The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-09 00:00:00

The adjourned debate on this bill was resumed by
- - -

Mr. GREGORY, who said he was of opinion that as far
as the Government were concerned they had acted with
regard to the Reform Bill with wisdom and sincerity. He
defended Ministers, however, from the insinuations that
had been thrown out against them in the previous debate,
and argued that they had acted with both wisdom and sin-
cerity. He himself was no advocate of the ballot ; but if
it were possible he should like to see it put in operation in
the house on this subject, and he believed that if the ques-
tion were that the bill should be staved off for ten years,
the revulsion of opinion in the Liberal ranks against reform
would be astounding, and, moreover, that the verdict would
be received with great complacency by the country. For
himself, he was prepared to support an extension of the
suffrage both in counties and boroughs, by the admission,
after due inquiry, of the best, most trustworthy, and most
respectable portion of the working classes ; but the bill
before the house did nothing of the sort. Everybody dis-
liked it, and there was not a doubt that, if it were adopted,
it must introduce organic changes that would conduct the
country to democracy. The creation of a " fancy franchise''
was infinitely preferable to such a consequence as this.

Sir G. GREY—Before the close of the debate on Wed-
nesday last an appeal was made to the Government to state
explicitly the course which they proposed to take in refe-
rence to the motion of my hon. friendthe member for Leeds
for the second reading of this bill, and also to state their
general intentions and opinions with regard to the question
of Parliamentary Reform. Sir, the Government are not
prepared to dispute the reasonableness of that demand—(a
laugh)—and they are prepared to give an explicit answer
to the appeal which had thus been made to them. A great
many hon. members on the opposite benches who were here
at the close of the debate had not been here from 12 o'clock.
Had they been here before they would have known that
the motion for the second reading and the amendment for
the previous question had not been put till an advanced
hour of the day. After they had been put only three
speeches were made. It was clear to me through the whole
debate that it was impossible but there must be an adjourn-
ment. By desire of my colleagues I had come down here,
in the absence of my noble friend at the head of the Go-
vernment, to take part in the debate ; but I did not think
it would be becoming in me to stand in the way of the two
or three gentlemen who were anxious to state their opi-
nions. (Hear.) We are here now to answer the appeal
which has been made to us, and also to answer the charges
which have been brought against the Government for their
conduct on the question of Reform. (Hear.) lam afraid
that what I have to say will not meet with the entire ap-
proval either of the warm and sanguine supporters of the
bill, on the one hand, or of its determined and strenuous
opponents, on the other. And here let me say as to those
opponents, that the course which they have taken in refe-
rence to this bill has been not quite as fair, not quite as
Parliamentary, not quite as straightforward as might
have been expected. Well, what is the question which
we have now to decide ? On the ono hand a motion is
made for the second reading of this bill. On the other
hand, there is no motion for the rejection of the bill,
but only an amendment for the previous question,
although the spirit of the argument of the noble lord
who moved that amendment and of my right
hon. friend who supported him is this—that under no cir-
cumstances and at no time are they prepared to change the
franchise by lowering it. (Hear, hear.) But what is the
principle of this bill ? The principle of lowering the fran-
chise; and therefore I say that the noble lord and my right
hon. friend have not taken the opinion of tho house in the
straightforward manner they might have done. My hon.
friend who has just addressed the house goes further; for,
forgetting that the amendment was "the previous question,''
at the close of his speech he said he was prepared to say
"no" to the motion for the second reading. 1 must observe
likewise that my hon. friend and those who preceded him
in opposition to this bill have not stated the case fairly.
They assume, without any proof whatever, that the neces-
sary, or at all events the probable, tendency of any bill to
extend the suffrage by lowering the value of the house
which gives a right to vote would be to endanger the con-
stitution, to imperil the monarchy, and to substitute in the
place of that mode and form of Government, for which
every day we have more reason to be grateful, a system of
pure democracy. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend who spoke
last has assumed that the tendency of this bill would be to
Americanise our institutions, and he referred to the Aus-
tralian colonies in support of his views. I can only say that
if her Majesty's Government thought that was the neces-
sary or even the probable tendency of the principle contained
in the bill of my hon. friend the member for Leeds they
would at once have asked the house to reject it, and I am
sure that in taking that course they would have had the
hearty approbation and concurrence of the body of the
people of this country. (Cheers.) Let me now say a few
words in reply to the charges made against her Majesty's
Government for their conduct in respect to the question of
reform. Let me go back a little further than my hon. friend
went, and let me call the attention of the house to what
took place in March, 1859, when the Government of
Lord Derby proposed a Reform Bill, and the second
reading was moved in this house. On that occasion an
amendment was moved by Lord Russell, who pointed to
two alleged defects in the bill proposed by Lord Derby's
Government. Lord Russell's resolution distinctly asked the
opinion of the house on a particular proposition. The first
part of his amendment pointed to the alleged unsatisfactory
manner in which the bill dealt with the freehold franchise.
With that question we are not immediately concerned. But
the latter part of his resolution pointed directly to the absence
in the bill of any provision by which the working classes or
any portion of them could be admitted to the franchise by a
reduction of the valuation. (Hear, hear.) I don't now
allude to the county franchise ; but the debate on the
borough franchise was in substance this :—" Shall we at-
tempt to introduce some of these classes by means of fancy
franchises—franchises now unknown to the Constitution ?"
(I don't mean to say anything as to the merits of those fran-
chises now, as that may form the subject of debate at ano-
ther time.) "Shall we endeavour to get a portion of the
working classes in this way, or shall wo effect our object
and admit a considerable number of them by lowering the
franchise ?" On that question the house came to a division,
and pronounced a deliberate decision. (Hear, hear.) What
course did the Government of Lord Derby take ? They
advised her Majesty to take tho opinion of the country upon
the subject. Accordingly Parliament was dissolved, and
1 a new one met in June, 1859. A speech was delivered from
the Throne which held out the expectation of another Par-
liamentary Reform Bill being proposed by that Govern-
ment on a future occasion, but stated that such a bill could
not be then introduced on account of the advanced period
of the year. The address in answer to the speech was
moved by the member for South Lancashire, and no per-
son more fitted for tho purpose could have been chosen by
the Government to represent thorn, regard being had to
his position and to the fact that he represented a large
mixed constituency comprising large agricultural, commer-
cial, and manufacturing interests, and coming fresh, as he
did, from his election,, he may be taken to have fully
represented those interests and to have spoken in their
name. What did he say with regard to these questions
which had been the subject of contention in Parlia-
ment before the dissolution—questions upon which this
house had entertained and had distinctly expressed its
opinion ? Why, the hon. gentleman, who we well know
had received certain information from Government with
respect to their intended measures, said—

" I shall not discuss the character of that measure till it
is brought forward ; but I have reason to believe that there
certainly will be in it a diminution of the borough franchise.
I do not know what it is intended to do with regard to the
counties ; but as far as my opinion goes I should wish to
have, to a certain extent, a diminution of the franchise
both for counties and boroughs. I think the objects of such
measures should be as they have been proclaimed before
the country, to give the working classes a share of the
electoral franchise."

The hon. gentleman made that statement in moving the
Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne on behalf
of a Government which had proviously refused to accept
the condition of lowering tho franchise. But what did the
right hon. member for Bucks say on that occasion ? The
right hon. gentletuan, in speaking on behalf of the Govern-
ment on the debate on the Address, said :
" The question of the borough franchise must be dealt
with ; and it must be dealt with, too, with reference to the
introduction of the working classes. W o admit that that
has been the opinion of Parliament, and that it has been
the opinion of the country as shown by the hon. gentlemen
who have been returned to this house. We cannot be blind
to that result. We do not wish to bo blind to it. We have
no prejudice against the proposition. All that we want is to
assure ourselves that any measure that we bring forward is
one required by the public necessities and will be sanctioned

by public approbation and support, and tluTrefore we are
perfectly prepared to deal with that question of the borough
franchise and the introduction of the working classes, by
lowering the franchise in boroughs, and by acting in that
direction with sincerity, because, as I ventured to observe
in the debate on our measure—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."
(Loud cheers.) I ask, could there be a more explicit admis-
sion that the opinion of the country had been against the
then Government as to the question upon which the issue
had been taken ? (Hear.) Could there have been a more
frank or a more unqualified acceptance of that verdict ?
(Hear.) Not only that Government but this house have
absolutely pledged themselves to the principle of lowering
the franchise. The right hon. gentleman was dealing with
the question of want of confidence in the Government which
wasmoved as an amendment to the Address. He distinctly
admitted that the country had shown its wish that the suf-
frage should be lowered, and he said he would yield to the
desire of tho country and carry out its views if the house
would give the Government its support. The house refused
to give them its support ; it refused to pass a vote of confi-
dence in Lord Derby's Government. (Hear, hear.) A change
of Government took place, and the present Government
came in, and I here admit they did so on distinct terms.
(Hear.) They were pledged, to the same extent that Lord
Derby's Government would have been had it obtained a
majority to lay a reform bill before the Legislature. Well,
we did propose a reform bill, which was, I contend, a com-
plete redemption of the pledge we had given. (Hear, hear.)
We proposed that bill, without loss of time, on the Ist of
March, and the second reading was moved by Lord Russell
on the 19th, thus giving plenty of time for consideration.
What took place on that second reading? The right hon.
gentleman, objecting, no doubt, to many parts of the bill,
criticised it very freely, but distinctly admitted his ap-
proval of its principle. He said he was not prepared to
offer any opposition to the second reading of the bill, and
after it had been in the right hon. gentleman's hands for
three weeks he was not prepared to move one single
amendment. (Hear, hear.) We had reason, under these
circumstances, to expect that the house, accepting the prin-
ciple of the bill, would have allowed us to carry it through.
But at the next stage, adjournment after adjournment
took place in opposition to the repeated protests and en-
treaties of the Government (hear, and laughter), showing
that the Government at least were sincere in their endea-
vours to carry the bill through the house. (Hear, hear, and
renewed laughter.) Such were the tactics by which the
passing of the bill was delayed, and they were adopted not
only by the gentlemen opposite, but by those sitting on
this side of the house. (Hear, hear.) But, directly the right
hon. gentleman saw the application of which the words he
made use of in the debate on the Address were capable, ho
found means to prevent the third reading. On the 4th of
June the bill went before the committee for its details to
be considered, when those who allowed the second reading
to take place without opposition met us with motion after
motion of a dilatory character, no man venturing posi-
tively to oppose it in ignorance of what might be the feelings
of the country upon the question. It then being the middle
of June, the Government, finding they had not the slightest
chance of carrying the bill, were reluctantly compelled to
withdraw it. The hon. member for Leeds, with an inno-
cence for which I should not have given him credit, hoped
that the Government would not allow this opportunity to
pass without explaining their reasons for dropping that
bill. My answer is that the Government used its utmost
endeavours to carry that bill, but they felt that they should
be merely wasting the time of the house in endeavouring
to maintain a supposed consistency by carrying on the bill
in the face of those protracted debates. (Hear.) Now, I ask
whether Government was not fully justified in the course
they took in withdrawing the bill when they did ? (Hear.)
I ask whether the country expressed any disapprobation of
the conduct of the Government on that account ? (Hear,
hear.) On the contrary, the Government was supported by
the house in the course they had adopted, and the house
by the public opinion of the country. Ihope my hon. friend
the member for Leeds will be fully satisfied with my reply
to his question. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Hud-
dersfield singled out the President of the Board of Trade
for his severest censure, not -only for taking the course
he did as a member of the Government, but also for the
reasons he gave for his conduct at a public meeting of his
constituents. I think those reasons aro amply sufficient to
justify our acts, and I believethey have recommendedthem-
selves to the country. (Hear.) Believing that the feeling
of the country and of this house is not that which my hon:
friend the member for Halifax considers essential to the
passing of an efficient Reform Bill, there not being thatpor-
sistent and overwhelming expression of the opinion of the
conntry by which alone such a measure couldbe sustained,
we did not, merely for the purpose of maintaining an ap-
pearance of consistency, go on session after session sub-
mitting a bill of this kind to Parliament with the certainty
before us that the only practical result would be that public
business would be obstructed, and that the Government
would be prevented from discharging the duties they owe
to this house and to the country. (Hear, hear.) I believe
that the Government would not have been justified in pur-
suring that course, and therefore I am prepared to defend
their conduct, believing, as I do, that it has met with the
approbation of the country. (Hear, hear.) Has the country
expressed any want of confidence in the Government ? Has
the house withdrawn its confidence from them? They
amply redeemed the pledge which they gave by proposing
a bill framed in accordance with the opinions which they
had expressed, and they only withdrew that bill when they
saw that neither the house nor the country wished that it
should be pressed. (Hear.) The hon. member for Halifax
(Mr. Stansfeld), whose sincerity as a Reformer noman can
doubt, has taken office in the Government. (Ironical cheers
from the Opposition benches.) He is a high-minded and
honourable man, and no ono will venture to say that he
would have identified himself with the Government if he
had believed that they had upon this question broken their
pledges and abandoned their principles. But since that
period other measures for the extension of both borough
and county franchise have been proposed by independent
members. My hon. friend the member for East Surrey has
proposed the extension of the county and my hon. friend
the member for Leeds has several times proposed the ex-
tension of tho borough franchise. Government have offered
no opposition to the introduction of those bills. They have
' thought that, thought they did not feel justified in them-
selves submitting measures to Parliament for those pur-
poses, they had no right to stand in the way of hon. gentle-
men who differed from them in opinion as to the feeling of
the country. Nor have wo offered any opposition to the
second reading of those bills. We have at all times been
ready to affirm the principle that- there should be an ex-
tension of the suffrage by lowering the franchise to a cer-
tain extent both in counties and boroughs; but the house
has not accepted those measures, and I think their fate has
afforded sufficient justification for the course which the
Government has taken in not asking Parliament to consider
a general measure. (Hoar, hear.) We are again asked by my
hon. friend to agree to the second reading of this bill, and
how is it met ? I put aside altogether the previous question
because that is not the real question that wo have to decide.
We are asked by the recent arguments of those who oppose
this bill to reject the principle involved in it. We aro
asked, in fact, to say that at no time and under no circum-
stances shall the borough franchise be lowered andithe
working classes introduced. (" No, no," and "Hear, hear.")
Does my right hon. friend the member for Caine say no.
The "noes" proceed from gentlemen who most vociferously
cheered the able and forcible arguments of my right hon.
friend; but I think that no man who cheered those argu-
ments can say that he is now or, without a great change of
opinion, can become an advocate of any reduction of tho
borough franchise. (Hoar, hear.) I agree with my right
hon. friend in much that he said in that very able speech.
(Hear.) lagree with all that he said about abstract rights to
the franchise, and universal suffrage; but those questions are
not in debate now. (Hoar, hear.) I agree with him that it
is desirable that the working men should look upon the at-
tainment of the suffrage as an object of some ambition, and
should be induced to deny themselves some sensual indul-
gences in order to acquire it; but I cannot agree with him in
thinking that the amount of £lO which was fixed more than
30 years ago at the time of the Reform Act is an immutable
figure. (Hear.) I cannot agree with him that any departure
from a £lO franchise in boroughs must necessarily lead to
democracy, to the subversion of our institutions, and to all
those evils which he so forcibly depicted. His speech was
very familiar to some of those which we heard in opposition
to the Reform Act of 1832. (Cheers.) There aro now very few
members of this house who had seats in it at that time, but
some of us are unfortunately old enough to remember the
' debates which took place then,and which if we did not hear
them wo all read with the deepest interest. The very same
arguments were then used against Reform as are now urged
against the lowering of the franchise. It was then said,
" If you place power in the hands of the £lO shareholders,
you have begun a downward course which must land you
in pure democracy." No doubt those who expressed
such opinions sincerely entertained the belief that the
only safety of the country lay in the rejection of that bill,
and that it was a dangerous and revolutionary measure,
which would entirely subvert our institutions. But what
has been the result ? (Hear, hear.) The part of the speech
of the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine which I
liked best was that in which he enlarged upon the immense
advantages which have been conferred upon the country by
the Reform Act of 1862, being a falsification of every pre-
diction which was hazarded by those who opposed it.
(Hoar, hear.) What proof has my right hon. friend given
us, not that universal suffrage would lead to democracy,
but that the change proposed by this measure would?. We
are not dealing with universal suffrage, and when my hon.
friend who last addressed the house spoke of Mr. Holyoake
he should have said that he was an advocate of universal
suffrage, and that the bill prepared by some Manchester
Association, and which, he said, would endanger other
classes and deprive them of their share okpower, was
not the measure now under discussion, but a bill for the
establishment of universal suffrage. What wo think, and
what we thought when we introduced the bill of 1860, is
that, looking at the intelligence of the upper class of the
working classes, and looking at the improvement which
has taken place in their habits and character from the edu-
cation which has been so widely diffused among them
during the last 30 years, the time has come when it is right
to consider whether a portion of those classes should not
be admitted to the suffrage by means of lowering the quali-
fication which now very much confines it to the middle
clung. (Hear.) In one breath wo are told that a large