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

worthy of such possession, and that, at the same time, they
should not allow the rest of the constituency to be over-
whelmed by the numbers. Whether we succeeded or not
that was the question, and the only question, that occupied
the attention of the Government of Lord Derby, accord-
ing to the right hon. gentleman; yet it was only in 1860
that the portentous cry was raised by the English nation,
although it had for ten years before occupied the public
mind on a much larger scale than indicated by the bill now
before the house. I need net remind the house of the recep-
tion which the bill of Lord Derby met. It is not my dispo-
sition, nor I am sure the wish of any of my colleagues, to
complain of votes of this house, or indulge in reproaches
against its members. Political life must be taken as we find
it ; and not a word escaped me on the subject till charges
had been made, speeches delivered, especially that of the
right hon. gentleman. lam now here to defend a policy
and vindicate a party. (Hear.) I say we were perfectly
well aware of the great questions which it was our business
to solve ; and I say this now, which I would not have said
under any other circumstances, that the measure which
we brought forward is the only measure which has at-
tempted to meet the difficulties of the case. (Hear, hear.)
Totally irrespective of other modes, there were two
franchises proposed on that occasion, and which we thought
would have met the demands before us. The first was a
franchise founded on personal property; the second that
founded on partial occupation. (Hear.) Now these two
franchises, irrespective of other modes with which we at-
tempted to meet the difficulties which existed, if we had
gone into committee of this house, would, in my opinion,
have been so shaped and adapted that they would have
mainly effected the purposes of the majority of the house.
•In that bill we endeavoured to make provisions which were
consonant with the genius of the English constitution as a
mere phrase. We do not consider it as a mere phrase. We
know it is a monarchy tempered by the co-ordinate estates
of the realm. We know the estate of of the Commons is an
estate of the realm. We know an estate of the realm is a
body invested with political power for the government of
the country, and for the public good. It, therefore, is a
body founded upon privileges, and not upon right. It is,
therefore, in the noblest and properest sense of the word an
aristocratic body, and from the first it has had that charac-
ter. The Reform Bill of 1832 did not depart from that cha-
racter, and if at this moment we could contrive to add a
considerable number, as we proposed to do in 1859, to the
constituent body, we should not change that character, but
it would still be founded upon an aristocratic principle.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State
has addressed us to-night in a very remarkable speech. He
has taken up the history of reform; but before I touch
upon some of the remarkable features of his speech, it is
my duty to refer to the statement which he made with
regard to the policy which the Government of Lord Derby
was prepared to pursue after the general election. By a
total misrepresentation of the character of the amend-
ment proposed by Lord Russell which threw the Go-
vernment of 1858 into a minority, and by quoting a pas-
sage from a long speech made by a member of the Govern-
ment of 1859, he most dexterously laid down these two
propositions to the house—first of all, that Lord Russell
had proposed, as an amendment to our Reform Bill,
an amendment by which this house declared that no bill
could be satisfactory by which the working classes were
not admitted to the franchise, one of the main objects of
our bill being that the working classes should be admitted
to the franchise ; and secondly, that after the election
I was prepared, as the organ of the Government, to give
up the whole scheme by which these franchises founded on
personal property, founded on partial occupation, and on
other grounds, and that I was ready to substitute for them
a lowering of the borough qualification. Now, sir, this
indicates a result perfectly inaccurate. In the amendment
of , Lord Russell there was not a single word about the
working classes. There was not a single phrase by which
that issue was raised, nor could it be raised, because the
bill of the Government was a bill which, whether it would
have effected the object or not, was a bill which proposed
directly to enfranchise the working classes. The statement
which I made was simply this. The election was over. We
were still ministers of the Crown. We still, according to
our sense of duty, recommended in the speech from the
throne that the question of Parliamentary reform should
be dealt with. (Hear.) I must be allowed to remind the
house that, whatever were our errors, we never paltered
with the Reform Bill. (Cheers.) We proposed a bill which
we intended to carry, and having once taken up the ques-
tion as a matter of duty, and knowing the unhappy mis-
takes of ourpredecessors and the difficult position in which
they placed Parliament and the country, we determined
not to leave the question until it was settled. (Cheers.)
But we were still Ministers of the Crown. We, as Minis-
ters of the Crown, felt bound to recommend her Majesty to
introduce the question in the speech from the throne
which opened the Parliament of 1859; and how were we,
except in the spirit of compromise which is the prin-
cipal characteristic of our system how were we to
introduce a reform bill after that election without in some
degree considering the possibility of lowering the borough
franchise ? But it was not a lowering of the fran-
chise to £6. It was an arrangement to be taken with
the rest of the bill. But (says the nght hon baronet, pur-
suing the history of the reform bill) " the government of
Lord Derby having retired from office, we came in, and
were perfectly sincere in our desire to carry that reform bill
to which we had pledged ourselves, and by which we had
driven the government from office ; but look at the oppo-
sition we received—there never was such an opposition—
that right hen. gentleman (referring to me) absolutely
allowed the bill to be read a second time. (Laughter.) This
tremendous, this reckless, opposition of the right hon. gen-
tleman, who allowed the bill to be read a second time,
seemed to have completely laid the government prostrate.
(Laughter.) If we had succeeded, and thrown out the bill,
they might have been very greatly relieved from-their em-
barrassment, but the bill having been read a second time
the government were quite overcome, and it appears they
never recovered from the paralysis of this incident. (Laugh-
ter.) The right hon. gentleman was kind enough to say
that the proposition was cordially received on his side of
the house, and nobody spoke against it. Nobody on this
side of the house spoke against it. I remember some re-
markable speeches of the right hon. gentleman's own friends.
There was the great city of Edinburgh, represented by an
acute eloquence which never wearied, and which on the
present occasion was as freely given. (Laughter.) There
was the great city of Bristol ready on the occasion, and
many others. But the most important speech, and the
speech supposed to have killed Cock Robin, was delivered
by one who was described as a member of the govern-
ment. He was chairman of the committee of ways and
means, and stood at the back of the Prime Minister whilst
he made his speech. Did the government express any
disapprobation ? They immediately promoted him to a
great post, and sent him to India with an income Of fabu-
lous amount. (Laughter) And now, sir, they are
astonished at that they cannot carry a reform bill. Why,
sir, if they reward all those who oppose them by im-
mediately preferring them to posts of great confidence
and lucre how can they expect they will ever pass a Reform
Bill ? (Cheers and laughter.) If that is the policy of the
Government I am not astounded at the speech which the
right hon. gentleman has made this evening. It has cer-
tainly been a startling announcement. It was remarkable
for two things. There are two salient conclusions at which
he has arrived. First of all, the repudiation of the rights of
man (laughter); and, secondly, the repudiation of the £6
franchise. The first is a very groat relief. I remember the
feeling of the house a year ago, when listening to the fasci-
nating eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we
really believed that the days of Tom Paine had arrived
again (cheers and laughter), and that Rousseau was to be
rivalled in his Social Contract. I think it would be a great
relief to every respectable gentleman to find not only that
we are not to have the rights of man, but that we are not
even to have a£6 franchise. This is a matter of great con-
gratulation, and I am ready to give the right hon. secretary
credit for the honesty with which he has expressed himself.
I only wish we had had the same frankness and the same
honesty of expression at the beginning of the Parliament
instead of at the end. Now I will follow the example of the
right hon. secretary and be frank. I have not changed my
opinion on the subject of what is called Parliamentary re-
form. All that has occurred, all that I have observed, all
the results of my reflections lead me to this more and mere
—that the principle upon which the constituencies of the
country should be increased is not one of radical, but I may
say of lateral reform—extension of the franchise, not its de-
gradation. (Loud cheers.) Although—and Ido not wish in
any way to deny it—in the most difficult position, when the
Parliament of 1859 met, anxious to assist the Crown and the
Parliament both in proposing some moderate measure which
men on both sides might support, I did to a certain extent
agree to some modification of the £lO franchise—in
what degree no one knows (laughter)—but I say this,
that it would have been one which would not at all have
affected the character of the franchise, such as I and my
colleagues wished to maintain it ; notwithstanding that, I
must confess that my opinion is opposed, as it was origi-
nally, to any course of that kind ; I think it would fail iu its
object ; I think it would not secure the introduction of that
particular class that we desired to introduce, and it would
introduce many others who are totally unworthy of the
suffrage. But, sir, I retain those opinions. I think it pos-
sible greatly to increase—if the opportunity were favour-
able and the necessity wore urgent—the electoral body of
this country by the introduction of voters on principles per-
fectly in unison with the principles of the constitution; so
that the suffrage should remain a privilege, and not. become
a right ; a privilege gained by virtues, by intelligence, by
industry, by integrity, and exercised for the common good
of the country. (Cheers.) And I think if you quit that
ground and once admit that every man has a right to vote
who you cannot prove is disqualified for it, you would
change the character of the constitution of this country,
and you would change it in a manner which would tend to
the lowering of the importance of that franchise. (Cheers.)
Between the scheme we brought forward and the measure
brought forward by the hon. member for Leeds, the inevit-
able conclusion that we must be led to is that it is a ques-
tion between an aristocratic settlement in the proper sense
of the word—that is to say a Government by the best
men of all classes—and pure democracy. I doubt very
much whether a democracy is a form of government that
would suit this country. It is just as well that the house,
in going to a vote on this question, should consider, if that
be the issue, and it is the issue, between retaining the pre-
sent constitution—not the present constituent body ; that