The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-12 00:00:00

tail I have now introduced to the "notice of the house and
of the country." Now, I think that it is very inconve-
nient that any Miniater should bring forward a measure of
such vast importance, upon a subject of such general in-
e• reet--that he should have the importance of introducing
t, with all the advantages which not only his abilities but
his station give him, and that it should never be subjected
to the slightest criticism. The principles on which it is
founded may be most fallacious, and I think the principles
on which this measure is founded are most fallacious; but
still no opportunity is given to the house to express an opi-
nion upon it, because when the exposition of the measure
takes place a future day is fixed by the Government for
the discussion of its merits ; and then that opportunity
thus promised is never given. Well, then, I wish to know
whether this opposition, or rather this indisposition, which
the noble lord finds to his Reform Bill, is an indisposition
on his own benches —(cheers)--I will not say on the Trea-
sury bench, because we now have it on the highest with°.
• ity that the Government is a Government of sincere Re-
ormers—but I suppose that it is not impertinent to ima-
gine that the indisposition may be on the benches behind
the noble lord. At any rate, I venture to say that there
has been no opposition on these benches. An honourable
gentleman, who is a general supporter of the Government,
has spoken of the opposition to this measure as if it had
proceeded from us. And no doubt it is not at all impos-
sible that you would have received an uncompromising
opposition from the benches opposite to you. But you
never gave us an opportunity for discussing the measure,
and therefore I beg the country to remember that the
indisposition to Parliamentary reform in the present
House of Commons, so far as we have any evidence of it,
is confined entirely to the noble lord's own side of the
house. (Cheers.) Bat I beg the house to remark that the
noble lord has not met the difficulty of his case, that all the
reasons that he has given for relinquishing his measure to-
night were reasons that existed in equal force at the meet-
ing of Parliament, and on the 13th of February when he
introduced this bill. I deny that any member of the Ca-
binet can advance the present state of the country as a
reason for not proceeding with this measure. The noble lord
has very properly vindicated himself from the absurd po-
sition in which it is the interest of some parties to place
him as being the only Parliamentary Reformer in the Ca-
binet, and as if it was entirely to vindicate his own per-
sonal honour that this measure had been introduced. The
noble lord has very properly recalled the attention of the
house to the fact that the Government of the Earl of Aber-
deen was founded on the promise of a large measure of par-
liamentary reform. Nor was it merely in deference to the
noble lord that the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen
was founded on the principle of parliamentary reform. A
very distinguished member of the Cabinet made a large
measure of parliamentary reform a condition of his joining
Lord Aberdeen ; and Lord Aberdeen, in his speech when
he made an exposition of the principles upon which his
Government was founded, unequivocally pledged himself
to a large measure of parliamentary reform. Now, I
want to know what were the circumstances under which
the Government of Lord Aberdeen made that pledge ?
What were the circumstances under which the First
Lord of the Admiralty made the concession of a large mea-
sure of parliamentary reform, a condition of his adhesion
to the Government of Lord Aberdeen. Were they circum-
stances of less peril than the present ? Were they less seri-
ous ? Was the conjecture less menacing than at present ?
Why, we seem to have forgotten the circumstances under
which Lord Aberdeen acceded to power. -why, after an
inteval of between thirty and forty years, what had the
house just done ? They had armed the people ; they had
absolutely called out the militia ; and were arming and
training and disciplining 100,000 men. A few months be-
fore Lord Aberdeen entered office, the late Government
had considerably increased the naval estimates ; but no
sooner had the First Lord of the Admiralty come into
office than he doubled the estimates. Nor had the present
Government been four months in office before they formed
a project—which they subsequently executed—of having a
military camp at Chobham. It was well known that the
Government then believed that not merely war but inva-
sion was imminent. Now, sir, no one will pretend that a
war with France is not a much more awful affair than a
war with Russia ; and yet with a war with France in their
opinion impending, they formed their government on the
principle of a large measure of parliamentary reform.
(Cheers.) And did the adoption of that statement not
serve them ? Could they have formed their Cabinet unless
that had formed the principle upon which that Cabinet
was established ? Could they have carried on their govern-
ment for six months unless that had been the principle
upon which the Government of Lord Aberdeen had been
established? Could they have possessed, not merely the great
administrative abilities of the First Lord of the Admiralty,
but the profound statesmanlike attributes even of the Pre-
sident of the Board of Public Works? Could he havegiven
to the Government the fruits of those studies which Bentham
had inspired and Grote had guided? How did they carry
on the administration ? Why, only a very few months after-
wards we had the financial measures of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer brought forward, which, according to the
noble lord's statement to-night, was the excuse for not
proceeding with parliamentary reform in the first year that
the Government held office. A tax extremely odious in
the mode in which it is levied was introduced to this house,
it being known that there was an absolute majority against
the imposition of that tax, and that the most powerful as-
sailants of this tax—the income tax—were to be found on
the benches where the supporters of the present Govern-
ment most congregate. Did not these gentlemen say that
they disapproved of the unmodified income tax, and only
Toted for it in consequence of this promise of parliamen-
tary reform. And, therefore, I say that parliamentary
reform was the principle upon which the Government was
founded, that without it the Cabinet would never have
existed, and that without it the administration of affairs
could not have been carried on. I say also at the same
time, that the pledge to give a large measure of parlia-
mentary reform was made at a time when the state of pub-
lic affairs, as far as oar external relations, was not less me-
nacing, nay, I think much more perilous than it is at the
present time. Myself opposed to the measure of the noble
lord, I am glad that the Government has relinquished it.
But what is the moral that I think we should draw from
all these circumstances ? I think we should at least come
this conclusion—and it would, in my opinion, be a salu-
tary one—though no one can question the honour and
the sincerity of the noble lord who has been identified
with this great question and this great cause—who will
go down in history as connected with it—though no one,
I say, can doubt his sincerity, and though I do not for
for a moment care to question the sincerity of others—
still I must say that there does appear to me, and I think
there will appear to the country, that there has been
too much levity, for party purposes, in dealing with ques-
tions of organic change in the constitution of this country.
(Cheers.) Well now, I think, if we can, under the pre-
sent circumstances, when there is no party feeling on this
question, and when all parties and.sections of this house
seem pretty well agreed to assist the Government out of
the predicament—l think, I say, that if we can arrive at
that conclusion, every man, wherever he sits, will consider
probably longer than he might have done two or three
years ago before he makes pledges on a subject of this im-
portance. Because we should find that if a Minister per-
sisted—which the noble lord has wisely and magnanimously
resolved not to do—in consequence of a pledge of this kind,
in carrying measures not required by the necessities of the
country, great public evil must occur. And if, on the
other hand, after having pledged his sagacity as a states-
man for the necessity and expediency of such a measure,
he finds it necessary to relinquish it, then, although great
public mischief may not occur, thero is at least this disad-
vantage—that the confidence of the country in the men
they look up to must be proportionally lessened and die
minished. Nor does it seem to me that a time of war,
which we are told may be very serious and protracted, is
a time when, I do not say this want of confidence, but
this diminished confidence in our principal statesmen
should be encouraged. I hope, therefore, that the noble
lord will not proceed in the course of which he has given
an indication to-night—of postponing for a short but in-
definite time his plans of Parliamentary reform. I think
it would be much better for the noble lord—who has
made two attempts, which, ho says, have not been
sanctioned by the country—and which he feels aro
not required by the country, to allow this question
altogether to drop, and not to embarrass himself by
another pledge. (Hear.) What has the noble lord
done to-night ? After all this somewhat bitter expe-
rience, he has absolutely embarrassed himself and all his
colleagues by promising to take as early an opportunity as
possible to introduce this measure. (Ministerial cheers.)
I think that that cheer is most unwise, and that those who
cheer will be probably the loudest iu opposing the measure
when it is brought forward. I confess, sir, Ido not un-
derstand this getting rid of reform by instalments. You
who are always asking for measures, and taking them by
instalments, should hardly favour this new system, by
which reformers are to get rid of their pledges by instal-
ments. (Laughter.) It would have been better for the
noble lord to say, " I have made a considerable attempt.
The Cabinet stood by me. This measure is the result of
our united deliberations. But the country does not require
it, the times are perilous, and though I think that the fact
that this is a time of war is no good cause why a measure
of Parliamentary reform should not be carried if it were
required, still it is not now absolutely necessary, it would
involve a great struggle, and, therefore, for the present I
will say farewell to Parliamentary reform." Honourable
gentlemen opposite would have then had just as good a
chance of getting Parliamentary reform when the time ar-
rived as they have now by retaining the vain pledges of a
Minister. Surely, the experience of the last two years must
have taught Parliamentary
that you are not one whit the nearer a
mneere of Parliamentary reform because you have the
pled es of statesmen that they will give it to you. Here
you have statesmen who have pledged themselves, and who
were most sincerely anxious to fulfill their pledges, but
you sueenot obtain
your object. You can never obtain a
change such as
you
lee until the great preponderance of
public opinion demands
the Government with it. Well, then, why embarrass
noble lord weer nth
% constant pledge of this kind ? The
been more stateeparm men
i for saying that it would have
will say, after ,all he basf, after all he has done, and, I
to-night to place confidence suffered he asked the house
by the manner in which t in his sincerity, and to show,
honour was
his words to-night,
that they thought his
told them that it was much betterw a s intact
not to e ; and had then
mbarrass the
pledges Government any longer withon this subject, but
that they might be confident that when the time was ripe
brought forward
measures
by any minis that were dematndedwhl happened then to be
in power. Ido hope that the noble lord will at least draw
this lesson from the past—not to embarrass himself with
which he knows not when he can
pledges,
party purposes, and to calm to who must now
fulfil, merely
for
feel, that, after all, measures of this great national impor-
tance depend upon something more solid than the word of
any individual, however sincere or however gifted, (gear.)
Sir G. GREY said that, having been long attached to
the noble lord privately and publicly, he could not allow
the discussion to close without expressing his gratification
at the unanimity of feeling which had been shown as to
the course which his noble friend on the part of the Govern-
ment had announced his intention to take. His noble friend
had especially appeale'd to members on that side whose de-
sire to see a sound measure of Parliamentary reform car-
ried was unquestioned. His noble friend had elicited a
gratifying testimony of the confidence which had been
placed in him, and which was fully justified by the long
and consistent career which had so identified his name with
measures for the amendment of the constitntion. The noble
lord had also elicited the generous testimony of the uncom-
promising leader of the large party on the other side. He
thought his noble friend had completely vindicated the
sincerity of the Government, and their desire to redeem
the pledge given when the Government was formed. The
right hon. ti
genemee opposite dissented from the course
proposed to be taken, and did not think it right for his
noble friend to give a new plo on the subject of re-
form. Ho did not understandhis noble friend to give
any new pledge on that subject, but merely to say that,
if the circumstances which rendered the postponement
of the measure advisable should be removed, he would
again lay on the table a bill for the amendment of
the representation of the people. gig noble friend had
taken a course, he would not say consistent with his per-
se hone for of that then could bq no doubt, but a

course dictated by the highest sense of duty, and by a deep
regard for the interests of the country. Differing as he did
from the hon. member for Manchester as to the necessity
of the war, he could cordially concur in the opinion which
he had expressed that the war might speedily be brought
to an honourable conclusion, and that they might be left
free to resume the consideration of this important ques-
tion of the amendment of the representation of the people.
The hon. member had truly said that no disposition had
been shown in the present session to occupy the house on
nights devoted to private members with business that was
not of a pressing nature. He trusted the noble lord would
press rapidly forward all measures of really practical im-
portance, feeling certain that the house would be ready to
discuss them without delay, and that it was their desire
not to prolong their sittings to a late period of the year—a
practice of which of late great complaint had been made.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that r. Disraeli bad misre-
presented Lord John Russell, and he denied that the con-
dition of the country at the time of the accession of Go-
vernment to office did not materially differ from what it
now was. In further reply to Mr. Disraeli, he said that
tranquillity was one thing and apathy another, and that
the mind of the country was not capable of taking in two
great excitements at once. The whole heart and mind of
the nation was divided between the Baltic and the Danube.
In answer to an observation of Lord Jocelyn, Mr. S. Her-
bert said that in taking office under Lord Aberdeen he
himself had made no compromise of his principles on the
subject of parliamentary reform—he had ever desired to
see such reform, he had given his cordial approbation to
the present bill, and he hoped at some future time to see
either that or another measure carried, with which Lord
J. Russell's name should be connected.
Sir J. PAKINGTON, after a few words in vindication
of Mr. Disraeli, said that there was no man on any side of
the house who was diposed to question the honour of Lord
John Russell, and if any person could possibly have enter-
tained such a feeling, it must have been removed by his
speech of that night. But nothing that Lord J. Russell
had said had impaired his (Sir J. Pakington's) opinion,
that if the Reform Bill were not to be proceeded with, it
ought not to have been introduced.
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR, in answer to a remark of
the right hon. member for Taunton, said that he admitted
that the people of Scotland were occupied with other
questions than Parliamentary Reform. He had not re•
ceived from his constituents a single letter or petition on
the subject of reform. (Hear.) He did not think that
the Government were indifferent on the question of reform,
but that they considered the postponement of the measure
more advisable than the throwing of the country into a
state of excitement for a general election. He thought the
noble lord the member for London deserved the gratitude
of the people for the magnanimous way in which he had
acted. (Hear.)
On the question being put for the adjournment of the
house to Thursday the 27th,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he rose not to enter into
the discussion of any of the arguments that had been used,
but merely to express to the house his grateful sense of
the manner in which they had received his statement.
The motion was then agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that during the re-
mainder of the session orders of the day should on Thurs-
days take precedence of notices of motion. If that motion
were acceded to he should propose that the Oxford Uni-
versity Bill should be committed that evening pro forma,
and that it should be recommitted on Thursday, the 27th
instant. Upon Friday, the 28th, he hoped that measure
would have passed through committee, and his right hon.
friend the President of the Board of Trade would then, on
the Ist of May, ask the house to go into committee upon
the Railway Bill. With respect to the Poor Removal
Bill, which stood fixed for the 28th inst., he should state,
upon the part of his right hon. friend the President of the
Poor Law Board, that it was not his intention to ask the
house to proceed with that measure during the present
session. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend, however,
proposed to move for a select committee to take into con-
deration the provisions of the existing law with respect to
the removal of Irish paupers from England to Scotland,
and also with reference to the removal of Scotch and Eng-
lish paupers from Ireland. (Hear, hear.)

The question having been put,
Colonel SIBTHORP, in the absence of an hon. friend of
his (as we understood), moved, by way of amendment to
the proposition of the noble lord, that the word " Thurs-
days should be omitted, and the words " every alternate
Thursday" instead thereof introduced into the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he did not ask the house
to give precedence to Government orders of the day; but,
simply, that orders of the day generally should be taken
before notices of motion.

Mr. DISRAELI observed that the most important mea-
sures of the Government had already been abandoned for
the present session, and that being the case, he did not
think that the pressure upon the Government in carrying
on the business of the house was likely to be such as to
render it desirable that independent members should relin-
quish any of the privileges which they now enjoyed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
remind the house that the miscellaneous estimates yet
remained to be laid upon the table. The consideration of
those estimates would occupy a great deal of time, and
during the (Emission which must take place upon them,
the utmost possible facility would exist for putting
any questions which honourable members might desire
to put to the Government, or of making any motion
with reference to the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers,
which it might be deemed advisable to make. He should
add also, that the miscellaneous estimates during the pre-
sent year would be upon a much larger scale than usual,
inasmuch as the Government were for the first time, about
to submit to the consideration of the house estimates with
regard to the expenses attendant upon the collection of the
revenue, and the usual facility of putting questions to
Ministers, to which he had alluded, would, of course, be
proportionably increased.
Sir B. HALL hoped the house would assent to the mo-
tion of the noble lord the member for the city of London.
Mr. WALPOLE did not altogether approve of the mo-
tion of the noble lord. He should have no objection that
precedence should be given to Government orders of the
day, but he was by no means desirous that that course
should be taken with reference to orders of the day relating
to business of which independent members had the charge.
After a few observations from Mr. Williams, Mr.
Spooner, and Mr, Cardwell, _ _ _

Mr. DEEDES said he wished to ask the noble lord the
member for the city of London what course he proposed
to take with respect to the bill which had been introduced
affecting those constituencies in whose case a report had
been made by recent commissions, and who were not at
present represented in that house ? He also was anxious
to learn from the noble lord the Secretary for the Home
Department if it was his intention to call upon the house
to legislate, in the course of the present session, upon the
subject of the general police of the country?
Lord PALMERSTON—It is. _

Lord J. RUSSELL. in reply to the question of the hon.
gentleman opposite, would state that in his opinion it was
extremely desirable that they should proceed during the
present session with the bill to which that question re-
ferred.
After a few words from Mr. LALNG,

Colonel SIBTHORP withdrew his amendment, and the
original motion was then agreed to.
BLEACHING AND DYEING ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. COBBETT gave notice that on Tuesday, the 2d
of May, he should move that a select committee be ap-
pointed for the purpose of inquiring into the working
hours, the mode of payment, and the general condition of
those persons who were employed in the bleaching and dye-
ing establishments of the united kingdom.
ORANGE RIVER SOVEREIGNTY.
Mr. SPOONER, on behalf of his hon. friend the mem-
ber for North Stafford, gave notice that on Tuesday the 9th
May, his hon. friend would submit to the consideration of
the house a motion upon the subject of the abandonment
of the Orange River Sovereignty.