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

number of the' working classes are admitted under the ex-
isting franchise, and in the next that it is unsafe to admit
any portion of them. I ask whether in those cases to which
the noble lord has referred, in which a large number of the
working classes are included in the constituencies, the re
suit of the elections has been such as to justify the appre-
hensions which he entertains as to the consequences which
would follow if the same proportion were admitted in
others. I believe that the idea of a liberal extension of the
franchise in boroughs leading to democracy and endanger-
ing our institutions is perfectly fallacious. I believe that
it will be safer and wiser to widen the basis of repre-
sentation as far as we possibly can within reasonable limits
by admitting those who have proved themselves qualified
to exercise the franchise. We therefore cannot agree with
those who propose to reject the bill because they object to
the principle contained in it, and it is a principle which we
have always accepted. We have seen no reason to doubt
that the course which we took in 1860 was in itself a right
course. We have seen no reason to suppose that the num-
ber of electors which we calculated would under that bill
be added to the constituencies was an unreasonable or a
dangerous number. We believe that that number might
have been admitted, scattered as the electors would
have been over all the boroughs in the kingdom, with
perfect safety to the constitution, with satisfac-
tion to large numbers of the working-classes, and,
therefore, with additional security to our institu-
tions. In that view the Government will, as they hav e before
done, with a view to affirm the principle that there may safely
be and that there ought to be a reduction of the borough
franchise, vote for the second reading of the bill of the
hon. member for Leeds. (Hear,) I wish that that should
not go for more than it is worth. (Ironical cheers.) If it
is intended that the bill of my hon. friend, that the £6
franchise in boroughs, should be applied as a political test
at the elections which are now not far distant, that is a
test which her Majesty's Government will not accept.
We feel that we are not bound, without further consi-
deration, to the adoption of a £6 franchise, although in
connection with other alterations in our electoral system
we proposed it in 1860. We now only affirm the principle
that there may be beneficially and usefully made a re-
duction of the borough franchise ; but to what extent that
reduction should go (laughter) and with what other altera-
tions in the electoral system it should be combined are
questions which any Government dealing with the subject
are bound to take into consideration. (Hear, hear.) I
do not reject the £6 franchise. I only say that I, for one,
and that her Majesty's Government, will not go to the
hustings at the general election pledged to support a £6
franchise. (Renewed laughter and ironical cheers.) They
are of opinion, with the right hon. gentlemen opposite,
that there ought to be such a reduction of the borough
franchise as will in all sincerity admit a considerable por-
tion of the working classes ; but they reserve to them-
selves the discretion, which they would be un-
worthy of their position as a Government if they did not
reserve of considering when the question comes prac-
tically before the house after the second reading of
the bill what the reduction should be, and with what
guards it. should be accompanied. With regard to the
question of Parliamentary Reform generally, I need hardly
state after what I have said that we do not go to the country
with anyparticular measure. (A laugh.) We must upon this
subject reserve to ourselves the fullest liberty to act upon
our principles according to the circumstances of the time
and the opinion of the country. We are not pledged to, and
we do not intend to ask the support of the country as the
advocates of, a great measure of Parliamentary Reform.
(Ironical cheers.) I wish to be explicit. (Renewed cheer-
ing.) It would be idle to get up and say that we would in-
troduce a certain measure when we do not know what may
be the opinion of the next House of Commons upon the
subject—(laughter and cheers)—or to commit ourselves
irrespective of the opinion of the House and of the
opinion of the country to propose a large measure of Par-
liamentary Reform, which the House may be as disinclined
to pass as it was before, and which the country may
not desire. We should gladly avail ourselves of any
such persistent and overwhelming expression of opinion
upon the subject as the hon. member for Halifax says is
essential to the passing of a Bill, but we hold the principles
which I have endeavoured to express (laughter), and we
are not prepared to go to tho country as the advocates of a
measure of Parliamentary Reform without reserving to our-
selves a discretion to act upon that matter, as upon all others,
as the interests of the country may require. (More laughter.)
That appeal is not far distant. We shall appeal with confi-
dence to the general opinion of the country. The country
will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to how
the Government has been conducted by the present Admi-
nistration. We shall not shrink from that appeal, and by
its result we shall willingly abide. (Hear, hear.)

. _
Mr. W. E. FORSTER complained that, notwithstanding
the promise of the Home Secretary, the house was still in
the dark as to the policy of Ministers at the next election.
What ho wanted to know was, whether the gentlemen
seated on the Treasury Bench were a Reform Ministry or
not. Better let the Liberal party be ruined and disbanded,
better let it be re-formed of fewer members, than that it
should vote against its own principles, and be thus pawned,
mismanaged, and misled. Again, he asked, before embark-
ing in the Liberal ship at the next election, to what port it
was to be steered—whether to the reform harbour or not.
The real question now at issue was whether the upper por-
tion of the working classes were inferior to the lower por-
tion of the middle class. In his opinion they were not, and
he had no fear whatever of the tendency of a measure to
admit them to the franchise; on the contrary, he considered
that it would be in strict accordance with the principles of
the constitution. He held that as education extended so
ought the suffrage to be extended, and that as the working
classes, with their organisation and vast numbers, acquired
the advantages of education, it would be impossible suc-
cessfully to resist their claim.
Mr. LIDDELL opposed the bill on a variety of grounds,
amongst which was the objection that it would place the
suffrage on a valuation ascertained for the purposes of local
taxation, and therefore an ill-defined and varying basis.
He entertained no apprehension of the individual working
man, but he could not approve of his being indiscriminately
admitted as a class to the possession of the franchise.

Sir F. Goiinsmin supported, and Mr. BUXTON opposed
the bill.

Mr. STANSFELD admitted that there was no enthu-
siasm out of doors on the question of reform, but that was
no justification for withholding from the working classes
some share of political influence. Ile denied that the present
measure would introduce so large a proportion of those
classes as would swamp the existing constituencies, or that
there was any desire or intention on the part of its pro-
moters to effect a transfer of power. Tho " down-hill argu-
ment" of Mr. Lowe—the idea that if any step were taken
towards lowering the qualification it must lead to the evil
of a supremacy of mere numbers—was a cowardly argu-
ment, and he believed the time was not far distant when a
measure of reform would be passed with the simple object
of admitting within the pale of the constitution a class
which nobody asked should be supreme, but which by its
progress was entitled to some share of consideration.
Mr. HORSMAN, adverting to the arguments used in
support of the bill, observed that ostensibly the mea-
sure was to introduce a £6 franchise into boroughs, but
logically and practically it was to abolish the £lO franchise
and substitute another under which a vast number of the
operatives would be admitted to vote ; but the bill was not
in harmony with the speeches by which it had been sup-
ported. It would not really diminish the injustice com-
plained of, or remove the cause of agitation, for in fact it
would leave the great bulk of the working classes entirely
untouched. The supporters of the bill arrogated to them-
selves that they were the mouthpiece of the non-electors.
He wanted to know where they got their commission, be-
cause there had not been a reform meeting which had ven-
tured to publish its proceedings but had condemned this
proposal as an antiquated and exploded Whig delusion. In
his view it was the first of a series of downward movements
which would only cease when they had reached the bottom
of the abyss, and would lead to universal suffrage. It was
not true that the franchise was, or ever had been in any
sense whatever, the right of any man or class of men. It
was conferred by law not as a matter of right or individual
advantage, but as a public trust ; and for that reason the
Legislature had guarded its exercise with stringent pains
and penalties. To the principle of admitting the working
classes to a sharo of political power he had no objection,
but the problem to be solved was how to do that without
creating a monopoly. To the present measure, however,
reason, justice, and policy were equally opposed. Above
all, the nation was against it, and even the unenfranchised
stood aloof from it, for they knew that they as a class had
more to lose than to gain by the change. Let the house,
then, proclaim the truth. Let them frankly declare that the
mind of Parliament and the nation had changed ; that suc-
cessive Queen's Speeches, promising reform in a downward
direction, had been a mistake ; that the Ministers who pre-
pared those speeches had been discredited ; that the Liberal
party had been damaged by its blindness and inconside-
rateness on the question ; and that the inaction of the house
had not been the evasion of a duty, but a deliberate policy
resulting from experience, and enforced by respect for the
unmistakable feeling of the country.
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I could have wished, and I once
believed, that it would not be necessary for me to have taken
part in this debate, I look upon this discussion as the
natural epilogue to the Parliament of 1859. We remember
the prologue ; and this is a controversy between tho edu-
cated section of the Liberal party—(hear, hear)—and that
section of the Liberal party who, according to their com-
panions and colleagues, aro not entitled to an epithet so
euphuistic or so complimentary. (Cheers and laughter.)
But after the speech of the minister, it would hardly be-
come me—representing the opinions of gentlemen with whom
I act on this side of the house entirely to remain silent. Sir,
the measure before us to-night is ono to increase the fran-
chise in boroughs. Without reference to any other circum-
stances, I object to that measure. I object to that measure
because an increase of the franchise in boroughs is a propo-
sal to redistribute the political power in the country—(hear,
hear.) I do not think the question of theredistribution•of
power in this country should be treated partially. I think
it impossible, in the very nature of things, if there is to be
a redistribution of political power, that you can consider
the suffrage of only one section of the constituent body.
Whatever may be the proposition of the hon. gentleman—
whether it may be abstractedly expedient or not---this is
quite clear—that the question must be considered not only
in relation to ',particular persons with whom you propose

to deal, but also in relation to others with whom you do
not propose to deal, but whom the measure would affect.
Therefore, if you deal with the subject of Parliamentary
reform you must deal with it comprehensively (Hear.)
You may make many arrangements as to one part of
the constituency which may not be objectionable in them-
selves, but extremely objectionable considered in relation
to other parts ; and the more we consider the subject
the more true appears to be the conclusion that if you
deal with the matter you must deal with it compre-
hensively. (Hear, hear.) You must consider, not only the
borough constituencies, but the county constituencies ;
and when persons urge their claims to be introduced
into the constituent body you must, on the grounds of
policy and justice, consider whether there may not be
others not in possession of the franchise, but who may have
an equal right to it. It is so clear that when you come to
the re-distribution of power you must consider the question
in all its bearings that even hon. gentlemen who have taken
part in this debate have not been able to avoid the question
of the re-distribution of seats—a question which cannot be
considered without reference to the other portions of the
subject to which I have referred. (Hear, hear.) It is
easy for the honourable member for Liskeard to say that
in considering this measure for the increase of the
borough franchise it is impossible to conceal the ano-
malies of our system with respect to the distribution
of seats, and that it is monstrous that Caine, with 173
votes, should return one member, and Glasgow only
one. It may also be monstrous that Liskeard should
return one member and Birkenkead only one. (Hear, hear.)
But, sir, the distribution of seats is bne of the most pro--
found and most difficult questions which it is possible to
bring before the house. (Hear, hear.) It is all very well
to treat the question in that manner ; but how are you to
reconcile the case of North Cheshire, North Durham,
West Kent, and many other counties ? (Hear.) You find
four or six towns, containing 100,000 persons, returning
six members to this house, and the rest of the population
of these districts returning only two. The West Riding
and South Lancashire present greater anomalies with re-
spect to boroughs than Caine. Then there is the case of
Scotland, with a population hardly equal to the metropolis,
and with two-thirds of its wealth, returning 48 members,
while the metropolis returns only 20. Do you reformers
mean to say that you are prepared to disfranchise Scotland
in proportion to the population ? The question is one of
the most difficult that can engage the attention of the
country. (Hear, hear.) If representation is not to be
based on population or property, you have to represent
something else ; but take care that the country itself is
represented. I oppose the second reading of this bill, be-
cause it deals partially with the subject, and not com-
pletely or comprehensively. (Hear, hear.) I have another
object. Ido not think this a measure which ought to be
undertaken by any independent member. If there is one
question which more than another deserves to be considered
on the responsibility of a government it is that of the recon-
struction of our parliamentary system—(hear, hear)—and it
is a Government or candidates for power who are alone
entitled and qualified to deal with a question of this im-
portance. (Hear, hear.) But it is said that both the great
parties in the state cannot be trusted with this question—that
they have both trifled with it. Certainly a graver charge
could not be made in this house. But lam not prepared
to admit even that our opponents have trifled with this
question. We have had a very animated history of the
Reform Bill from the right hon. gentleman who has just
addressed the house. It was animated, but not accurate.
My version will be accurate although not animated. (Hear,
and a laugh.) I am not prepared to state, with the right
hon. gentleman, that English statesmen, although opposed
to me in politics, have trifled with this question. I cannot
agree in the lively narrative of the right hon. gentleman
with respect to one with whom I have had no political con-
nection, and with whom I was placed in constant opposi-
tion in this house whilst he was an honoured member of it
—I mean Earl Russell. According to the right hon. gen-
tleman, parliamentary reform was a creature of Lord John
Russell's, the statesman who influenced and controlled his
Cabinet beyond even a Richelieu or the minister of the
present day. The right hon. gentleman says that Lord
John Russell, merely to amuse himself, or in moments of
difficulty, or to excite popular sympathy, had always re-
form in his pocket. How different, says the right hon.
gentleman, from the sagacious statesman at the head of the
Government, and whomwe had hoped to see to-day in his
place, and who, I am sure, would have thrown a good
humoured character over the house. How different from
that sagacious statesman, whom it would have given us
much pleasure to have seen present, and whom I had ex-
peated to see present. That sagacious statesman would
have had nothing to do with the subject, and, according
to the animated narrative of the right hon. gentleman,
all that Lord Derby had to do was to sanction and
humour the caprices of Lord Russell. Now, I must re-
mind the right hon. gentleman that he has unfortunately
forgotten the history of the subject, recent though it be.
It is true that Lord J. Russell, when Prime Minister, re-
commended her Majesty, in a speech from the throne, to
call the attention of Parliament to the expediency of re-
considering our representative system. That there is no
doubt about. But Lord John Russell, after a time, un-
fortunately retired from his eminent position ; and he was
succeeded by one of the most eminent statesmen of our
days, who was not connected with the political school of
Lord John Russell, but who was called to power, not only
with the assistance of Lord John Russell and a few mem-
' hers of the Whig party, but was supported by tho whole
staff of eminent statesmen who had been educated in the
same school and been led by the same distinguished
master. That eminent statesman is entirely for-
gotten, although he took office under the most
favourable circumstances; and that is Lord Aberdeen.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman entirely forgot
that Lord Aberdeen, when master of the situation, when
he was Prime Minister, when all the places in the Cabinet
were filled by disciples of Sir Robert Peel, deemed it his
duty to recommend the same counsel. (Hear.) This is an
important, and not the only important item of the Reform
Bill, which has been entirely omitted by the right hon.
gentleman. But is this all ? The time came when Lord
Aberdeen disappeared, passed kway from the scene, and
another statesman succeeded whe; hafl been complimented
to-night for his sagacity in evading the subject. Let me
vindicate the policy of Lord Palmerston in his absence. (A
laugh.) He did not evade the question. Lord Palmerston
followed the example of Lord John Russell. Lord Pal-
merston followed the example of Lord Aberdeen. And
Lord Palmerston recommended her Majesty to introduce
into the speech from the Throne a similar recommenda-
tion to Parliament to consider the question of the recon-
struction of the representative system. Then, what be-
comes of the lively, the animated description of the right
hon. gentleman ? It is not founded on fact ; and, as I
shall show, the conclusions of the right hon. gentleman
are not only inaccurate, but they are injurious to sound
policy and to the honour of Englishmen. Now, then, there
were three Prime Ministers—not one from merely caprice,
and from personal littleness, bringing forward the ques-
tion of Parliamentary reform in the House of Commons,
but you have three. You have Lord John Russell, you
have Lord Aberdeen, you have even that statesman, so
eminent for sagacity as to take care not to notice it. Then
what was the situation of Lord Derby when called into
power ? It was one which you cannot understand if you
accept the facts as stated by the right hon. gentleman, but
which, after you have heard the facts as I shall state them,
will be received with some interest, and certainly not
without, significancy. Lord Derby was sent for by her
Majesty, an unwilling candidate for office, and at that
moment, allow me to remind the house, there
was in the House of Commons a majority of
140 against Lord Derby ; and, therefore, I think
that Lord Derby is open to no imputation if he hesitated
to accept political responsibility. (Hear, hear.) Lord
Derby stated to her Majesty—l speak, of course, with re-
serve, but I say nothing more than I have often repeated
to the house—when the Government came forward on
reform for six years without passing their measures these
things were forgotten—Lord Derby advised her Majesty
not to form a Government under his influence, and for this
reason—there was a vast majority against him in the house,
and the question of Parliamentary Reform was placed in
such a position that it was impossible to deal with it, and
he did not wish to deal with it. Lord Derby was a member
of that famous Cabinet who carried the Reform Bill in
1832 ; Lord Derby, as Lord Stanley, was a most efficient sup-
porter of that bill ; Lord Derby thought that that bill had
effected all that in his wisdom he considered necessary.
Lord Derby never for a moment doubted that there were
numerous persons worthy of the franchise, who under that
bill would not possess it ; but, at the same time, he knew
that in a country like England, we must not always be tam-
pering with the franchise, and that, therefore, it was inex-
pedient to deal with the question ; and it was on this
ground that Lord Derby declined the acceptance of office
when her Majesty graciously placed it at his disposal. Her
Majesty was then left without advisers, and the appeal to
Lord Derby was repeated. Under those circumstances no
English statesman could for a moment hesitate what to do.
But I am bound to say this—that I do not pretend to say
that there was any contract, any understanding further
than that which prevails among men, however different
their politics, who love their country and wish to defend
its greatness. (Hear, hear.) lam bound to say that there
was an understanding among men on both sides that the
position in which the reform question was placed was
embarrassing to the Crown and not creditable to the Par-
liament, and if any Minister tried to deal with it he would
receive not a pledge to support his measure—that would
be impossible and preposterous—but that he would
receive a candid consideration, and that, perhaps,
there might be an attempt on both sides to bring about a
solution advantageous to the country. (Hear, hear.) Under
these circumstances Lord Derby gave his mind to the
question. The right hon. gentleman who has just addressed
you says it was not till 1860 that the portentous truth flashed
upon the minds of the country ; that the question of Parlia-
mentary reform was this—that if ever it was possible to ad-
mit a portion of the working classes to the enjoyment of the
franchise, and yet not injure the constitution, it should be
done—that it was only in 1860 that the real state of affairs
flashed upon the conscience of the country. All I can say is
this—that was the question, and the only question, which
engaged the labours of Lord Derby and his Cabinet. It was
whether they should secure the franchise for a certain por-
tion of the working classes, who, by their industry, their in-
telligence, and their integrity, showed that they were