The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY -EVENING,' JUNE 8, 1860.

those who were in the army and navy, and for those who
were incapacitated from pauperism or crime, that there
were 6,000,000 of men to whom parliament had not con-
ceded the right of suffrage. Now, the bill :of the noble
lord proposed to make a slight advance—it 1 reposed to
open the door to, it might be, 300,000, and on a very ex-
treme calculation 400,000, throughout the Matted King-

dom. He believed it would be 300,000, and believed it
would not be 400,000. Well, if it were 300,000 it was only
opening the door so far, that 1 in 20 of those now excluded
would be allowed to come in. Did they think that any-
body could believe that the terror and alarm they had en-
Pressed were well founded ? It was utterly impossible. He
did not believe that any man in the house or out of it who was
told that 1 in 20 of these persons was admitted to vote could
honestly say that that was a measure perilous to the country

or to the constitution in any sense. He thought he might
take that to be almost agreed on. There were some things
which had been asserted, and he wished to allude to one or

two of them. It had been asserted during this discussion,
over and over again, that the admissionof this number, and
therefore, he might almost say of any number of men over
the 1,000,000 was to give up the representation of the
country and the power of Parliament to classes altogether
unworthy of it ; and if he might adopt the language of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Hertfordshire, which
he employed in one of the most eloquent and elaborate
speeches ever heard in that house—aspeech of which every
word had been considered over and over, and therefore, it
was not delivered off-hand in the heat of debate—in that
speech it was asserted that to open the door to 1 in 20 it was
to hand over the Parliamentary government and power of the
United Kingdom to what he designated as poverty and pas-
sion. He could not allow himself to speak of that phrase of the
right hon. gentleman in language which constantly came to
his lips when he spoke of it. But the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city the other night quoted from an article in a
periodical which was assumed to represent hon. gentlemen
opposite. He was rather surprised to find the right hon.
gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire appeared'to
take some offence at it, for he (Mr. Bright) believed that
the noble lord honestly thought that it was most friendly
and most complimentary to him. Such he (Mr. Bright)
understood to be the tenor of the observation. It was said
—he knew not with what truth—that that article was
written by the noble lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil). He be-
lieved the authorsht_was first indicated by the tone of
the noble luta wl4li- rvsord to tho soneral policy of the
right hon. gentleman. In that article he understood the
author to say this, that the course of policy, they were
now using—that the result of such a measure as'this would
leave the Government of the country the blessed choice
between debauchery and crime. He referred to the public
houses. Now as the publichouses at this moment were 10
per cent. of the whole number of houses, seeing that as they
were all now admitted to the franchise if this bill passed,
and half as many electors as now were admitted, it was
clear that the proportion of publichouses would be reduced
from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. Now he would ask the
house to . consider those three statements—the one made
by the right hon. member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. Lytton)
another assumed to be made by the noble lord, and the
statement of the right hon. gentlemad, that there was

danger that persons admitted to the franchise would combine
and conspire against all the institutions of the country. Now
he would ask, what did that argument lead them to. Why,
it led them to this, that six-sevenths—that six millions of
seven—of the grown men of the United Kingdom are suffer-
ing and passionate, according to the arguments of the
right hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire. They are
sunk in debauchery and crime—that was the argument of
the Quarterly Review; and that they are ready to combine
against all the existing institutions of the country, and
against all the classes above them, was the prime and
sole argument of the long speech of the right
hon. gentleman the leader of gentlemen opposite.
Well, if that were the case, he (Mr. Bright) was free to
confess that he should despair of the future of this coun-
try ; but he would undertake to show that house that the tes-
tituony was not worth the slightest credit. He would under-
take to say that he knew a great deal more of the working
classes, and especially of those in the north of England, to
whom this bill would more especially refer, than the right
hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire, the right hon.
gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, or the author
of the article in the Quarterly Review. Excepting the
many sessions in which he had the honour—it might be
honour—but certainly the ill fortune to spend in that house,
he had for thirty years at least been in daily communication
with those classes—he had lived amongst them ; many of
them were his play mates when he was a boy ; he had super-
intended their labour, and had paid their wages. He had had
as great an opportunity as any man in that house of knowing
what were the opinions and wishes with regard to 'those
great political questions which that houle had to discuss.
(Hear, hear.) At that moment they had a season
which was not very favourable. They had very cold
weather for the month of June, the rain fell incessantly,
and if that inclemency continued throughout the month,
the cycle of good harvests would be at an end, and they
would come to the time of two or three bad harvests. Let
them further conceive, not a war—hon. gentlemen opposite
always seemed trading in war—he supposed some political
party policy was to be carried out in the fear of war. It
was not eo much war on the Continent that they had to
fear as insurrection and revolution, and insurrection and
revolution abroad lighted up the fire of great excitement in
England—(hear)—and it could not be avoided as long as
men were men, and had the sympathies of men. Why,
there was the noble lord (Lord Elcho) who sometimes sat
below him—he (Mr. Bright) did not know where he then
sat—he supposed he was with the volunteers. (Laughter.)
What did the noble lord say, addressing those gentlemen
who were to defend the country against an imaginary foe.
He talked about the lion-hearted Garibaldi ; and he said,
"he goes to snap the chains which bind the tsicilians."
He (Mr. Bright) did not object to the phraseology.; but
when they found a man who had never said a syllable about
giving a vote to one of his countrymen, expressing this
enthusiasm for the achievements of Garibaldi and the
liberation of Sicily, what must be the effect of those events
abroad upon the great mass of their countrymen, who were
supposed not to be under so much mental control as the
noble lord or other members of that house f He (Mr. Bright)
said then that the time might come when their rashness
would give way to terror, and the accusations they -had
brought against the working classes might be thought un-
safe, and something like flattery might take their place.
Now, ho did not say that would come in the least. Where-
ever there had been a public meeting held since this
moderate proposition was brought into the house—
meetings of which they were quite ignorant, if they
only read the Tintes—(loud latighter)—they would find
that there had beta expressed at those meetings a great
feeling of satisfaction and a strong wish that Parlia-
meht should pass the bill during the present session.
Would hon. gentlemen opposite refuse their sanction to a
measure in which there was nothing perillous, but every-
thing moderate and constitutional. If hon. gentlemen oppo-
site were disposed to refuse this bill, they did not refuse it
in it manly way: If the bill were refused the people of this
country who were most affected by its provision, would say
that they had been treated with distrust, and that some hon.
members had used language towards them as if they had
acted in a manner to be deplored rather than applauded.
The right hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire, in
one of his works published some time ago, said, " Who
knows the greatness of the generosity of the people of Eng-
land ?" and he did that which he (Mr. Bright) would not
do, he excluded from that phrase the nobility,who were the
Government of the country. He (Mr. Bright) said that
the people were generous and industrious, and in their in-
dustry he saw the wealth and greatness of the upper classed.
(Hear.) He was not less the friend of the upper classes
than of the working classes when he implored them with
all the power which he could put into words to pass this
bill, and to treat their countrymen with generosity and with
justice. (Cheers.)
Sir H. CAIRNS said there were few subjects which the
hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham was not per-
fectly acquainted with, and with that before the house he
was eminently so. But he had not touched upon the real
question before the house. There was only one reason why
he would not rather make a speech on the subject before the
house. (Oh, oh.) The hon. gentleman the member for Bir-
mingham made a speech against the third reading of the
bill before the house. He thought it possible he might not
have an opportunity of making a speech upon the third
reading of the bill, and he took advantage of the present oc-
casion to make that speech now. He would not now consi-
der whether there would be a third reading of the bill ; but
he would proceed to make a few observations on the question
which was really before the house. The question which had
been before the house was for the amendment of the repre-
sentation of the people. That was the question; but on
Monday night the noble lord, on the pelt of the Govern-
ment, said !the question before the house was not the
representation of the people generally, but simply the
representation of the people of England, as the two bills for
Ireland and Scotland vrtre to be postponed. (Hear, hear.)
Now he wished tb make some observations upon the
gries-
tion of ordP:r, Upon the question of going into committee
on tk-e 'bill before the honed there were several notices on the
Parer with respect to instructions to be given to the com-
mittee, and these instructions had relation to various altera-
tions affecting net only the English, but the Irish and
Scotch bide also. The noble lord opposed the reception of
those instructions, on the ground that they applied to the
whole of the United Xingdom, whereas the bills of Ireland
and Scotland were not before the house.
Lord S. BUSSE LL dissented, and was understood to say
that the Spettibr had decided aginst these instructions on
the ground of their te-,piarity;
Sir H. CAIRNS c.iid Le 'neard the noble lord himself say,
after the speaker had decided against the instructions on
the ground of their irregularity, and after the hon. gentle-
ma:.l nad proposed to amend his instruction which ho was
moving by inserting the words " United Kingdom," that
these words Were tt greater irregularity, because the bill
before the house related to England only, whereas the pro-
posed resolution extended to the United Kingdom. (Hear,
hear.) The house bowed to the decision of the right hon.
gentleman in the chair, but what he wished to know was
this, was it right in the noble lord to hear that decision, and
then wait until his hon. friend had made the alteration in
by describing
before he came forward to object to that alteration,
it as a further irreoularity because it cot dd
not apply to the bill before the house ? (Hear, hear.)
.4 mud), for the quoltiou order, As would Row refer to tke

question of the representation of the people. When the
noble lord gave up the Irish and Scotch bills he might have
said the whole question could not be put into one bill.
Looking at all the circumstances, he thought the noble lord,

who seemed to have abandoned the Scotch and Irish bills,

ought also, in consistency, to abandon at the present ad-
vanced period of the session the English bill, and not longer
urge the house to go into committee upon it. (Hear, hear.)

Lord PALMEB:STON—The hon. and learned gentleman
who has just sat down commenced by rebuking the hon.
member for Birmingham for having departed frdm the sub-
ject-matter of this debate—for having made on the question

whether the house should adjourn a speech which he said

belonged to the third reading of the bill. And the expla-
nation which he was good enough to give for that proceeding
of the hon. member for Birmingham was that, being satis-
fied the bill never would come to a third reading, he was
anxious to deliver now a speech which he would not have

an opportunity of delivering on the proper occasion.
.But

the hon. and learned gentleman, with the most marvellous
inconsistency, has fallen into the very error which he un-
justly imputed to the hon. member for Birmingham. (Hear.)

He has made to-night a speech which properly belonged to
the committee on the bill ; and he has done so for a better

reason than that which he attributed to the hon. member

rer Birmingham; for, whereas that hon. member, assure.

ing, as he ssYs, that the bill would not be allowed to go to a
third reading, has anticipated that stage by his speech to-
night, the hon. and learned gentleman, on the other hand,
being determined, for himself and his friends, that this
measure shall not go into committee, founded upon his own
decision, which he flatters himself he will be able to carry
into effect, has anticipated by a speech adapted for the com-
mittee that stage of the bill which he and his friends have
resolved it shall never reach. (Hear.) But the hon. and
learned gentleman was not merely inconsistent. If I may
be permitted to say so, he was also guilty of a gross act of
insubordination. (A laugh.) It belongs to the right hon.
member for Buckinghamshire, on the eve of the prorogation,
_ _

to perform the operation usually termed a review of the ses-
sion. But the hon. and learned gentleman, at the beginning
of June, has not only entered into a review of the session—
(cheers and counter cheers)—in which he assumed to him-

self the functions of the leader of his own side of the house,
but he has actually trenched upon our duties, for he has like-
wise executed "the massacre of the innocents." (Laughter.)
The hon. and learned gentleman, besides diverging from
the proper subject of debate by discussing the details of the
bill, which ought to be reserved for the committee, went
into a still wider range of digression, by discussing all the
measures that have been proposed in the course of the ses-
sion, some of which have already been, while others of them
have not yet been, submitted to this house. ("-Hear," from
the Opposition.) Nor was that all. The hon. and learned
member enumerate the blessings which were to have been,
or which actually had been, showered down upon us in the
present year; but there is one blessing which he omitted
to specify—l mean the gift of tongues. (Laughter and

cheers.) The amplitude and excess with which that bles-
sing has been bestowed upon the other side of the house
has been the main reason why:we have been deprived of the
full enjoyment of all those other good things to which he
has referred. (Renewed cheers.) If we have reached the
beginning of June without having even got into committee
on a bill which the hon. and learned gentleman accuses us
of hurrying through the house—(a laugh)—what has been
the cause of this ? Why, we have been incessantly inter-
rupted by delays purposely interposed tq obstruct the pro-
gress of a measure which those who wish thus to impede it
have not dared openly to attack. (Cheers.) Sir, I really
desire to call the attention of the house to the condition in
which we are. (Opposition cheers and a laugh.) The hon.
and learned gentleman appealed to the house to rescue it-
self from the undignified position in which it was placed.
I entirely concur with him. I, too, entreat the house to
rescue itself from what I do think a most undignified posi-
tion. Does the house mean to pass a Reform Bill or does
it not ? (Laughter and cheers, and counter cheers.) The
hon. and learned gentleman ended by asking a string of
questions. I also wish to ask a question—viz., whether the
house is of opinion that a reform in the representation is
proper and right, or whether it is determined that there
shall be no such Reform ? (Cheers) The course adopted
since the introduction of this bill would lead any reason-
able man to say that the house was resolved there should
be no Reform Bill—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition)—or
none at least during the present session ; and it seems to me
that the arguments we now hear would equally apply to any
subsequent year in which a similar measure might be pro-
posed. Let me beseech the house, then, to consider a little
the position in which public men stand in reference to this
question. As long as the proposal of reform originated on
one side of the house and was resisted on the other, as long
as it was doubtful what might be the influence of argument
or what might be the effect of a dissolution and re •eleatien
upon the strength of the two great parties, it was justifiable
for those who opposed reform to oppose it on principle—to
object at every stage of every bill brought in to carry out an
arrangement which they thus steadfastly and determinedly
resisted. But is that the position of the question now ? We
have had, as was stated by the hon. member for Birmingham,
not only many and repeated announcements from the Throne
recommending the reform of the representation to the con-
sideration of the house, but we have no distinction in prin-
ciple between the two parties in this house. From the mo-
ment Lord I)erby's Administration proposed a Reform Bill,
and that bill was supported by the whole Conservative
party, it was impossible that the House of Commons cou'd
consistently and permanently refuse to pass a bill for the re-
form of the representation. (Hear, hear.) And therefore
those who sit on that side of the house are precluded from
taking a course inconsistent with the conduct of their leaders
and their own conduct in support of those leaders. (Hear,
hear.) And I say it is not a straightforward or manly
course—(loud cheers)—to endeavour by delay to oppose the
passing of a measure to the principle of which they are as
much pledged as those who sit on this side of the house.
(Cheers.) What is it they objectto ? The bill that we have
proposed is acknowledged to be very simple in its provisions.
(Ironical cheers.) Yes, sir, no man can deny that. (Cheers.)
It contains for its leading enactments the reduction of the
borough franchise, the reduction of the county franchise,
and the transfer of seats. If the hon. gentlemen entertained
the objections to the bill which they nowexpress so strongly,
why did they not oppose the second reading of the bill ?
(Cheers.) Every argument they now use went to resist the
second reading, and I say they ought to have objected to
the second reading. They did not do so, and they admitted,
therefore, the principle of lowering these franchises and a
certain transfer of seats, and their arguments consequently
entirely turn on the details and the degree to which these
arrangements should be carried. Their arguments neces-
sarily carry them into committee. If they were consistent
in their arguments, and if they were prepared to vote for
the principle of a bill which reduced the borough franchise
and the county franchise, and provided for the transfer of
seats—if their objections were only to the extent to which
any or all of these proposals were carried, I say that, hav-
ing voted for the second reading, they are bound to go into
committee to establish thos3 objections in degree, and not
in principle, which they feel to the different portions of the
bill. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman, how-
ever, finds fault with my noble friend (Lord J. Russell) for
stating that if when we get into committee the house
should be of opinion that some modification ought to be
made in the arrangements proposed, her Majesty's Govern-
ment Would not be so wedded to their bill as not fairly to
consider any proposals of that kind. The hon. and learned
gentleman says my noble friend is inconsistent, because
when the late Government brought in their bill my noble
friend proposed a resolution establishing a certain principle
applicable to the bill they proposed. But the case is en-
tirely different. What was the bill of the late Govern-
ment ? They stated that the one fundamental principle of
their bill on which it was founded was the identity of the
county and borough franchise—(cheers)—that another
principle equally essential to the bill was that county voters
in all represented towns should be deprived of their county
votes. If my noble friend had asked the house to go
into committee with the intention of proposing an al-
teration of the fundamental principles of the bill of the
late Government, it would have been childish
and absurd. My noble friend therefore asked the house to
resolve, before they went into committee, that these were
not the principles upon which the bill ought to be founded.
The late Government gave up their bill, and quite consis-
tently, because the resolution of my noble friend went to
the fundamental principle of the bill. But the objections
now taken do not go to the fundamental principles, but to
the details and the degree to which these fundamental prin-
ciples are carried out. That being the case, the hon. and
learned gentleman says WEI have been three months discuss-
ing the bill and have not got into Committee yet. Whose
fault is that ? It is a little too Pnichl 0
those who inflict
as f
injury $v M ::.r o complaint.ak° that injury a et
(Cheers and laughter.) The holt and learner..l gentleman
then says that the details are not satisfactory, that
(laity has been bstablished In another place, and which ha~
not been instituted here. Well, has any one asked for that
inquiry here ? Did any hon. gentleman who doubted these
talctilationa ash for an inquiry, and did we resist it ? If
such a proposal were not made, it Was competent for those
who wished for an inquiry to propose it, and hon. gentle-
men are not entitled to make that a complaint until such a
motion has been negatived. We have heard one hon. mem-
ber or another, having a knowledge of this or that borough,
say that he had information which led him to think that
there has been a difference, not very important, between the
Jesuit of these returns as laid on the table and the result of
his personal and local inquiries. But these are points to be
urged in committee, and not upon the question of you, Sir,
leaving the Chair ; and, indeed, the whole of the discussion,
from the period when the bill was introduced to this even-
ing., embodies a series of objections which have been urged
evidently for the purpose of creating delay, and a bill which
hon. gentlemen did not venture to oppose 'on the second
reading, they now feel themselves at liberty to oppose
on the general grounds of the nature and tendency of the
bill. We are now really come to a climax of these pro-
ceedings. (Cheers.) Hitherto, when a debate has been
spun out to a great number of speeches, and the clock has
arrived at a period of the night when it was too late for
continuing the debate, a motion for the adjournment has
been moved at an hour when it was impossible for the
Government to refuse to acquiesce in the motion, with
shoals of orators ready with their speeches to continue the
debate. But this evening there has been a novelty, because
the motion for the adjournment of the debate was made, not
as loud at 12 o'clock at ;kilt, butat half-past four o'clock

in•

in the afternoon. An Anticipated lassitude, a foretold in-

capacity of sitting out the debate came over hon. gentlemen
opposite. (Laughter.) At half-past 4 they felt that it would
be impossible to find strength of body or mind to go on with
the debate, and they begged and entreated to be allowed to
go home and prepare fresh speeches for these discussions.
(Cheers and laughter.) There may be a very fair reason why
gentlemen who during the last few days have been attend-
ing upon other amusements—(a laugh)—could not devote
the time and attention necessary to prepare for the subject,

but I do not think it is a decorous motion to make to the
House of Commons upon a question of great national im-

portance. ' (Cheers.) This motion was founded upon some-
thing which my noble friend stated a few nights ago re-
specting the bills for England, Scotland, and Ireland. He
stated that the prolongation of these discussions, the pres-
sure of public business, and the period of ,the session ren-
dered it unlikely that we should this session be able to dis-
pose not only of the English but also of the Scotch and
Irish bills ; and, that being the case, the Government
thought that no public inconvenience could arise from post-
poning until next' session the discussion of the Irish and
Scotch bills. The hon. and learned gentleman talked as if it

was supposed we were going to abandon the Irish and Scotch
bills. My noble friend did not make any such statement.
His statement had reference simply to the order of proceed-

ing, and to the fact that if we were able to pass the English
bill this session it would be too late to take up the Irish and
Scotch bills, which would, therefore, have to be left till the

ensuing session. The hon. and learned gentleman says
he has placed us between the horns of a dilemma, because

either we shall or shall not have to advise the Crown to dis-
solve Parliament after the English bill is passed ; and he

points out what, in his opinion, would be objectionable and
improper in either alternative. Undoubtedly, it would be a

most unusual and preposterous course of proceeding for the
Government, the moment the English bill has passed, to

advise the Crown on that account to dissolve Parliament, in
order that a new Parliament may take up the Irish and

Scotch bills. Suppose, for instance, that that had happened

which the Government might without any great exaggera.

tion have expected—suppose that the whole house had

given its mind fairly to consider this question, and had ap
plied itself earnestly to settle a safe and proper measure
then the English bill would have been passed at an early
period of the session ; but would any man have supposed
that upon that account, immediately after Easter, Parlia-
ment would have been dissolved in order that a new Parlia-
ment might consider the other twobilis ? Yet the argument
used by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the postpone-
ment of the Irish and Scotch bills to next session would
lead to that. (Hear.) They say, "If you pass the English
bill this session, and therefore prospectively alter the Eng-
lish constituencies, then the Parliament elected by the old
constituencies will not be entitled to come together next ses-
sion for the purpose of considering the other two measures."
What difference in principle is there between a Parliament
whose constituency has been prospectively altered going on
in the same session to deal with the Irish and Scotch bills,
to impose taxes, pass important laws affecting all the great
interests of the country—what difference, I ask, is there be-
tween such a Parliament doing that and the same Parlia-
ment performing precisely the same operation when galled
together after a recess ? lam at a loss to see the distinction.
Therefore it by no means follows that because Parliament
should in one year complete the English Reform Bill, this
house should therefore be incompetent to sit again next year
to dispose of the Irish and Scotch bills. It would certainly
not be till these three bills had been passed that, on that
account there would be any necessity for dissolving Par-
liament and appealing to the new constituency. Moreover,
the new Reform Bill bestows on certain classes new rights
which must be recorded by the registrar, and therefore
until the new register has been made, even if all the three
bills were passed, it is clear a dissolution could not on that
account take place. I am astonished that the hon. and
learned gentleman should have forgotten what passed in his
own country in 1850. A great enlargement of the Tiish con-
stituency took place at that time. But there was no disso-
lution at that time. No dissolution took place till Lord
Derby's Government came into office Rh 1852. So that for
nearly two years Parliament went on after that prospective
change had been made in the constituency of Ireland. (Hear,
hear.) Therefore it is absurd to contend that the course
which my noble friend shadowed forth was one which could
not be adopted consistently with constitutional principles
and practice. It would be perfectly possible, and would in-
volve no impropriety whatever, for the house to pass the
English Reform Bill this year, and to sit again next Janu-
ary or February, or at any other time that the Crown might
be advised to call it together, for the purpose of going on with
the Irish and Scotch bills ; the dissolution being postponed
not only until these bills had been passed,'but until arrange-
ments had been made for the registrati n of the newly-
endowed voters. (Hear, hear.) I soy, therefore, that the
ground on which this proposal is made will not hold water.
But still more extraordinary is the inversion, which could
not, in point of order, be proposed directly, but which the
motion for adjournment is intended indirectly to effect—
the inversion,'in my opinion, of putting the cart before the
horse (a laugh)=that is, putting the Irish and Scotch bills
before the English one. (Cries of " No, no," from the
Opposition.) Allow me to say that was the object
of the motion which was announced. (" No, no.") I
presume the hon. member who made this motion will not
get up and declare that his object in proposing to adjourn
the debate sine die was to get rid of the bill altogether. The
fact is, that this motion for the adjournment of the debate
was substituted for the motion of which notice was given,
that the English bill should be postponed till after the Irish
and Scotch had been advanced a stage. The hon. and
learned gentleman undesignedly showed forcible reasons
why such a course would be impossible. He said the dis-
franchisement is in the English bill, and is to form the
foundation for the enfranchisement in the Irish and Scotch
bills. Consequently, you must pass the English bill before
you can get the materials with which to endow Ireland
and Scotland. (Hear.) The course recommended by hon.
gentlemen opposite is, therefore, palpably impossible and
absurd, and the course we propose is the only one we can
with propriety pnrime. I say again, Ido trust the house
will seriously consider the position which this question now
occupies, and the attitude which parties on both sides of
the house have assumed in regard to it. Is the house pre-
pare! to affirm that there shall be no reform in the repre-
sentation of the people ? I do not ask gentlemen on this side
of the house—l know that they will never answer, "No,"
'—but I ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether, after all
that has passed when their leaders were in office, they will
venture to affirm that there shall be no reform in the re-
presentation of the people ? It is impossible. If, then, it be
impossible, on what ground is it that they refuse to allow
the house to go into the consideration of the bill which we
have proposed ? I say, every argument they have used,
every fact that stands recorded as to their conduct when
their leaders were in office, compels them in consistency
to go into committee. It is only in committee that they
can establish those objections which liave been so
strongly urged by every one who has spoken on the op-
posite side of the house to the details of the bill.
We have told them we are ready to consider the details,
and if the house agrees to any modification of these details
consistent with the principles on which this bill is founded,
we do not say that we shall not be prepared to submit to the
decision of the house. But there are certain fundamental
principles in the bill which we could not consent to have
infringed, because that would destroy the measure altoge-
ther. One main principle of the bill is the reduction of the
borough franchise. (Hear.) If hon. gentlemen opposite are
prepared to move that there should be no reduction of the
borough franchise, they can do so. If they choose to say we
refuse to go into committee and discuss the details of the
bill when we object to its principles—we adhere to the prin-
ciple of Lord Derby's bill, that there should be no change
in the rental qualification for the borough franchise ; if hon.
gentlemen opposite would say that plainly and distinctly,
then they would be pursuing a fair, manly, and intelligible
course of proceeding. But they do not, they cannot take
that course, because their leader and others who stand high
inthe estimation of the party have pledged themselves to a
reduction of the franchise. Two distinguished members of
the late Government quitted their colleagues because, I be-
lieve, they were in favour of a reduction, of the borough
franchise, while the rest were against it. Well, then, if
hon. gentlemen are not prepared to throw the bill out alto-
gether on its merits and on the principles which A em-
bodies, I say they are acting a part utterly unworthy of a
great political party when they endeavour by delay to pre-
vent the house from going into the consideration of a bill
the importance of which they themselves when in office
have admitted, the expediency of which when in office
they have acknowledged and acted upon, the principle
of which they no longer contest, and the details of which
form the only ground of their objection. I say that
upon every principle which ought to guide states-
men, upon every principle which ought to guide the
conduct of a political party, they are bound to go into the
'consideration of this bill in committee and there urge those
‘-‘ieetions to the details of the measure which, no doubt,
"onsistently and sincerely entertain. (Hear, hear.)
they s.
of year such as to make this impossible ? It is
Is the timb
thlater, no doubt, .an it might have been. (A laugh.) If
manly principles which
they had acted on tii..lse fair and
political arty, there
rY t , there might have
ought to guide a great
the conduct of a party
been more time to spare. Is of the property
this --
which claims to represent the grew:
of the corn-
n I saysuch
a
that the- fair, the proper, and the manly course for
and intelligence of the country—that portio
party to have followed was either to have said at once
" Your bill is one to the principle of which we can never
agree, and therefore we object to the second reading ;" or,
if they did not entertain that opinion, to
,have said—" The
principle of your bill is one to which we cannot object, but
to the details we do object; the franchise is too low; it will
introduce too large a proportion of the democratic element
into the constituencies, but as that is a question to be con
sidered in committee, we will go at once into committee and
endeavour to enforce our objections and establish our
opinions." (Hear.) But such a party should not under the
shadow of a pretence of discussing without dividing obstruct
the whole of the great business of the country and prevent
those measures being carried which the hon. and learned
gentleman says are so important, and some of which, in
spite of all these delays, I hope, we shall be able to carry
before the session is concluded. (Cheers.) That is the
course which such a party, having a due respect to its posi-
tion, and a due regard to the interests of the country, should
have followed, (tioar,tear.) A gafAina Ili br9us4t ftrward

at 4 o'clock in the afternoon to prevent discussion, which
those who moved the adjournment seem, nevertheless, pre-

pared t-1 bring on; and I hope that the House, by rejecting
that motion, will affirm that this bill ought to proceed—
(cheers)—that they are prepared to go intocommittee, that
they are prepared in committee to hear, to discuss, and to
consider all objections which can be fairly and bona fide
made to the details of the bill, and this house will not,
under the ill-founded apprehension of two dissolutions,
which is entertained on the other side, or under the appre-

hension of a premature dissolution, be diverted from the
straight path of public duty, but before the house separates,
come to a vote which will show, one way or the other, what

is the opinion of the honsuwith regard to the measure be•

fore it. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI.—I can congratulate the noble lord on
the first speech which he has made on the Reform Bill
(cheers), and I am not at all surprised that he should have
fallen into some remarkable errors when speaking on the

subject, because I think that hitherto he has taken less in-
terest than might have been anticipated from a Minister so

peculiarly responsible for the introduction of this measure.
It is only because the noble lord has not until this night
taken that'part in the debates, that I can at all account for
that total misconception of the business of the house with
respect to this measure for the last three months which has
characterised every statement of the noble lord. (Cheers.)
What is the complaint of the noble lord ? The noble lord
does not deny that the business of the house with regard
to the measure has been carried on in a most unsatisfac-

tory manner. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord does not
deny that we are advanced in the month of June, and
have not yet arrived at committee on this bill. The
noble lord is astonished at the position in which his
Government is placed with respect to this measure, and

then the noble lord•—with great precipitation and Brea'
rashness, as I think I shall show to the house—falls to
scolding the house, and says the delay which he has
experienced has been unreasonable, unconstitutional, and
irrational. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Not being suffi-
ciently acquainted with the conduct of this measure, which
has been left to ethers, the noble lord thinks of course that
the delay has been occasioned entirely by the Opposi-
tion. Why, it was only on Monday last that the Govern-
ment proposed to go into committee. (Cheers.) Here we
are discussing the question upon Thursday, and the noble
lord accounts for the little progress which the measure has
made by the vexatious delays experienced, when it is on
the records of this house that the Government themselves,
having the management of the business of the house, hav-
ing generally all the days which are usually devoted to
private members entirely at its disposal, only last Monday
proposed to go into committee. (Cheers.) But before the
appointment of last Monday let us see what was the con-
duct of this house, What was the conduct of this factious
opposition seeking every delay and opposing to this consti-
tutional proposition of the Minister all the devices which the
forms of the house will permit to prevent the progress of a
measure, of which the noble lord is so enamoured ? Does
the noble lord complain that the second reading was not op-
posed ? (Cheers.) Is that a sign of faction ? Is that a
means of delay ? (Cheers and counter-cheers.) Does the
noble lord complain that upon so important a measure—
edmitting, as he says we eo, the principle of this bill, the
house—not the Opposition merely—should have taken that
constitutional and solemn occasion to discuss what may
be the consequences of the application of that principle in
its various details, as they occurred to them in the course of
that discussion ? Was a debate of five days' length so
unreasonable ? Was that a space of time so unusual
for a discussion' upon such a subject that the
noble lord is justified in turning round upon the
house and accusing it of delay ? (Several hon. Members.
—Six days.) Whether five or six days, who
are responsible for the length of that discussion ? (Cheers.)
Is it the Opposition? I think it was stated, and correctly
stated, that in numbers, and, I believe, also in length, the
majority of speeches were mado by the supporters of the
noble lord. (Cheers.) The noble lord turns round and says,
that there is only one question to ask, " Are you in favour
of a Reform Bill or not ?" I say that if the noble lord wants
information upon that subject, I recommend him to apply
that inquiry to the hon. member for the city of Edinburgh.
(Cheers.) Let the noble lord ask him whether he is in fa-
vour of a Reform Bill. He sits in immediate vicinity and
is in close political contiguity and sympathy with the noble
lord. (Hear, hear.) For all I know he sits behind the noble
lord, and he can ask the question in a whisper. (Laughter.)
If the noble lord is not satisfied with the opinion of the re-
presentative of that enlightened capital, the modern Athens,
let him ask the member for Bristol what is his opinion, and
whether he is in favour of the Government Reform Bill.
(Cheers.) And if the 'hon. member for Bristol in polite con-
versation indulges in that invective and sarcasm for which
he is publicly distinguished, I would recommend the noble
lard to address his inquiry to a graver mind—to the hon.
gentleman who must share his confidence, because he owes
to his patronage his exalted post—the member for Salford.
(Loud cheers.) Let him ask the member for Salford whether
he is in favour of Parliamentary Reform. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord may address this question to a number of gentle-
men on his side of the house. Here, perhaps, we have taken
refuge in more general views. Wi have stated some large
constitutional objections to the course adopted by the noble
lord and his colleagues. But, for minute criticism—for vigi-
lant eaptiousness, for a degree of devotion to details which
appear to be prompted by a sentiment of personal panic, I
should say that the great Liberalparty were mcre
guished than the gentlemen who sit on the Opposition benches
(Loud cheers.) Parliament mgt early. For a whole fort-
night nothing was done. Why was not the Reform Bill
introduced ? (Hear, hear.) I have shown the house that
when the second reading took place the duration of the
debate was not unusual, and was, indeed, becoming a
theme of great importance. I have shown that the greater
portion of that debate, and the portion most opposite to the
merits of the bill, came from the Ministerial benches and
from the habitual supporters of the Government. (Cheers.)
I have shown that when that debate was closed the Govern-
ment did not propose to go into committee until last Mon-
day, the 4th of June—(cheers)—and now I ask the house
and the country whether, under these circumstances, and
in this state of affairs, the. Minister is justified in the asser-
tions which he has made this evening, and the tone which
he has adopted upon the subject ? (Cheers.) But is this
all ? Not a tithe of the case. The noble lord says we did
not oppose even the second reading of the measure, but
that we took other means to protract discussion and pro-
voke opposition. What means ? I deny the charge.
(Cheers.) Look at the records of the house, and examine
those who are the authors of the amendments to the motion
that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair. Where do they sit ?
(Hear, hear.) Who are the members who have suggested
amendments by which this measure might be arrested and
ultimately defeated ? I need not refer again to the hon.
and much respected gentleman who gave notice of the
motion for referring the Reform Bill to a select committee,
a motion the nature of which very much fluttered the
noble lord the member for the city of London, but
which lit up the countenances of many members of the
party opposite with an air of relief , that was
sparkling and encouraging to all who beheld them.
(Cheers and laughter.) But what is the state of the
house at this moment ? It is true there has been an
amendment to the motion that the Speaker do leave the
chair; but who has made it? Is pit a Conservative Minis-
ter who is to be held responsible for all the delays that have
taken place, and whose conduct is to be the excuse for the
clumsy and unsatisfactory manner in which this bill has
been conducted ? (Hear, hear.) Ido not share the confi-
dence of the hon. gentleman who moves this, amendment ;
nor is that surprising, for he always sits behind the noble
lord, and when he, made this amendment he boasted that
he had supported the noble lord in almost every division
for many years. (Laughter.) Is it to be endured, then,
that in such circumstances, instead of turning round to the
hon. member for Edinburgh, the hon. member for Bristol,
and the. author of this amendment, the noble lord, in total
ignorance of what has been going on in the house—(laugh-
ter)—like one just awakened from those rosy slumbers into
which he always falls when the subject of reform is before
j the house--(great laughter)—reminding us of the Ephesian
'deeper—awakes from his dream, exclaiming " God bless

my soul, what's all this ? Are we going into committee on
the Reform Bill, and are we thus beset with vicious, fac •
tious motions for delay ?" (Laughter.) And then the noble
lord denounces the factious and unconstitutional conduct of
the party opposite to him, while all the time the noble lord's
intimate friends and supporters are the parties of whom he
should complain. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord,
inignorance of all the warnings so solemnly given, of all
the. predictions put forth, and in defiance of all the calcula- .
tons that havebeen made, comes forward on this the 7th of
June for the first time, and condescends to say a word, I
will not say in favour of, but about the Reform Bill. (Laugh-
ter.) But let us see what we are doing this evening ? The
noble lord was clearly in error as to all that took place this
evening. lam not surprised at it,' as the noble lord was
net here, having been present, probably, in a more brilliant
scene. (Laughter.) I would recommend to the noble lord
that in future he should adhere to the salutary rule that has
regulated his Parliamentary conduct throughout the session,
and not venture again to speak either about the Reform Bill
cr the proceedings in this house with regard to it— (laughter)
—because he has entirely misrepresented the motion of my
hon. friend behind me—(no, no !), who, in a speech of great
spirit and intelligence, introduced the subject before us to-
night, and who was led to take the particular course which
he did ta:.ce in consequence of an intimation from the chair
that it was :lot competent for him to propose another motion
of which he .Z,ad given notice. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
•geni2eman, belie Ying that he was following the proper Par-
liamentary course, oade the motion which is now before us.
But let me say one w,•rd as to what the noble lord has at
some length urged abort:" the alleged opposition and criti-
cism of this bill by the house. Hitherto there has been no
opposition, but there ought it) be no criticism on this mea-
sure, says the noble lord, becato we are all agreed in prin-
ciple, and therefore discussion except in committee is not to
be tolerated. (Hear, hear.) What does the noble lord mean
by saying we are all agreed in principle.? for it is desirable
to have a true conception of the use of the term. The noble
lord says that before the Government of Lord Derby there
were two parties —one tor and one 'against reform, and that
he says was a convenient system. No doubt it was a con-
venient system, for the Liberal party-in opposition always
constructed and organised themselves on the principle of
Parliamentary reform:-, but when they got into officenothiag
was ever done, (Hear.) The question was left 9Peuto any IA"