gd.

By

18. LIFE OF LORD CLIVE.
Rev. G. R, Gleig, 3s, Gd,
19. NORTH - WESTERN RAIL
WAY. By Sib P. B. Head, 2s.
20, LIFE OF MUNRO. By Rev, G,
R. Gleiq. 3s, Gd.

CLASS B.
VOYAGES, TRAVELS, AND ADVENTURES.

17. PAMPAS JOURNEYS.
F. B, Head. 2s.

1. BIBLE IN SPAIN. By George
BORBOw. 3s. Gd.
2. GIPSIES of SPAIN. By George
BOBBOW. 3s. Gd.
3&4, JOURNALS IN INDIA, By
Bishop Heber, 2 Vols, 7s,
6, TRAVELS INTHE HOLY LAND,
By IRBY and Mangles, 2s.
6. MOROCCO AND THE MOORS.
By J. Drummond Hav. 2s.
7. LETTERS FROM the BALTIC.
By a Ladv, 2s,
S. NEW SOUTH WALES. By Mrs.
Meredith. 2s.
9. THE WEST INDIES. ByM. G.
Lewis. 2s.
10. SKETCHES OF PERSIA. By
Sir John Malcolm. 3s. Gd.
11. MEMOIRS OF FATHER RIPA.
2s,
12. 13. TYPEE AND OMOO. By
Hermann Melville. 2 Vols. 7s.
14. MISSIONARY LIFE IN CAN
ADA. By Rev. J. Abbott. 2s.
*«* Each work may be had separately.

15. LETTERS FROM MADRAS, By
a Lady, 2s.
16. HIGHLAND SPORTS, By
Charles St, John, 3s. Gd,

By Sir

18, GATHERINGS FROM SPAIN.
By Richard Ford. 3s. Gd.
19. THE RIVER AMAZON. By
W. H. EOWABDS. 2s.
20. MANNERS & CUSTOMS OF
INDIA, By Rev, C. Acland. 2s.
21. ADVENTURES IN MEXICO.
By G. F. Rdxtoh. 3s. Gd.
22. PORTUGAL AND GALLICIA.
By Lord Carnarvon , 3s, Gd,
23. BUSH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA,
By Rev, II. W. Haygarth. 2s. By

24. THE LIBYAN DESERT,
' Bayle St. John. -25.

25. SIERRA LEONE,
Ss,Gd,

By a Ladt,

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 19

HANDBOOK OF FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS. From English
Authors. Third Edition, Fcap. Svo. 5s.
HESSEY (Rev. Dr.). Sunday — Its Origin, History, and Present
Obligations. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1860. Second Edition,
Svo. 16s. Or Third and Popular Edition, Post Svo. 9s.
HICKMAN'S (Wm.) Treatise" on the Law and Practice of Naval
Courts-Martial. Svo. 10s, Gd,
HILLAED'S (G. S.) Six Mouths in Italy. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 16«.
HOLL WAY'S (J. G.) Month in Norway. Fcap. Svo. 2s.
HONEY BEE (The). An Essay. By Eev. Thomas James.
Reprinted from the " Quarterly Review." Fcap. Svo. Is.
HOOK'S (Dban) Church Dictionary. Mnth Edition. Svo. 16».
 (THEODOKE)Life. By J. G. LooKHART. Reprinted from the
" Quarterly Review." Fcap. Svo, Is.
HOPE'S (A. J. Beeesfokd) English Cathedral of the Nineteenth.
Century. With Illustrations. Svo.' 12s.
HORACE (Works of). Edited by Dean Miimar. With 300-
Woodcuts. Crown Svo. 21s.
 (Life of). By Dean Milman. Woodcuts, and coloured
Borders. Svo. 9s. .
HOUGHTON'S (Loan) Poetical Works. Fcap Svo. 6s.
HOME'S (The Student's) History of England, from the Invasion
of Julius Cffisar to the Revolution of 1688. Corrected and continued
to 1858. Edited by Dr. Wm. Smith. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 7«. Gd.
HUTCHINSON (Gen.) on the' most expeditious, certain, and
easy Method of Dog-Breaking. Fourth Edition. Enlarged aiid'
revised, with 40 lilustratious. Crown Svo, 15s,
BUTTON'S (H.E.) PrincipiaGraeca; an Introduction to the Study
of Greek, Comprehending Grammar, Delectus, and Exercise-book,.
with Vocabularies. Third Edition, 12mo. 3s, Gd,
IRBY AND MANGLES" Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Syria, and
the Holy Land. Post Svo. 2s.
JAMES' (Rbv. Thomas) Fables of JEaop, A^few Translation, with
Historical Preface. With 100 Woodcuts by Tenniel and Wolf.
Forty-eighth Thousand, Post Svo. 2s. Gd,
JAMESON'S (Mbs.) Lives of the Early Italian Painters, from
Cimabue to Bassano, vid the Progress of Painting in Italy. New
Edition, With Woodcuts. Post 8vo.
JESSE'S (Edward) Gleanings in Natural History. Eighth Edition,
Fcp. 8vo. 6».
JOHNS' (Rev. B. G.) Blind People; their Works and Ways. With
Sketches of the Lives of some famous Bliod Men. With Illustrations.
Post Svo.
JOHNSON'S (Db. Samubi) Life. By James Boswell. Including
the Tour to the Hebrides. Edited by Mb. Cboser. Portraits.
Royal Svo. 10s.
 Lives of the most eminent English Poets. Edited
by Peteb Cunningham. 3 vols. Svo. 22s. Gd,

20 LIST OF WORKS
 \ 
KEN'S (Bishop) Life. By a Layman, Author of " Life of the
Messiah." Second Edition, Portrait, 2 Vols. Svo. 18s.
 =  Exposition of the Apostles' Creed. Extracted from
his "Practice of Divine Love." Foap. ls,Gd,
¦ Approach to the Holy Altar. Extracted from his

"Manual of Prayer" and "Practice- of Divine Love." Fcap. Svo. ls,Gd,
KENNEDY'S (General Sir J, Shaw) Notes on the Battle of
Waterloo, With a Memoir of his Life and Services, and a Plan for
the Defence of Canada. With Map andPlans. Svo. 7s. Gd.
KING'S (Rev. C. W.) Antique Gems; their Origin, Use, and
Value, as Interpreters of Ancient History, and as illustrative of Ancient
Art. Second Edition. Illustrations, Svo.
KING EDWARD VIth's Latin Grammar; or, an Introduction
to the Latin Tongue, for the Use of Schools. Seventeenth Edition, 12mo.
3s. Gd.
 :  First Latin Book ; or, the Accidence,
Syntax, and Prosody, with an English Translation for the Use of Junior
Classes, Fifth Edition, 12mo. 2s. Gd,
KIRK'S (J. Foster) History of Charles the Bold, Duke of Bur
gundy. Portrait. 2 Vols, Svo. 30s.
KERR'S (Robert) GENTLEMAN'S HOUSE ; ok. How to Plan
English Rrsidences, frosi the Parsonage to the Palace, With
Tables of Accominodation and Cost, and a Series of Selected Views
and Plans. Second Edition, Svo. 24s,
 Ancient Lights ; a Book for Architects, Surveyors,
Lawyers, and Landlords, Svo, 5s, Gd.
KING GEORGE THE THIRD'S COERESPONDENCE WITH
LORD NORTH, 1769-82. Edited, with Notes and Introduction, by
W. BODHAM DoKME. 2 vols. Svo. {Published by Permission,)
KUGLER'S Italian Schools of Painting. Edited, with Notes, by
Sib Charles Eastlake. Third Edition, Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post
Svo. 30s.
 German, Dutch, and Flemish Schools of Painting.
Edited, with Notes, by Dr. Waagen. Second Edition, Woodcuts. 2
Vols. Post Svo. 24s.
LAYARD'S (A. H.) Nineveh and its Remains. Being a Nar
rative of Researches and Discoveries amidst the Ruins of Assyria.
With an Account of the Chaldean Christians of Kurdistan ; the Yezedis,
or Devil-worshippers ; and an Enquiry into the Manners and Arts of
the Ancient Assyrians. Sixth Edition, Plates and Woodcuts. 2 Vols.
Svo, 36s, »
*** A Popular Account of the above Work, With Illustrations. Post
8vo. 6s.
 Nineveh and Babylon ; being the Result of a Second
Expedition to Assyria. Plates. Svo. 21s. On Fine Paper, 2 Vols.
Svo. 30s.
%.* A Popular Account of the above Work. With Illustrations.
Post Svo. {In the Press.)
LESLIE'S (C. R.) Handbook for Young Painters. With Illustra
tions. Post Svo. 10s. Gd.
'  Autobiographical Recollections, with Selections
from his Correspondence. Edited by Tom Taylor. Portrait. 2 Vols.
Po.-t Svo. ISs.

PUBLISHED BY ME. MURRAY. 21

LESLIE'S (C. R.) Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds. With an Aceonnt
of his Works, and a, Sketch of his Cotemporaries. By C. R. Leslie
and Tom Taylob. Portraits and Illustrations. 2 Vols. Svo. 42».
LETTERS PROM THE BALTIC. B? a Ladt. Post Svo. 2s.
 Madras. By a Ladt. Post Svo. 2s.
¦  Sierra Leone By a Ladt. Post Sv'o. 3s. ed.
mwIS' (Sib G. C.) Essay on the Government of Dependencies.
Svo. 12s.
 Glossary of Provincial Words used in Herefordshire and
some of the adjoining Counties. ' 12mo. 4s. Gd,
 (M. G.) Journal of a Residence among the Negroes in the
West Indies. Post Svo. 2s.
LIDDELL'S (Dean) History of Rome. Prom the Earliest Times
to the Establishment of the Empire. With the History of Literature
and Art. 2 Vole. Svo. 28s.

 Student's History of Eome, abridged from the
above Work. With Woodcuts. Post Svo. 7s. 6A
LINDSAY'S (Lord) Lives of the Lindsays ; or, a Memoir of the
Houses of Crawford and Balcarres. With Extracts from Official Papers
and Personal Narratives. Second Edition. 3 Vols. Svo. 24s.
LISPINGS from LOAV LATITUDES; or, the Journal of the Hon.
ImpuIsiaGushington. Edited by Lord Dufferin. With 24 Plates. 4to. 21s.
LITTLE ARTHUR'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By Lady
Callcott. ISOth Thousand. With 20 Woodcnts. Fcap. Svo. 2s. Gd,
LIVINGSTONE'S (Dr.) Popular Account of his Missionary
Travels in South Airica. Illustrations, Post Svo. 6s.
 Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambezi and
its Tributaries ; and of the Discovery of Lakes Shirwa and Nyassa.
1858-64. By David and Charles Livingstone. Map and Illustra
tions. Svo. 2l5,
LIVONIAN TALES. By the Author of "Letters from the
Baltic." Post Svo. 2s.
LOCKHART'S (J. G.) Ancient Spanish Ballads. Historical and
Romantic. Translated, with Notes. New Edition, PostSvo. 2s, Gd,
LONDON'S (Bishop of) Dangers and Safeguards of Modem
Theology. Containing Suggesiions to the Theological Student under
present dif&culties. Second Edition, Svo. 9s.
LOUDON'S (Mrs.) Instructions in Gardening. With Directions
and Calendar of Operations for Every Month. Eighth Edition, Wood
cuts. Fcap. Svo. 5s.
LUCAS' (Samuel) Seeularia; or, Surveys on the Main Stream of
History. Svo. l'2s.
LUCKNOW : a Lady's Diary of the Siege. Fcap, Svo. 4s. ed,
LYELL'S (Sir Charles) Elements of Geology; or, the Ancient
Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants considered as illustrative of
Geology. Sixth Edition, Woodcuts. Svo. 18s.
— '-  Principles of Geology; or, the Recent Changes of
the Earth and its Inhabitants considered as illustrative of Geology.
Tenth Edition. With Illustrations. Vo.l. I. Svo. {To be completed in
Vols.) Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man.

Third Edition, Illustrations. Svo. 14s.
LYTTELTON'S (Lord) Ephemera. Post Svo. 10s.

22 LIST OF WORKS
LYTTON'S (Lord) Poems. Nm Edition. Post Svo. 10s. 6c?.
 Lost Tales of Miletus. Second Edition. Post Svo. 'Ts.Sd.
MACPHERSON'S (Major S. C.) Memorials of Service iu India,
while Political Agent at Gwalior during the Mutiny, and formerly
employed in the Suppression of Human Sacrifices in Orissa. Edited
by his Brother. With Porttait and IUustrations. Svo. 12s.
MAHON'S (IjOrd) History of England, from the Peace of Utrecht
tothePeaceofVersailles, 1713— 83. Library Edition, 7 Vols, Svo. 93s.
Popular Edition, 7 Vols. Post Svo. 35s.
 Life of CondS, surnamed the Great. Post Svo. 3s. ed.
 -Life of Belisarius. Second Edition. Post Svo. 10s. 6rf.
Life of William Pitt, with Extracts from his MS.

Papers, Second Edition. Portmits, 4 Vols. Post Svo. 42s.
 Miscellanies. Second Edition. Post Svo. 5s. 6d.

 " Forty-Five ; " a Narrative of the Rebellion iu Scot
land. Post Svo. 3s.
 History of British India from its Origin till the Peace
of 1783. Post Svo. 8s. Gd.
Spain under Charles the Second; 1690 to 1700.

Second Edition. Post Svo. 6s, Gd.
 Historical and Critical Essays. Post Svo. 3s. ed.
 Story of Joan of Arc. Fcap. Svo. Is.
McCLINTOCK'S (Capt. Sir F. L.) Narrative of the Discovery of
the Fate of Sir John Fninklin and bis Companions in the Arctic Seas.
Twelfth Thousand. Illustrations. Svo. 16s.
M'^CULLOCH'S (J. R.) Collected Edition of Rioardo's Political
Works. With Notes and Memoir. Second Edition, Svo. 16s.
MaoDOUGALL'S (Col.) Modern Warfare as Influenced by Modern
Artillery. With Plans. Post Svo. 12s.
MAINE (H. Sumner) Ou Ancient Law : its Connection with the
¦ Early History of Society, and its Relation to Modern Ideas. Third
Edition. Svo. 12s.
MALCOLM'S (Sir John) Sketches of Persia. Post Svo. 3s. 6d.
MANSEL (Rbv. H. L.) Limits of Religious Thought Examined.
Being the Bampton Lectures for 1S58. Fourth Edition, Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
MANSFIELD (Sir William) On the Introduction of a Gold
Currency info India : a Contribution to the Literature of Political
Economy. Svo. Sa. Gd,
MANTELL'S (Gideon A.) Thoughts on Animalcules; or, the
Invisible World, as revealed by the Microscope. Second Edition, Plates.
16mo. 6s.
MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, Prepared for the Use of
Oificers and Travellers. By various Writers. Edited by Sir J. F.
Herschel and Rev. K. Main. Third Edition, Maps. Post Svo. 9s.
{Published by order of the Lords of tlie Admiralty,)

PUBLISHED BY MR, MURRAY.

MARKHAM'S (Mrs.) History of England. From the First Inva
sion by the Romans, down to Recent Times. Neio and Cheaper Edition.
Woodcuts. 12mo. 4s,
 . History of France. From the Conquest by
. the Gauls, to Recent Times. New and Ghiaper Edition, Woodcuts.
12mo. 4s.

 History of Germany. From the Invasion by Marius,
to Recent Times. New and Gkeaper Edition, Woodcuts. 12mo. 4s.
(Clements, R.) Travels ia Peru and, India, for the

purpose of collecting Cinchona Plants, and introducing Bark into
India. Maps and Illustraiious. Svo. 16s.
MAEKLAND'S (J. H.) Reverence due to Holy Places. Third
Edition, Fcap. Svo. 2s.
MAEEYAT'S (Joseph) History of Modem and Mediaeval Pottery
and Porcelain. With a Description of the Manufacture. Second
Edition, Plates and Woodcuts. Svo. 31s. Gd,
(Horace) Jutland, the Danish Isles, and Copen

hagen. Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 24s.
Sweden and Isle of Gothland. Illustrations. 2

Vols. Post Svo.
MATTHI.S'S (AuausTus) Greek Grammar for Schools, abridged
from the Larger Grammar. By Blomfield. Ninth Edition. Revised by
Edwards. 12mo. 3s.
MAUREL'S (Jules) Essay on the Character, Actionsjand Writings
of the Duke of Wellington. Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. Is. Gd.
MATNB'S (Capt.) Four Years in British Columbia and Van
couver Lsland. ' Its Forests, Rivers, Coasts, and Gold Fields, and
Resources for Colonisation. Illustrations. Svo. . 16s.
MELVILLE'S (Hermann) Typee and Omoo; or. Adventures
amongst the Marquesas and South Sea Islands. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 7s.
MILLS' (Rev. John) Three Months' Eesidence at Nablus, with
an Account of the Modern Samaritans. Illustrations. Post 8vo. 10s. Gd,
MILMAN'S (Dean) Historical Works. 15 Vols. Post Svo. 6s. each.
Containing, 1. HISTORY OF THE JEWS. 3 Vols.
2. HISTORY OP EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 3 Vols.
3. HISTORY OF LATIN CHRISTIANITY. 9 Vols.
 Character and Conduct of the Apostles considered
as an Evidence of Christianity. Svo. 10s. Gd.
 Translations from the Agamemnon of .fischylus
and Bacchanals of Euripides ; with Passages frpm the Lyrip and Later
Poets ot Greece. With Illustrations, crown Svo, 12s.
 Life and Works of Horace. With 300 Woodcuts.

2 Vols. Crown Svo. 30s.
 Poetical Works. Plates. 3 Vols. Fcap. Svo. 18s.
 Fall of Jerusalem. Fcap. Svo. Is.
(Capt. E. A.) Wayside Cross. A Tale, of the Carlist

War. Post Svo. 2s.

LIST OF WORKS

MEREDITH'S (Mrs. Charles) Notes and Sketches of New South
Wales. Post Svo. 2s.
MESSIAH (THE): A Narrative of the Life, Travels, Death,
Resurrection, and Ascension of our Blessed Lord. By a Layman.
Author of the " Life of Bishop Ken." Map. Svo, 18s. -
MICHIE'S (Alexander) Siberian Overland Route from Peking
to Petersburg, through the Deserts and Steppes of Mongolia, Tartary,
&c. Maps and Illustrations. Svo. 16s.
MODERN DOMESTIC COOKERY. Founded on Principles of
Economy and Practical Knowledge and adapted for Private FamiUes.
New Edition, Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 6s.
MOORE'S (Thomas) Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Plates.
6 Vols. Fcap. Svo. 18s.
—  Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Portraits. Royal Svo. 9s.
MOTLEY'S (J. L.) History of the United Netherlands: from the
Death of William the Silent tothe Twelve Years' Truce, 1609. Embrac
ing the English-Dutch struggle against Spain; and a detailed Account
of the Spanish Armada, Portraits, 2 Vols. Svo. 30s.
MOUHOT'S (Henri) Siam,.Cambojia, and Lao; a Narrative of
Travels and Discoveries. Illustrations, 2 vols, 8vo, 323.
MOZLEY'S (Rev. J. B.) Treatise on Predestination. Svo. 14s.
 Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Svo. Is.ed.
MUNDY'S (General) Pen and Pencil Sketches in India.
Third Edition, Plates. Post Svo. 7s. Gd,
 (Admiral) Account of the Italian Revolution, with
Noticesof Garibaldi, Francis II., and Victor Emmanuel. Post Svo. 12s.
MUNRO'S (General Sir Thomas) Life and Letters. By the Rbv.
G. R. Gleiq. Post Svo. 3s. Gd,
MURCHISON'S (Sir Roderick) Russia in Europe and the Ural
Mountains. With Coloured Maps, Plates, Sections, «&c. 2 Vols.
Royal 4to. 5?. 5s.
 Siluria ; or, a History of the Oldest Rocks con
taining Organic Remains. Fourth Edition, Map and Plates. Svo.
{Ia the Press,y
MURRAY'S RAILWAY READING. Containing:—

WsLLiKBTon. Sy Lord Ellsbmbrs, 6d.
KlMROD ON TBB CUABB, 1>.
BSBAYS FBOM "ThS TlMBB." 2 Volfl. 8s.
MUBIC AKD DbBBB. IS,
LaYABD'S ACC0UNT07,NlRBTBB. 5s. '
MiLMA:i'a Fall of Jbrubalbm. 1«.
Maboh'b "Fobty-Five." 'Ss.
LiVB OP Thsodobb Hook. 1>.
Dbbdb of Nav/lj, DABin&. Za.Qd.
Thb Honbx Bbb. Is.
James' ^Bbop's Fableb. 3«. 6d.
rJiuBOD on THB Turf. l8.6d.
Abt OF Diking. Is.td.

Ballaiu'a Litbrart Essats. 2«.
Mahon's Joan of Abc. Is.
Head's Ehioractt. 28.Gd.
NiMBUD ON thb KOAD. Is.
CbOKBB on tub GuiLIiOTIHB. It.
Hollway'b Nobwat. 28,
Maubbl's Wbllinqton. la.6d.
Campbell's Lifr of Bacoh. 2a.6d,
The Flowbr Qabj>b». Is.
Locsbabt'b Spanish Ballavb. S«.6d.
Taylob'b Notkb from Lifb. 2s.
B.BJECTRD AdDBBSBEB. Is.
FsNN'BHinTS ON AnOLINS. 1«.

MUSIC AND DRESS. By a Lady. Reprinted from the " Quarterly
Review." Fcap. Svo. Is.
NAPIER'S (Sir Chas.) Life ; chiefly derived from his Journals
and Letters. By Sir W. Napiee. Second Edition. Portraits. 4 Vols.
Post Bvo. 48!.
 (Sir Wm.) Life and Letters. Edited by H. A. Bruoe,
M.P. Portraits. 2 Vols. Crown Svo. 28s.
 English Battles and Sieges of the Peninsular War,
FouHh Edition, Portrait. Post Svo. 9s.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 25

NAUTICAL ALMANACK. Royal Svo. 2s. 6d. {By Authority.)
NAYY LIST. {Published Quarterly, hy AutJiority.) 16mo. 2s. 6d.
NEW TESTAMENT (The) Illustrated by a Plain Explanatory
Commentary, and authentic Views of Sacred Places, from Sketches
and Photographs. Edited by Abohoeacos Chdbton, M. A., and Rev.
Basil Jones, M.A. With 110 Illustrations. 2 Vols. Crown Svo.
30s. cloth ; 62s. Gd. calf; 63s. morocco.
NICHOLLS' (Sir Georoe) History of the English, Irish and
Scotch Poor Laws. 4 Vols. Svo.
 (Rev. H. G.) Historical Account of the Forest of
Dean. Woodcuts, &e. Post Svo. lOs. Gd.
NICOLAS' (Sir Harris) Historic Peerage of England. Exhi
biting the Origin, Descent, and Present State of every Title of Peer
age which has existed in this Country since the Conquest. By
Williah Courthope. Svo. 30s.
NIMROD On the Chace— The Turf— and The Road. Reprinted
from the " Quarterly Review." Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 3s. Gd.
OXENHA M'S (Rev. W.) English Notes for Latin Elegiacs ; designed
for early Proficients in the Art of Latin Versification, with Prefatory
Rules of Composition in Elegiac Metre. Fourth Edition. 12mo. 3s. Gd.
OXFORD'S (Bishop of) Short Life of William Wilberforce.
Condensed and Revised from the larger Biography. Svo. (7m the Press.)
PARIS' (Dr.) Philosophy in Sport made Science iu Earnest;
or, the First Principles of Natural Philosophy inculcated by aid of the
Toys and Sports of Youth. Ninth Edition. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
PEEL'S (Sir Robert) Memoirs. Edited by Earl Stamhope
and Right Hon. E. Cabuwell. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 7s. Gd, each.
PENN'S (Richard) Maxims and Hints for an Angler and Chess
player. New Edition, Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. Is.
PENROSE'S (F. C.) Principles of Athenian Architecture, and the
Optical Refinements exhibited in the Construction of the Ancient
Buildings at Athens, from a Survey. With 40 Plates. Folio. 51. 58.
PERCY'S (John, M.D.) Metallurgy of Iron and Steel ; or, the Art
of Extracting Metals from tbeir Ores and adapting them to various pur
poses of Manufacture. Illustrations. Svo. 42s.
 Metallurgy of Lead, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Tin, Nickel,
Cobalt, Antimony, Bismuth, Arsenic, and other Metals. Svo. {In thePress,)
PHILLIPP (C. S. M.) On Jurisprudence. Svo. 12s.
PHILLIPS' (John) Memoirs of William Smith, the Geologist.
Portrait. Svo. 7s. Gd,
 Geology of Yorkshire, The Coast, and Limestone
District. Plates. 4to, Part I,, 20s.— Part II,, 30s,
Rivers, Mountains, and Sea Coast of Yorkshire.

With Essays on the Climate, Scenery, and Ancient Inhabitants.
Second Edition, Plates. Svo. 15s.
PHILPOTTS' (Bishop) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on his
" Book of the Roman Catholic Church." New Edition, Post Svo. 6s,

26 LIST OF WORKS

POPE'S (Alexander) Life and Works. A New Edition, Con
taining nearly 500 unpublished. Letters, Edited, wUh a New Life,
Introductions and Notes, by Rev. Wbitwell Elwin. Portraits.
Svo. {In the^Press.)
PORTER'S (Rev. J. L.) Five Years in Damascus. With Travels to
Palmyra, Lebanon and other Scripture Sites. Map and Woodcuts.
2 Vols. Post Svo. 21s.
Handbook for Syria and Palestine : includinganAccount

ofthe Geography,History,Antiquities, and Inhabitantsofthese Countries,
the Peninsula of Sinai, Edom, and the Syrian De,sert. Maps. 2 Vols.
Post Svo. 24s.
PRAYERtBOOK (Illustrated), with 1000 Illustrations of Borders,
Initials, Vignettes, &c. Edited, with Noies, by Rev, Thos, Jaaies.
Medium Svo, 18s. cloth ; 3Is, Gd, calf; 36s. morocco.
PUSS IN BOOTS. With 12 Illustrations, By Otto Speokter.
16mo. Is. Gd, or Coloured, 2s. Gd,
QUARTERLY REVIEW (The). Svo. 6s.
RAMBLES among the Turkomans and Bedaweens of the Syrian
Deserts. Second Edition, Post Svo. 10s, Gd,
RANKE'S Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of
Rome during the 16th and 17th Centuries. Translated from the German
by Sakah Austin. 3 Vols. Svo.
RAWLINSON'S (Rev. Georoe) Herodotus. A New English
Version. Edited with Notes and Essays. Assisted by Sir Henry
Ratvlinson and SiB J. G. Wilkinson. Second Edition. Maps and
Woodcut. 4 Vols. Svo. 48s,
 Historical Evidences ofthe truth ofthe Scripture
Records stated anew. Second Edition, Svo. 14s,
 Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient World,
Chaldsea, As,syria, Media, Babylonia, and Persia. Illustrations. 4
Vols. Svo, 16s, each.
REJECTED ADDRESSES (The). By Jambs and Horace Smith.
Fcap. Svo. Is,
RENNIE'S (D. F.) British Arms in Peking, 1860; Kagosima,
1862. Post Svo. 12s.
 Peking and the Pekingese: Being a Narrative of
the First Year ofthe British Embassy iu China. Illustrations. 2 Vols.
Post Svo. 24s.

 Story of Bhotau and the Dooar War ; includ
ing Sketches of a Residence in tho Himalayas and Visit to Bhotan in
1666. Map and Woodcut. Post Svo. 12s.
REYNOLDS' (Sir Joshua) Life and Times. Commenced by
C, R. Leslie, R.A., continued and concluded by Tom Ta^loe. Portraits
and Illustrations. 2 Vols, Svo. 42sr
 Descriptive Catalogue of his Works. With Notices
of their present owners and localilies. By Tom Taylor flnd Charles
W. Franks. With Illustrations. Foap, 4to. {Ia the Press,)
RICARDO'S (David) Political Works. With a Notice of his
Life and Writings. By J. R. M'Cdllooh. New Edition, Svo. 16s.
RIPA'S (Father) Memoirs during Thirteen Years' Residence at the
court of Peking. From the Italian. Post Svo. 2s.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 27

ROBERTSON'S <Canok) History of the Christian Church, from
the Apostolic Age to the Death of Boniface VIII., a.d. 1122—1304.
3 Vols. Svo.
ROBINSON'S (Ret. Dr.) Later Biblical Researches, iu the Holy
Land. Being a Journal of Travels in 1852. 'Map's. Svo. 15s.
-Physical Geography of the Holy Land. Post Svo.

los. ed.
EOME (The Student's History op); From the Earliest Times
TO THE Establishment of the Empire. By Dean Liddell. Wood
cuts. Post Svo. 7s. 6c!. '
 (A Smaller History op, for Youno Pebsous). By Wm.
Smith, LL.D. Woodcuts. 16mo. 3s. 6A - ' ^
ROWLAND'S (David) Manual of the English Constitution;
ItsRise, Growth, aiid Present state. Post Svo. 10s. 6i.
Laws of Nature the Foundation of Morals. Post

Svo. 6s.
RUNDELL'S (Mrs.) Domestic Cookery, adapted for Private
Families. New Edition, Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 5s.
RUSSELL'S (J. Rutherpurd) History of the Heroes of Medicine.
Portraits. Svo. 14s.
EUXTON'S (George F.) Travels in Mexico ; with Adventures
among the Wild Tribes and Animals of the Prairies and Rocky Moun
tains. Post Svo. 3s. Gd,
SALE'S (Sir Robert) Brigade in Affghanistan. With an Account of
the Defence of Jellalabad. By Rev. G. R. Gleio. Post Svo. 2s.
SALLESBURY'S (Edward) The Children of the Lake. A Poem.
Fcap. Svo.
SANDWITH'S (Humphry) Siege of Kars! Post Svo. 3s. 6d.
SCOTT'S (G. Gilbert) Secular and Domestic Architecture, Pre
sent and Future. Second Edition, Svo. 9s.
 (Rbv. Robert, D.D,, Master of Baliol) Sermons, preached
before the University of Oxford. Post Svo. tis.Gd,
SCROPE'S (G. P.) Geology and Extinct Volcanoes of Central
France. Second Edition, Illastrations. Medium Svo. 3Ds.
SHAW'S (T. B.) student's Manual of English Literature. Edited,
with Notes and Illustrations, by Dr. Wm. Smith. Post 8vo. 7s. Gd,
 Specimens of English Literature. Selected from the
Chief English Writers. Edited by Wm. Smith, LL.D. Post Svo.
7s. Gd,
SIERRA LEONE ; Described in Letters to Friends at Home. By
A Ladt. Post Svo. Ss. Gd,
SIMMONS (Capt. T. F.) on the Constitution and Practice of
Courts-Mat tial ; with a Summary of the Law of Evidence as connected
therewith, and some Notice of the Criminnl Law of England, with
reference to the Trial of Civil Offences. 5th Edition. Svo. 14s,
SOUTH'S (John P.) Household Surgery ; or, Hints on Emergen
cies. Seventeenth Thousand, Woodcuts.. Fcp. Svo. 4s. 6(2.

28 LIST OF WORKS

SMILES' (Samuel) Lives of British Engineers ; from the Earliest
Period to the Death of Robert Stephenson ; with an account of their Plin-
cipal Works, and a History of Inland Communication in Britain.
Portraits and Illustrations. 3 Vols, Svo. 63s.
 Lives of Boulton and Watt. Comprising a History
of the Invention and Introduction of the Steam Engine. With Portraits
and 70 Illustrations. Svo, 2Is.

— Story of George Stephenson's Life, including a Memoir of
Robert Stephenson, With Portraits and 70 Woodcuts, Post Svo, 69.
— James Brindley and the Early Engineers. With Portrait
and 50 Woodcuts. Post Svo. 6s.
— Self-Help. With Illustrations of Character and Conduct.
Post 8vo. 6s. Translated into French, as a Reading-Book for

Schools. Post 8vo. 53.
 Industrial Biography : Iron-Workers and Tool Makers.
A companion.volume to " Self-Help." Post Svo, 6s.
 Workmen's Earnings — Savings — and Strikes, Fcap. Svo.
Is. Gd,
SOMERVILLE'S (Mary) Physical Geography. Eifik Edition,
Portrait. Post Svo. 9s,
 Connexion of the physical Sciences. Ninth
Edition, Woodcuts, Post Svo, 9s,
STANLEY'S (Dean) Sinai and Palestine, in Connexion with their
History, Map, Svo, 14s.
 Bible in the Holy Land. Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 2s, Gd.
 St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. Svo. ISs.
 History of the Eastern Church. Plans. Svo. 12s.
 Jewish Church. First and Second Series. Svo. 16s.

each.
 Historical Memorials of Canterbury. Woodcuts.
Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 Memorials of Westminster Abbey. Svo.
 Sermons in the East, with Notices of the Places
Visited. Svo. 9s,
 Sermons on Evangelical and Apostolical Teaching.
Post Svo, 7s, Gd.
 Addresses and Charges op Bishop Stanley. With
Memoir. Svo, 10s, Gd,

SOUTHEY'S (Robert) Book of the Church. Seventh Edition,
Post Svo. 7s. 6*.
 Lives of Bunyan and Cromwell. Post Svo. 2s.

SPBCKTER'S (Otto) Puss in Boots. With 12 Woodcuts. Square
12mo. Is. Gd, plain, or 2s, Gd. coloured.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 29

SMITH'S (Dr. Wm.) Dictionary of the Bible; its Antiquities,
Biography, Geography, and Natural History. Illustrations. 3. Vols.
Svo. 105s.
 Concise Bible Dictionary, for Families and Students.
Illustrations. Medium Svo. 2l8.
 Smaller Bible Dictionary, for Schools and Young Persons.
Illustrations. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 Dictionary of Christian Antiquities : from the Times
of the Apostles to the Age of Charlemagne. Illustrations. Medium,
Svo. {In preparation.) .
 Biblical and Classical Atlas. Small folio. [In prepa
ration.)
 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Wood
cuts. Svo. 42s.
-:  Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,
compiled from the above Work. Woodcuts. Crown Svo. 7s. Gd,
 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology. Woodcuts. 3 Vols. Svo. 51, 15s. Gd.
 Greek and Roman Geography. Wood
cuts. 2 Vols. Svo. 80s.
 Classical Dictionary for Schools, compiled from the
above works. With 750 Woodcuts. Svo. 18s.
¦ Smaller Classical Dictionary, abridged from the above

Work. Woodcuts, Crown Svo, 7s, Gd.
 Complete Latin-English Dictionary for Schools. With
Tables of the Roman Calendar, Measures, Weights, aud Money. Svo.
21s.
 Smaller Latin-English Dictionary, abridged from the
above Work. 12mo. 73. Gd.
— ^ Latin-English Vocabulary ; for Phsedrus, Cornelius
Nepos, and Csesar. 2nd Edition. 12mo. 3s, Gd,
 Copious English-Latin Dictionary, compiled from
original sources. Svo. and 12ino. {In the Press,)
 Smaller Classical Mythology for Schools. With Illus
trations. 12mo. 3s, Gd.
 Principia Latina — Part I. A Grammar, Delectus, and
Exercise Book, with Vocabularies. Gth Edition. 12mo. 3s. Gd,
Part II. A Reading-book of Mytho

logy, Geography, Roman Antiquities, aud History. With Notes and
Dictionary. 3rd Edition, 12mo. 3s. Gd,
Part III. A Latin Poetry Book.

Hexameters and Pentameter.^; Eclog. Ovidianaej Latin Prosody,
&c. 2nd Edition, 12mo. 3s. Gd,
Part IT. Latin Prose Composition.

Rules of Syntax, with Examples, Explanations of Synonyms, and
Exercises on the Syntax. Second Edition. 12rao. 3s. Gd.
 Part V. Short Tales and Anecdotes

for Translation into Latin. l2mo. 3s.
 Student's Greek Grammar for the Higher Forms. _ By
Professor Curtius. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 Smaller Greek Grammar, abridged from the above
Work. 12mo. 3s. Gd, ¦ r, „
 Student's Latin Grammar for the Higher Forms. Post
8vo. 7s. 6d. , ., , - „ V
 Smaller Latin Grammar, abridged from the above
Work. 12mo. 3s. Gd.

30 LIST OF WORKS

STANHOPE'S (Earl) History of England, from the Peace of
Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713-8!, Librari/ Edition, 7 vols.
Svo. 93s, Or Popular Edition, 7 vols. Post Svo, 5s, each.
 History of British India, from its origin till the
Peace of 1783. Post Svo. 3s. 6i(,
" Forty- Five ; " a NaiTative of the Rebellion in

Scotland, Post Svo. 3s.
 Spain under Charles the Second. Post Svo. €«. 6d.
 Historical and Critical Essays. Post Svo. 3s. ed-
Life of William Pitt. With Extracts from hia

MS. Papers. Second Edition, Portraits. 4 Vols, Post Svo. 42s.
 Miscellanies. Second Edition. Post Svo. 5s. 6d.
 ^ Life of Belisarius. Post Svo. 10s. ed.
 Life of Condg. Post Svo. Ss. ed.

STUDENT'S HUME. A History of England from the Invasion
of Julius Csesar to the Revolution of 1688. By David Humk. Corrected
and continued to 1858. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd. Questions on, 2s.
*»* A Smaller History of England. 12mo. 3s. Gd.
HISTORY OF FRANCE ; from the Earliest Times

to the Establishment of the Second Empire, 1S52. By W. H. Peabson,
M.A. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 HISTORY OF GREECE ; from the Earliest Time&
to the Roman Conquest, With the History of Literature and Art, By
Wm, Smith, LL,D, Woodcuts, Crown Svo, 7s, Gd. (Questions, 2$,)
*,* A Smaller History OF Greece. 12mo, 3s. Gd.
 HISTORY OF ROME ; from the Earliest Time&
to the Establishment of the Empire, With the History of Literature
and Art. By Dean Liddell, Woodcuts, Crown Svo. 7s. Gd.
*^* A Smaller History op Rome. 12mo. 3s. Gd.
 GIBBON ; an Epitome of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, Incorporating the Researches of Recent Commentators.
Woodcuts, Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 MANUAL OF ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY. By Rev.
W. L. Bevan, M,A. Woodcuts, Post Svo, 7s. Gd.
 MODERN GEOGRAPHY. By Rev.
W, L. Bevan. Woodcuts. Post Svo. {In the Press.)
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.

Blaps and Woodcuts. Post Svo. 7s. Gd, each.
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.

Maps and Woodcuts. Post Svo, 7s, Gd.
 MORAL PHILOSOPHY. By W.
Fleming. D.D. Post Svo.
 • ENGLISH LANGUAGE. By Geo.
P..MABBH. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 ENGLISH LITERATURE. By T. B.
Shaw, M.A. Post Svo. 7s. Gd.
 SPECIMENS OP ENGLISH LITERATURE.

Selected from the Chief Writers. By Thomas B. Shaw, M.A. Post
Svo. 7s. Gd.
 BLACKSTONE : a Systematic Abridgment of the
Entire Commentaries. By R. Malcolm Kerr, LL.D. Post, Svo. 7s. 6d.

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 31

ST. JOHN'S (Charles) Wild Sports and Natural History of the
Highlands. Post Svo. 3s. 6<J.
(Baylb) Adventures in the Libyan Desert and the

Oasis of Jupiter Ammon. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 2s.
STEPHENSON (Georoe aud Robert). The Story of their
Lives. By Samuel Smiles. With Portraits and 70 Illustrations.
Medium. Svo. 21s. Or Popular Edition, Post 8vo. 6s.
STOTHARD'S (Thos.) Life. With Personal Reminiscences.
By Mrs. Bbay. With Portrait and 60 Woodcnts. 4to. 2ts.
STREET'S (G. E.) Gothic Architecture in Spain. From Personal
Observations during several journeys through that country. Illus
trations. Medium Svo. 50s,
 Brick and Marble Architecture of Italy in the
Middle Ages. Plates. Svo. 21s.
SULLIVAN'S (Sir Edward) Conquerors, Warriors, and Statesmen
of India; an Historical Narrative of the most Important Events, from
the luvasion of Mahmoud of Ghlzhi to that of Nadir Shah. Svo.
SWIFT'S (Jonathan) Life, Letters, Journals, and Works. By
John Fobbteb. Svo. (In Preparation.)
SYME'S (Propessor) Principles of Surgery. 6& Edition, Svo. 12s.
TAIT'S (Bishop) Dangers and Safeguards of Modern ' Theology,
contaioing Suggestions to the Theological Student under Present Diffi
culties. Svo. 9s.
TAYLOR'S (Henry) Notes from Life, in Six Essays on Money,
Himtility and Independence, Wisdom, Choice iu Marriage, Children,
and Life Poetic, Fcap. Svo. 2s. i
THOMSON'S (Archbishop) Sermons, Preached in the Chapel of
Lincoln's Ion. Svo. 10s. Gd,
THREE-LEATED MANUAL OF FAMILY PRAYER; arranged
so as to save the trouble of turning the Pages backwards and forwards.
Royal Svo. 2s.
TREMENHBERE'S (H, S.) The. Franchise a Privilege and not a
Right, proved by the Politicaf'Experience of the Ancients. Fcap. Svo.
2s. Gd,
TRISTRAM'S (H. B;) Great Sahara. Wanderings South of the
Atlas .UouabHlns. Map and Illustrations. Post Svo. 16s.
TW^ISS' (Horace) Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon,
with Selections from hia Correspondence. Portrait. Third Edition.
2 Vols. Post Svo. 21s.
TYLOR'S (E, B,) Eesearches into the Early Histpry of Mankind,
and the Development of Civilization. Illustrations, Svo. 12s.
TYNDALL'S (John) Glaciers of the Alps. With an account of
Three Years' Obsei-yations and Experiments on their General Phe-
nomeua. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 14s,
TYTLER'S (Patrick Eraser) Memoirs. By Rey. J. W. Burqob,
M.A. Svo. 93.

32 LIST OF WORKS PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY.

VAUGHAN'S (Rev. Dr.) Sermons preached in Harrow School.
8vo. lOs. Gd.
WAAGEN'S (Dr.) Treasures of Art in Great Britain. Being an
Account of the Chief Collections of Paintings, Sculpture, Manuscripts,
Miniatures, &c. &c., in this Country. Obtained from Personal Inspec
tion during Visits to England. 4 Vols. Svo.
VAMBEEY'S (Arminius) Travels in Central Asia, from Teheran
across the Turkoman Desert on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian to
Khiva, Bokhara, and Samarcand in 1863. Map and Illustrations. Svo. 21s.
WELLINGTON'S (The Duke op) Despatches during his various
Campaigns. Compiled from Official and other Authentic Documents. By
Col. GuRWooD, C.B. 8 Vols. Svo. 21s. each.

 Supplementary Despatches, and other Papers.
Edited by his Son. Vols. I. to XII. Svo. 20«. each.
Selections from his Despatches and General

Orders. By Colonel Gurwood. Svo. 18s.
 Speeches in Parliament. 2 Vols. Svo. 42s.
WILKINSON'S (Sib J. G.) Popular Account of the Private Life,
Manners, and Customs of the Ancient lEgyptians. New Edition.
Revised and Condensed. With 500 Woodcuts. /2 Vols. Post Svo. 12s.
 Handbook for Egypt. — Thebes, the Nile, Alex
andria, Cairo, the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. . Map. Post Svo. ISs.
(G. B.) Working Man's Handbook to South Aus

tralia ; with Advice to the Fanner, and Detailed Information for the
several Classes of Labourers and Artisans. Map. ISmo. Is. Gd,
WILSON'S (Bishop Daniel) Life, with Extracts from his
Letters and Journals. By Rev. Josiah Bateman. Second Edition.
Illustrations. Post Svo. 9s.
 (GenI" Sir Robert) Secret History of the French
Invasion of Russia, and Retreat of the French Army, 1812. Second
Edition. Svo. 15s,
 Private Diary of Travels, Personal Services, and
' Public Events, during Missions and Employments in Spain, Sicily,
Turkey, Russia, Poland, Germany, &c. 1812-14. 2 Vols. Svo. 26s.
 Autobiographical Memoirs. Containing an Account of
his Early Life down to the Peace of Tilsit. Portrait. 2 Vols. Svo.
26s,
WORDSWORTH'S (Canon) Journal of a Tour in Athens aud
Attica. Third Edition, Plates. Post Svo." 8s, Gd,
 Pictorial, Descriptive, and Historical Account
of Greece, with a History of Greek Art, by G. Soharf, F.S.A. New
Edition, With 600 Woodcuts. Royal Svo. 28s.

BBADBUBT, BViMS, AKD CO., PBIMTEHS, WUITEPBIiBB.

4955