The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-04 00:00:00

ter and "cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the member
for Droitwich may, I think,
,gather a lesson of wisdom from
the performance of his right hon. colleague. ((Treat laugh-
ter.) The right hon. member for Droitwich was far too ex-
plicit. He said the Ministers were unwise in bringing for-
ward the question of parliamentary reform at ali, and he
condemned them entirely for so doing. He declared also
that their weakness in negotiation had brought on war,
and that they had thus proved themselves unfit for con-
ducting the affairs either of our foreign or domestic policy.
In answer to this my right hon. friend the member for
Morpeth says, promptly and naturally, why do you not
move a vote of want of confidence. (Loud ham
Bnt
the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire
avoided any such difficulty—he avoids the humiliating con-
fession that he thinks Ministers utterly unfit for conduct-
ing either our domestic or our foreign affairs, and yet that
he is afraid to brave the risk of moving for their exclusion.
No, sir, the right honourable gentleman the member
for Buckinghamshire has treated this question with more
skill. He indulges in general comments upon the observa-
tions which have fallen from different members. But he
_ _

satisfies himself with flowing periods—with the utterance
of sarcasms, which please his supporters, and leave him
and them altogether unfettered. In this he resembles the
poet of whom it is said that—
" He fagotted his notions as they fell,
And if they rhymed and rattled, all was well."
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman said that my right
hon. friend the member for Morpeth mentioned that I
need have no regard to my personal honour on this ques-
tion, and that the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment declared, on the other hand, that this was entirely a
question of personal honour. Sir, I conceive that both
meant the same thing. My right hon. friend said that I
would not oppose any regard to my personal honour to the
well-understood interests of the country—my noble friend
at the head of the Government declared that not only was
this a question connected with personal honour, but that
it was also connected with the interests of the country.
Sir, I should be ashamed of myself if I were to prefer a
concern for my own personal reputation to that which I
understood to be for the interests of my country. (Cheers.)
But it seems to me that the character of the men who rule
this country—whether they be at the moment in office or
in opposition—is of importance to the people of this country,
and that public confidence in their character is an act of
more value than almost anything else that can be named.
The fact is, that the confidence of the people in the cha-
racters of public men is that on which the security of the
country in a great degree depends. (Hear.) In treating
of this question the right hon. gentleman alluded to an
opinion of mine, that the fact of the State being at war
was not in itself a decisive reason against considering the
state of our representation with a new to reform. Sir, I
am justified in that opinion, because there have been two
great measures connected with representation—connected
with disfranchisement—conducted by two great Ministers
in the midst of two great wars. In 1706 Lord Somers, a
statesman of the highest and most deserved reputation,
introduced a measure which was not only a measure of
disfranchisement—which not only disfranchised 107 out
of 152 members returned for Scotland, but he thereby
provoked a whole nation, and caused for a time a state
of great discontent among one portion of the United
Kingdom. A century later Mr. Pitt, then Prime Mi-
nister, introduced a measure by which, out of 300 Irish
representatives, 200 were disfranchised, and he also
thus caused great discontent in that portion of the United
Kingdom. In the first case, Marlborough was conducting
his campaigns in Flanders ; in the second, Napoleon was
fighting the battle of Marengo. Yet these Ministers did
not think these wars a sufficient reason for not introducing
those great measures affecting the state of the representa-
tion. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the hon. baronet the member
for Westminster asks me to give hint some further expla-
nation as to the course I shall take in the month of April.
Sir, I shall give no other explanation than,' have given.
(Loud cheers-) The hon. gentleman shall not hear from
me any attempt to explain to him further, or to satisfy
him in respect to my intentions or my views. The hon.
gentleman says that this proposition of Parliamentary re-
form may have been, and that he believes it is, altogether
a sham on my part. Sir, if that declaration had come from
my hon. friend the member for Montrose—the true repre-
sentative of those reformers who agree with him in opinion
—I own I should have felt deep mortification ; but, coming
from the hon. gentleman the member for Westminster, who
has no right to speak in the name of reformers, I feel utter
indifference towards such an imputation. (Vehement
cheering.) The hon. gentleman perhaps does not know
that I conducted propositions for reform a long time before
he could take any part in public affairs. For ten years I
conducted reform questions in opposition to a man of no
less genius and eloquence and varied powers than Mr.
Canning. (Cheers.) In 1831 the Government to which I
belonged were twice defeated on their proposition of re-
form ; and yet in 1832 a large measure of reform was as-
sented to by the Crown, and accepted by the country.
Why, sir, after having fought these battles of reform, does
the hon. gentleman the member for Westminster think
that he has a right to teach me—(a burst of enthusiastic
cheering drowned the remainder of the clause) ; or that
my conduct will, in the slightest degree, depend upon any
question he may put, or on any taunt he may throw out ?
(Cheers.) I can assure the house that I approach the sub-
ject now—that I shall approach it at any future time—
with the deepest anxietyto promote the welfare of the coun-
try at large. I believe that the addition of large masses of
intelligent, independent, and honest men to the oonsti-
tuAicy of this country would be a great strengthening
of our institutions. When I opposed the motion of my
hon. friend the member for Montrose, in 1848, thinking
that that was not a fit time for proposing large plans of re-
form, I thought at the same time that the temper, the
moderation, and the good sense which were shown by the
people of this country in 1841—(cheers) —demonstrated to
the conviction of any man who attended seriously to
the spirit of the people at that time—demonstrated that
large classes of the people who yet had no votes were tit
for the franchise, and that by being brought within the
pale of the representation they would confer a benefit upon
our institutions, whenever the House of Commons should
set itself seriously to consider the manner of adding to the
electoral body. Those views I still entertain, and enter-
taining them, as I said before, it is with the deepest sense
of thcii importance that I shall pi weed on the no.t. eeem-
sion. (Loud cheers.)
Sir J. SHELLEY rose, but was met with loud cries of
" spoke, spoke." He said he should deeply regret if the
house did not afford him an opportunity to explain. What
he said was this—that unless Ministers persevered with
their measure, he feared the impression would go abroad
that it was never anything else than a sham ; but he added
that he himself did not believe that, and he would now
entreat the noble lord to persevere with the second reading.
Mr. DISRAELI—AIIow me to ask one question. Per-
haps I misunderstood the noble lord, but is it intended to
proceed with the second reading on the very day the house,
meets after the Easter holidays, for that would be exceed-
ingly inconvenient ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—No ; if the house meet on Monday,
he second reading will stand for the Thursday following.
The motion was then agreed to.
The report on supply was brought up.
HOME-MADE SPIRITS IN THE NAVY.

On the motion that the house go into committee of
supply,
Mr. P. O'BRIEN rose to move that it is the opinion of
this house that, prior to any future contract for the supply
of spirits for the use of her Majesty's navy being made, ten-
ders for the supply of home-made spirits be admitted. The
hon. member, in a very indistinct tone, proceeded to con-
tend that home-made spirits would be cheaper than ram,
especially at the present time, when • the price of the lat-
ter article had been raised in consequence of the small
supply of stock on hand, and, further that the home-made
spirit was more wholesome in itself, and, if left to the
choice of the sailors, would no doubt be preferred by them,
as it was preferred in all private establishments. This was
I not a distiller's question alone—it concerned the interests
of the people both of Scotland and Ireland, the latter es-
pecially, being an agricultural country. The establish-
ment of distilleries took of the inferior descriptions of
grain, which could not be used for other purposes, and
gave considerable employment to the people. He reminded
the house also that many men had recently entered the
navy, especially from the Irish Coast-guard, who had for
years been accustomed to the use of the home-made spirit,
and he thought their taste ought to be consulted.
Colonel DUNNE seconded the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM said this question was by no means a
new one ; it had frequently before been under the conside-
ration of the house. He was bound to say that he could
not agree to take a merely financial view of this question.
He believed that, at the present moment, it was true that
the price of rum was higher than the price of whisky ; but
he must state to the house that it would be extremely in
convenient to the proper carrying on of discipline in the
navy if two kinds of spirits were issued to the men at one
and the same time. Now, from time immemorial, rum
had been the spirit issued to the seamen ; it was according
to the taste of the great majority, and at the present mo-
ment he must say it would be-extremely inconsistent with
a sound policy if, on account of the higher price, this house
were to refuse them the spirit which they liked best. He
must, therefore, strongly deprecate any such change as
that which the hon. gentleman had proposed.
Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH said the only reason
the right hon. gentleman had given for not redressing this
grievance was that it was an old one. He said it would
disturb the discipline of the navy if a choice were allowed
to the sailors. But it seemed to be forgotten that a choice
was already allowed them in the articles of coffee and
cocoa, which were issued to the men at their option and no
harm was done. The home-made spirit was extensively
used in the mercantile navy, and if it were allowed on,
board her Majesty's ships he had no doubt the same pre-
ference would be shown. But the truth was, this was the
last rag of protection, and it was strange that it should be
fought for by the right hon. baronet.
Mr. B. OSBORNE was surprised that his hon. friend the
• member for Roscommon should seriously endeavour to
draw a parallel between the question of the comparative
value of whisky and rum and that of protection. Why,
beef was generally used in the navy, and the sheep farmers
of Sussex might as well complain that that was a case of
protection, because the navy did not use their mutton.
(Laughter.) His hon. friend, who represented a great
whisky interest, very natually pressed this question on the
house. But he would tell his hon. friend that nothing
could be more dangerous than interfering with the victuals
and spirits used in the navy. Why, the mutiny of the
Nore was caused by the interference of some well-meaning
persons like his hon. friend the member for Roscommon.
But his hon. friend said that the mercantile navy preferred
the whisky. He challenged his hon. friend to prove that
assertion. There might be individual exceptions, but
through the mercantile marine the grog used was the same
as that on board the navy, and the fact that the greatest
consumption of rum took place at our great sea ports proved
that the seamen gave a decided preference to rum. This
was a question which might fairly be left to the discretion
of the Admiralty. The complaints came only from the
dealers in whisky. There were no complaints from the
seamen • they did not find that men refused to enter be-
cau,,e they could not get whisky. (Hear.) He warned the
house that nothing could be more dangerous than to meddle
with the petty comforts of the sailors, and therefore he
hoped the house would not interfere.
Colonel DUNNE congratulated the house on hearing the
hon. gentleman, whose voice, though it was seldom raised
of late, was always heard with great pleasure. He denied
that there would be any inconvenience in having two species
of spirits, and he believed that the only reason for refusing
the metion was the protection accorded to the West Indian
interest.
Mr. BELLEW said the right hon. baronet had not
used a single argument in favour of his view. When the
hon. gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty followed
'm
him he expected to hear some reasons from him, but his
only argument was—leave the matter in the hands of the
:t
nnc
choice,
asehe whichhea n o
Lords a the Admiralty. It was said that sailors were fond
of rum,
they
doubt
a
thought w
hue
ergt
ehhhusatt
ttdelide they
noyt doubttort
would
,gbhut
t be
fhpwareti
theyft tehhro
weutyhet redae
cheaper,
allowedpnarpcef
inconvenience,
ati,edbe-
causeer i
he believed, the better spirit.
Mr. CRAUFORD said, as the representative of a 4is-
triet that was largely interested in the whisky manufac-
ture, he might perhaps be permitted to state tb,at he, in-
tended to support her Majesty's Government on this