The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-12 00:00:00

THE SUN,' LONDON, TtitSDAYMtVgNING, JUNEtiI, 1861

Under tt Lese circumstances, with great satisfaction, he would
irithdrre w his amendment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I think, sir, that her Majesty's Go-
vemra( nit have taken a wise and not undignified course to.
night. (Hear.) It was much better, under the circumstances
in whiich the house finds itself in regard to the progress of
public business, that the Government should make up its
mind to adopt the course now proposed rather than have
allowed the house to go into committee and have wasted
more valuable time without coming to any satisfactory re •
suit. The Government would only have prevented what
they will now find themselves able to do, viz., carry on the
business of the house with more rapidity and with greater
unanimity on both sides. I would not have touched upon
the Reform Bill now about to be withdrawn had not
the noble lord made some allusions to this side of the
house which I cannot readily pass by. (Hear, hear.)
But I beg the noble lord and the house to recollect that if
this bill is withdrawn it is not from any successful opposi-
tion, or any opposition of any kind—(oh, oh)—any op-
position of any 'kind which has been offered to a real
bona fide amendment of the representation of the people.
(Laughter.) The bill has not succeeded because the, Go-
vernment has this year been encumbered with an immense
mass of public business of a character which rendered it
impossible for any Government in the face of it to carry a
bill like the Reform Bill through the house; and, sir, as
there have been complaints on both sides of the house of
delay, I may be permitted to observe that the real cause of
the delay has been the Government undertaking matters of
such importance and encumbered with such details that it
became physically and morally impossible to carry the
measure which they have now so wisely. withdrawn. Of
course, in the heat of debate, some imputations have been
dealt out on both sides ; but I am new saying that which I
take literally to be the state of the case, becatre I believe it
would have been impossible for the Government to have
carried on the business of the country had they persisted
with this measure. The Government had other engage-
ments which rendered the further progress of the bill im-
possible. I shall not enter in detail into the policy of the
noble lord's bill ; but with reference to the principle laid
down by the noble lord, as to the necessity of the admission
of the working classes in some degree to the franchise, I
would remind the house that that has never been a subject
of controversy. What we have disputed has been the
means of carrying out that object; and as far as I can read
the public opinion or follow the course of intellectual inves-
tigation, I cannot help thinking that before the house is
again called upon to consider this question, means more
satisfactory for settling the question will be found than what
I may be permitted to call the coarse and vulgar expedient
of the degradation of the ffanchise. (Opposition cheers.) I
would therefore say, on the part of the gentlemen on this
side of the house, that while they see with perfect approba-
tion the course which the Government has taken with re-
gard to this measure, we also conceive that they acted in a
spirit of perfect honour and propriety to the house. We give
them credit for being actuated by a sincere desire for the
public welfare, and an anxiety for the public service, and I
can assure them that they may expect from this side of the
house every help and assistance in carrying on the public
business, and that consideration which is due to a Govern-
ment, and especially to the noble lord, who has sacrificed
much that was dear, and honourably dear, to many of its
members. (Hear, hear.) Before I sit down I have to ask the
indulgence of the house for a few moments, while I explain
a personal matter. If it merely concerned myself I should
not take this opporhinity of alluding to it ; but it concerns
the feelings of another hon. member, and it concerns mat-
ters which are generally interesting to all members of this
house. The hon. member for Birmingham stated the other
night that
.I had entered into a compact with some one on
his side of the house to introduce a Reform Bill something
like his own, that was to say one with under a £lO franchise.
The statement circulated very freely, but like others in
which I have been concerned, I did not think it necessary
to take any notice of it, but when the hon. member for Bir-
mingham was about to found an argument on it, I took the
liberty of interrupting him and informing him that he la-
boured under a complete misapprehension. It appears that
the gentleman whose' name had. been mentioned, and who
was not in hisplace when I interrupted the hon. member,
was under the impression that I stated I had had no com-
munication whatever with him, and that the whole state-
ment was unfounded. I should be glad at all times to re-
move a false impression; and as this is probably the last time
we shall this year have anything about Parliamentary Am-
form (a laugh), I trust I shall be allowed a few moments
whilst I clear away this one, which intimately concerns the
relations betweenthe individual who for the time being may
have the leadership of this house and its other members,
upon which ever side of the house they may sit. When I
was in that position it was often my duty, as well as plea-
sure, to be of service to gentlemen on both sides, and I see
a great many gentlemen on the benches opposite with whom
I have often been in communication, and I trust they will
admit that on all occasions they received from me every
possible courtesy. (Hear, hear.) Amongst others, I re.
ceived more than one visit in Downing-street from the gen-
tleman who now represents Sunderland. It was no secret
appointment ; he can:o to me on a subject of great impor-
tance, and I may say that he came to me because I was
leader of the house--that was the fact. I did what I could
for him in the matter respecting which he came, which
was of the greatest importance, referring, as it did, to con-
traband of war, at a time when hostilities had just com-
menced between France and Austria. Now, it so hap-
pened that when he came a newspaper was lying on the
table which contained an official, that is to say an opposi-
i'ion official announcement, that a vote of want of confi-
deuce was about to be proposed against her Majesty's Go-
vernment on the ground that they were throwing over par-
liamentary reform, and should therefore be opposed by all
conscientious reformers. Well, the hon. member for Sun-
derland called my attention to this paragraph, and said that
for his part he did not agree with the proposed motion, nor
did he believe that a vote of want of confidence was one
that the house would agree to. He added that there were
a great many independent members on his side of the house
who did not approve of it any more than he did, and when
he spoke to me I cannot say that there was anything con-
fidential in our communications, but with just so much dis-
cretion as prevented their degenerating into gossip, I
replied to him, as I always speak to gentlemen every
night, in that spirit of free and candid intercourse
which I trust will always exist amongst mem •
hers, of this house, who will never forget that they are
not only members of parties, but also an assembly of gentle-
men ; and I said that if he meant there was to be a vote of
want of confidence because there was not to be a Reform
Bill that session, there might be, but that it was not our in-
tention finally to throwover the measure. On a subsequent
occasion the hon. member said to me, "Ic in assure you
there is a feeling of great dissatififaction on the part of a
great many members of the house ; and that if you can only
say that Government isnot going to throw overthe measure,
but mean to deal with it another time, such declaration
-would have an exceedingly good effect." I replied that it
was totally impssible for me, or any Minister, to say, ex-
cept in Parliament, what was to be the policy of Govern-
ment—that the policy of Government must be stated in my
place in Parliament; but this I added, " You may depend
upon it we do net mean to bring forward another Reform
Bill this year ; nor are we going to reject the measure alto-
gether. We do not consider ourselves bound by the bill
which the house has rejected, but hope still to deal with
the question in a satisfactory manner, an as you say many
members of .the house want to be satisfied before they
vote want of confidence as to what is to be our course, you
may take it for granted that before the vote is come to I will
state what would be our course of policy, so that nobody
shall vote in ignorance." I believe that the hon. member
for Sunderland had confidence in what I stated, snd I can-
not understand what imputation could be cast on his hon-
our for wishing to have a clear understanding on so im-
portant a subject. He was not the only Liberal member to

whom we were often indebted whilst in office for a candid
and liberal support. There can be nb doubt but that 'he

texertel himself amongst his friends ; and as to what
took place between him and me, it was only what may.
take place between persons similarly situated every day.
I think that the conduct of the hon. member for
Sunderland was perfectly parliamentary, honourable, and
straightforward. I stated that in a letter, when he was
attacked last year; but as the matter has now been brought
under the notice of Parliament, I thought I would take this
notice of it in my place. I take it for granted that the feel-
ing of the house in such matters is the same as my own,
and that there is no desire to put a bar against frequent
communication between the leader of this house and the
members on either side. They do not, I trust, mean to
sanction it as a rule that the leader of the house for the
time being is to treat all members who may be politically
opposed to him with the greatest reverence, pr to look upon
the conduct of the hon. member for Sunderland as any-
thing:hat proper and parliamentary. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT—The right hon. gentleman has referred
to a matter which he mentioned in his speech the other
night, but the right hon. gentleman will remember that I
did
not introduce the topic for the purpose of attacking
either him or the hon. member for Sunderland. My objectb
Was merely to show the right hon. gentleman that when his
party was •
m power they contemplated an extension of the
it
was
understood suffrage the admission of 500,000 new voters. I
also said
that he had intimated to a gentleman on
this side df the house that he was willing to go as far as the
bill we are now discussing.
ghtlao I merely wished to show how
consistent the ri
lgeentleman was then, and I can
only lament hew
consistent is his conduct this
year. But leaving this matter aside, which after all is not
of very-great importance— eauarn)—the noble lord the mem-
ber for London has made aynsurpriouncement which possibly
has not taken the house b
and
eisc•-whnerdeiftlerent quarters of
but which will be re-
ceived with very different feelings
ho a it will be
the house. Down here,
received with deep regret. (Loud cries oi
I do not rise for the purpose of blaming theanT'obhleearlOrdEfuort
the course he has taken, or the Government for having
curred with him. I know that this house is note
sthp
ee
eciba -t
place in the world for getting through business,
when nearly half its members do not like the business at
all. The right hon. gentleman wishes it to be believed that
during what occurred in the last few weeks neither he nor
his friends offered any opposition. That was a daring
statement, seeing what we have seen of late in this house.
(Cheers.) There has certainly been a great deal of adroit-
ness in the oppucition. Some gentlemen opposite first

placed the census objection on the paper, when a member
on this side, not wishing to be defrauded of—l will not say
an act of wisdom which thirty years ago he had been unwise
enough to originate. The moment that the member for
Rye put his notice on the paper, the member for Berwick
was so hustled, and bullied, and coaxed, that finally he was
obliged to withdraw his notice. (Laughter.) Somehow or
other it was managed that the amendment should be moved
by the hon. member for Rye, bnt the gentlemen opposite
brought down all their forces to support him, and then they
turn round and say, " It's all the fault of the hon. member
for Rye." Why, the • hon. member for Rye never carried
anything in this house down to the present moment.
(Laughter, and cries of" Smoke.") No, he did not carry
even that; his efforts all ended in a bottle of the offensive
article. (Laughter.) On the contrary, I venture to assert
that when it was known that the hon. member for Rye had
determined to oppose, it added greatly to the chances of
success for the Ministerial measure in the estimation of
all shrewd calculators. (Continued laUghter.) But the
right hon. gentleman opposite says, that as to the question
of improving the political condition of the working classes
there is no difference of opinion, only that he does not want
what he is pleased to call a coarse and vulgar method of
enfranchisement. The public, however, will judge the
right hon. gentleman and his friends from the fact that
from no supporter of the bill has come the abuse of that
class of the people who live in houses of under £lO annual
value. Therefore, although the right hon. gentleman says
he is on a par with the noble lord, all people out of doors
will conclude that there is a wide gulf between the noble
lord, who expresses confidence in the working classes, and
the right hon. gentleman's friends, who say that to enlarge
thejranchise would be to hand it ever to poverty and pas-
sion, and leaving us as the alternative of government only
the choice between debauchery and crime. (Hear, hear.)
But I suppose that, like a tree or an orchard, we cannot ex-
pect more than a given harvest in a given season, and that
we must rest satisfied with what has already been done this
year. Looking backwards, however, to the course of this
session, I think that people out of doors will be greatly dis-
satisfied with the course which has been taken to-night. I
am dissatisfied—and I trust I may say that no one has de-
voted more time or more labour to the furtherance of re-
form, or has looked forward to its success with more en-
thusiasm—l am disappointed ; and if I do not assail the
Government it is because I feel that it would be unjust
to attack them for difficulties for which they are not en-
tirely responsible, and to denounce them for not doing
that which they found themselves wholly unable to do.
But, on looking back over the session, we shall find that it
has not been a session altogether without result. We hay e
cleared away 400 obstAcles to ;the industry of this country
by the reformation we have effected in the tariff. (Hear.)
I say that that is a matter of great consequence; that a
few years ago it would have marked the session in which
it took place as a great session, and would have ren-
dered almost immortal the reputation of the Minister who
effected it. But we have had more, we have had the
treaty with France. (Cheers, dissent, and cries of " Ques-
tion," from the Opp sition.) Gentlemen opposite will by
and by believe that treaty to be a desirable instrument,
as I believe it to be. Perhaps I may be allowed to make I
one or two observations respecting that treaty. There has
been a studied attempt in this house, in another place, and
in at least one influential journal, to represent that there is
no good faith at Paris, that nothing has been done, and that
all the enthusiasm which has been raised throughout the
country has been so much enthusiasm thrown away. Now
I beg to refer them to the authority of gentlemen who have
just returned from Paris; indeed I could refer them to
higher authority to show that nothing could exceed the good
faith and honour of the French Government, and that the
French Ministers are endeavouring earnestly to carry out
the details of the treaty. I have the best reason for be-
lieving that the duties levied on British goods will be much
below the maximum, and I have the authority which is in
the world best qualified to express a reliable opinion for
saying that the convention will, when completed, exceed
the most sanguine expectation of its friends. (Cheers.) I
do not know whether hon. gentlemen opposite consider.this
night to be a night of triumph. I do not see much exulta-
tion, and I think that many of them would have preferred
to have had this bill fairly considered and in the main
passed. (Considerable cheering from the Opposition.) I
do not think they have been much terrified by the exagge-
rated colours inwhich the working classes have been painted,
and I fully expect that between this and next winter they
will rather regret that the bill has not been passed. (Hear,
hear.) The bill was a moderate one, a very reasonable
one. (Loud cries of "hear, hear," from both sides of the
house.) When you first heard it described 'you all thought
so. (General cries of " Yes," one or two Noes.") Yes, I
undertake to say that you have been much encouraged in
your opposition by the conduct of a few gentlemen on this
side of the house. (Hear, hear.) I am told that there are
same here who think it time we should have a sound Whig
Government, from which all foreign element should be
eliminated, meaning, of course, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and my right hon. friend the President of the
Board of Trade. Now, allow me to tell these gentlemen
that a sound Whig Government, chosen in the old Whig
manner, is just as extinct an animal as that often described
bird the dodo, (Loud laughter.) You may see some re-
mains of it, as Professor Owen can show you the head, and
I suppose a foot, but you will never see that sort of govern-
ment again, in my opinion—(laughter)—and 'really if we
are to sit on one side and call ourselves a liberal party I
think the sooner we get rid of these old party definitions
the better—(hear, hear)—and we should endeavour in the
conduct of affairs in Parliament to act rather in a more in-
genuous and more open and fair manner to the Government
of the country than has been' done by some of those who
call themselves the followers of the Whig party. (Hear,
hear.) Then I say that although hon. gentlemen opposite
do not appear to exult, I think I see reason to exult that
this bill has been withdrawn rather than that it should have
gone into committee and been mangled so that its authors
would hardly have known it. It would not have settled the
question, and it would have been no advantage to the coun-
try to pass it. I have said over and over againthat I believe
it is not worth while doing anything upon this question un-
less you do so much as Wl:flake a substantial change in the
direction which so many of your countrymen wish, and
such as shall leave men no strong excuse for, at an early
period, asking you to proceed further. That is my policy
with regard to this question, and I think you will admit it
is a wise policy. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I am very glad
the Government have proposed to withdraw the bill rather
than that they should have gone into committee and sub-
mitted to have a £6 franchise made into an £8
franchise, which would in my opinion appear the most
childish, and to the great body of the working classes to
whom you are making some advances would have been one
of the most pernicious and insulting offers that Parliament
could have made. (Hear.) The noble lord the member
for the City of London has referred to some of the ques-
tions which are coming on, but there is one to which he
has not referred, and that is one affecting the conduct of
this house with regard to its control over the taxation of
the country. Now, I hope that if the House of Commons
determines that this session will have no measure of reform
for itself, that at least it will not allow anything to be done
that shall impair its powers and alter its inherent right
over the taxation and finances of this kingdom. (Cheers )
I hope that if we are about to shut out the people, we shall
not consent to let in the peers. (Renewed cheers.) I hope
that the course you take with regard to this bill is not an
indication that you are willing in any degree to let down
the character and power of this house with regard to those
questions on which the pUblic look up to you, and have
done for generations and centuries, more necessarily than
to either of the other branches of the State. The noble
lord, as I understand, has given a pledge that at an early
period whether in November—(oh, oh)—or in February—
(oh)—that is, at the first time when Parliament shall
meet, that the Government of which he is a member
will again introduce a measure to amend the representation
of the people. Now, I am of opinion that this determination,
and the discussions which have taken place; will breed
throughout the country much thought upon this question
and probably may produce some healthy action. (Hear,
hear.) I hope that during the winter—between this time
and the time when we shall meet again—such of us as may
meet again—that there will be expressed throughout the
country a firm and wise opinion with regard to the course
which Parliament should take in the coming session.
(Hear, hear.) Why should not hon. members opposite en-
tertain more liberal views ? (A laugh.) An hon. gentle-
man near the gangway laughed, but if this were the time, I
could easily show him that all our legislation of which we
have reason to be proud during his life and mine—legisla-
tion according to what we term liberal views—(cheers)—has
been opposed by the party with which he is connected—
(cries of a No, no," and " Hear")—and has been supported
uniformly by the party with which I am connected. (Cheers.)
Well, if it be be so in the past, why not so in the future ?
(Hear.) We may be as right in these questions as on those
previous questions. Look at the condition of our people.
That great measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has passed this year—the reform of the tariff—is but a por-
tion of the great work that has been going on for 20 years
—(hear, hear)—and yet I will undertake to say that that
great work, completed within 20 years, has done much for
the people and poor of England in giving them the comforts
of life and some taste of independence. (Cheers.) I saythat
this has done more than all the party contests, party
triumphs, bloody wars, extensive conquests, martial renown
and historical glories you have had for more than a century
past. (Loud cheers.) Now what I want is that the house
should always consider the great body of the people. The
peers, the rich, the powerful, can always take care of them-
selves and never suffer, unless it may be for a tithe, in
great political convulsions, which we all hope may never
visit our country. Look at the condition of the great body
of the people—their intelligence, their morality, and their
independence—and you find written in characters which
you cannot mistake the real truth with regard to the go-
vernment under which they live. (Hear, hear.) I say then
that the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
is one laden with blessings to the great body of the people
—(cheers)—and if the House of Commons would at the same
time, whilst so much good physically was being conferred
upon them—if in the same session it could have shown its
confidence in them by offering them this moderate extension
of. the suffrage which the noble lord proposed, I think it
wouldtult have been said in after times that there had been no
t
sessionotfhtheeaPooadrliitarin
ad given
of Enoiand comparable to that of
1860 l
for
given to the people, and tor the

binding effect which its legislation had had between the
great body of the people and the three estates of the realm.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE begged to say, whatever had been

he course pursued by other hon. members, he for one had

never given his approval to the bill of the Government for
the amendment of the representation of the people. He re-
joiced in the course taken on the Opposition Side of the
house in carefully discussing the provisions of the bill on
the second reading. In wishing to reduce the county fran-
chise to £lO, the hon. member for Birmingham's sole ob-
ject was to keep the majority of the people subject to an in-
adequate representation—to declare them represented by
the peers, and then, it the peers exercised an undoubted
privilege with respect to taxation, the hon. member assailed
them most bitterly. Theghon. gentleman (Mr. Bright) had
said the hon. member for Rye had never carried any mea-
sure in that house. The hon. member for Rye certainly
never prepared a reform bill, and also maps illustrating its
working, or had circulated such a measure throughout the
country, and then when the question of reform came before
the house, had failed to submit the bill so prepared to the
consideration of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) His object in
rising, however, was to declare that if the county franchise
was reduced in the manner proposed by the present bill or
to any great extent, the county constituencies would never
rest satisfied with the inadequate representation at present
allotted to them, but would insist upon the right of the
majority of the people to a larger portion of representation
in Tanliament. (Hear.)

Mr. E. JAMES said he must confess that the speech
made by the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks
contrasted very gracefully end strongly with the speech
made by the noble lord at the head of the Government on
the occasion of the right hon. gentleman introducing his
Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord (Lord Pal-
merston) had said that the then Government should not
withdraw their Reform Bill, and that they were bound to
proceed with the bill, for they had taken the Government
with all its engagements. (Hear.) He did not wish to
make any comment on the funeral oration on the fall of the
bill which had been spoken by the noble lord the member
for the City of London, but if the bill should want an epi-
taph to be inscribed on the stone where it lay, there was
one he remembered reading in the elegant extracts when
he was a boy :
" If so soon that I am done for,
I wonder what I was begun for."
(Laughter.) He thought the Fires would form a very apt
inscription in memoriam on this short-lived child. (Renewed
laughter.) The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was told very
early in the present year by some hon. members that the
introduction of the bill would be its certain destruction
during the session. He thought that Ministers had in-
curred a very serious responsibility by its withdrawal.
(Hear.) In justice to hon. members on the Opposition
benches it might be said that the bill had been introduced
in such a form—was such a mere skeleton of a constitul
tional measure—that in bringing forward amendments they
could not fairly be charged with obstructive and unneces-
sary delays. There was no registration provided by the
bill, although the bill of the right hon. gentleman the
member for Bucks contained clauses of registration. He
(Mr. James) had called the attention of the Government
to the fact, and the answer he received was cold, official,
bureaucratic, whigocratic—(a laugh)—it was that at the
proper time, the Government would introduce another mea-
sure to provide for registration. After that answer he saw
at once the bill could not possibly pass. (Hear, heer.) If
the measure had passed in August there would have been
no election until 80, and if a dissolution had taken place
afterwards, they would have had twenty-five seats disfran-
chised without any member being returned for the new con-
stituencies. He could not consider the taking the census
was any ground for postponing the bill. The Go: eminent
had taken ipon themselves a serious responsibility in with-
drawing it. If they had followed his advice with regard to
registration—advice which was given out of pure benevo-
lence—(laughter)—and then had had the courage and
energy to go on with the measure, he felt sure it might
have been carried. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. D. GRIFFITH contended that hitherto the subject
of electoral reform had not been treated in a general and
comprehensive way. They had never had, at any period,
so favourable an opportunity as the present one for the in-
troduction of a real Reform Bill. But the noble lord had
not been consistent in the principles upon which he had at
various times attempted to deal with the question. In 1852
he had introduced a bill founded upon very different prin-
ciples to those which were adopted in 1832, announcing
that the disfranchisement of existing constituencies should
no longer form part of his plan, but when in 1854 he again
approached the question, he had proposed another measure
of disfranchisement. If the principle of 1852 was good,
how was it that the noble lord abandoned it in 1854 ?
and how was it that the great authority upon reform,
who introduced a large and comprehensive measure in
1854, could ask the confidence of the house and country
when he produced a measure so limited and faulty as
that which was now to be withdrawn ? No one would
deny that the house represented every section of pub-
lic opinion, and there being no pressing grievance to
remedy, he thought they might take time for full
and fair consideration before legislating upon the subject
of Parliamentary reform. What the noble lord had this
year proposed was an extension of the franchise without
any check whatever,
-and he (Mr. Griffith) contended that
in any extension of the suffrage to the working classes they
ought to provide an equivalent compensation to the upper
classes.
Lord FERMQY said in the very few sentences which he
wished to address to the house he should ni,t attempt to
follow the previous speaker, nor should he follow the right
hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition, upon the
question between himself and the hon. member for Sunder-
land, nor did he mean to follow the hon. member for Bir-
mingham in his discussion of the sincerity of the Emperor
of the French, the advantages of the French treaty, and the
merits of the budget which had been altered in another
place, but should confine his observations to the immediate
question before the house—the withdrawal of the Reform
Bill by the noble lord. But the character of public men
and political parties ought to be dear to every member of
the house, and he must say he heard the announcement
which had been made that evening with feelings of dis-
appointment—nay, with feelings of dismay, because if
ever there was a Government, and if ever there was a
House of Commons, whose only mission appeared to be
to carry a Reform Bill for England, they were her Ma-
jesty's present Government and the present House of
Commons. (Hear, hear.) He had not been able to dis-
cern in any of the reasons given by the noble lord any
goad and sufficient ground for the withdrawal of the bill.
What had been the history of the government with regard
to this question of reform ? They came into power on the
express and clear understanding that they were the only
parties in the country who were willing and at the same
time able to carry a reform bill through that house of par-
'lament, and that—and that alone—was the ground upon
which they entered office. Now the noble lord gave as his
first reason for withdrawing the bill the time of the session
at which they had arrived ; the next ground was the Chi-
nese war and the necessity of voting the estimates for car-
rying it on ; then he gave as a reason the state of the na-
tional defences; and finally, he wound up by implying—
more than saying—that there was a want of enthusiasm in
the country which compelled him to withdraw it. (Hear,
hear.) Now, with regard to the late period of the session,
whose fault was it that they had arrived at the month of
June without the bill having got into committee ? (Opposi-
tion cheers, met by taunter-cheering from the ministerial
bonehes.) Parliament assembled this year much earlier
than usual, as they all thought for the express purpose of
enabling the government to carry out their pledge on the
subject of reform, and he, in common with many others,
had been led to expect that the first day of the session, or
at all events before the close of the first week, the bill would
be introduced. But what took place ? On the second day
he believed it was after parliament met they were told that

the Reform Bill was not to be brought in for a month, then
it was further postponed for a fortnight, and again the bill
was not to be brought forward until an auspicious day—
that day of fair auspices being the Ist of March. (" Hear,
hear," and laughter.) Here then was a loss of two months

—(no, no)—well, of at least six weeks—and by whom was it
caused ? By the government. (Cheers from the opposition.)
The noble lord, though he had not actually said it, had
implied that the delay was owing to the hon. gentlemen
opposite. Now in candour he (Lord Fermoy) could net say
tnat any proposal or amendment hai been brought forward
by the other side of the house, which could fairly be
characterised as unanswerable on suchen important subject.
No question could possibly arise that was more likely to give
rise to long discussions and important motions than aßeforra
Bill, and hon. gentlemen opposite were perfectly justified
in giving notice of questions which they considered of mo•
ment in reference to the principle of representation on going
into committee. He must say, then, that the house was
perfectly free from any charge of wasting time, and the ar-
gument of time fell to the ground, when it was remembered
that this, which was to have been par excellence the reform,
had lost six weeks at the commencement of the session
before they brought in their bill. (Hear.) Then as to the
Chinese war and the defences of the country. He did not
see any reason why they should not provide for the Chinese
war and the defences of the country, and for a Reform Bill
also. (Hear.) At all events this was no sufficient reason
why a Gover.iment pledged to a Reform Bill, as the pre-
sent Ministry were, should abandon that pledge, seeing that
the Chinese estimates might be as well submitted, and the
defences of the country as well provided for by hon. gentle-
men opposite as by those who now filled the ministerial
benches. (Cheers.) Again, as to the want of enthusiasm con
the part of the country on the subject, the noble lord had, as
he always did on such occasions, favoured the house v
sundry chapters of constitutional history, and reminded t] Lein
that in the several cases of Catholic emancipation, the Re-
form Bill, and free trade, when the principle of those n iea-
sures was onee carried ty a majority of that house, they were
certain to triumph. He would ask the noble lord did those
measures triumph by being abandoned by their own pro-
moters ?—(Opposition cheers)—yet such was the coin': IC the
noble lord took in the present instance. How could they
expect enthusiasm in the country when the very mei 1 who
came into power for the express purpose of carryin g for-
ward a bill for improving the representation of the I?eople,
abandoned it as soon as they experienced the slightest op-
position? (Cheers.) At the same time, after the spt ech
of the noble lord on Monday night, the right hon.

man opposite was scarcely acting in the most open and
generone manner. The noble lord en that occasion made
a declaration which carried dismay to the minds of Many
members of the Liberal party ; and when he said let us
go into committee and endeavour to arrive at some sort of
a franchise, the real meaning of which was, " I am not
tied to anything; if you won't have a £6 franchise let its
agree to an £8 franchise, but let us adopt the rating test."
That was a declaration which carried dismay to the minds
of many on that side of the house, but which ought to have
induced hon. gentlemen opposite to go into committee on
the bill. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman said that he and
his party were reformers and sincere reformers; here then
was an opportunity of showing it? He would tell the right
hon. gentleman that he would never again have the chance
of getting a Reform Bill that would be so agreeable, or at
all events so little disagreeable to his party, as the present
bill. But the right hon. gentleman and his friends, instead
of accepting the offer of the noble lord, had refused to go
into committee. If he (Lord Fermoy) were the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham and desired to agitate the country, he
should be delighted that the right hon. gentleman had re-
fused that offer, and doubly delighted that the noble lord
had now withdrawn the bill. This was so settlement of the
question, notwithstanding what had been stated by the hon.
member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon) and the right hon. gentle•.
man opposite. What the people would have received this year
with gratitude they would reject next year with disdain,
The party opposite, as well as members on that side, had
1 admitted reform in Parliament to be necessary, yet they
refused to go into committee to determine how far that
reform should go—they refused to go into committee to
pledge themselves to a £6, or an £B, or any other franchise,
and to say to what extent the parliamentary institutions of
the country required reform. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Though he had not been so fortunate
as to collect the tenor of the hon. member for Devises' ob-
servations, still he gathered from their mournful tone, that,
if not a mute, the hon. gentleman was a sincere mourner
on the present solemn occasion. (A laugh.) But the hon.
member, at all events, paled in contrast to the hon. and
learned member for Marylebone, for it was evident to every
one that the hon. gentleman was somewhat of a merry
mourner, and that, differing from his noble colleague in this
respect, he did not regret the premature dissolution of the
bill. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. B. Osborne) could not agree
with the hon. and learned member, that any discredit at-
tached to the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) for giving up the
bill; and thought that the criticism of the hon. and learned
member was as unjust and ungenerous as that of his noble
colleague the other member for Marylebone. (Hear, hear.)
His noble colleague was somewhat astonished, he said, the
other night at the attack of the right hon. gentlemen oppo-
site upon the noble lord. He (Mr. Osborne) was much more
astonished to hear the attack which the noble lord the
member for Marylebone had just made on the noble lord
the Minister for Foreign Affairs—(cheers)—and he must
say he did not think the house would be disposed to endorse
the opinions of either of the members for Marylebone in the
present instance. He could not subscribe to the opinion
that the noble lord (J. Russell) was responsible for the
abandonment of the bill. (Ministerial cheers.) If respon-
sibility attached anywhere it was to the conduct of the house
inthis matter. The hon. member for Rye had got up to-night
and in a somewhat jaunty manner declared that he was the
man who killed cock robin—(cheers and laughter)—and
then he proceeded to congratulate the house on what he
called the settlement of the question. He (Mr. Osborne)
could congratulate neither the house nor the hon. gentle-
man on this settlement. (Hear.) He had come down to
hear the question put that the hon. gentleman's amend-
ment should be withdrawn. But the hon. member entered
into a history of a similar motion brought forward by him
in 1831, and which he said he brought forward because he
was a devoted and consistent follower of the noble lord's.
Now, if he mistook not, the hon. gentleman was not a de-
voted and consistent follower of the noble lord's in 1831;
but, on the contrary, voted on every occasion against the
noble lord's Reform Bill. (Cheers.) But the hon. member
was then member for Lymington, one of the boroughs in-
cluded in schedule B of that bill, and he could understand
the hon. gentleman moving under those circumstances that
the bill should be postponed until the census was taken.
He had, however, no such ground of complaint now—for
Rye was not included in the list of boroughs that would
be interfered with by this bill ; but it appeared that
the hon. gentleman was so deeply enamoured of his first
love that nothing could prevent him from interposing this
ridiculous motion. on every opportunity, though it had no
more to do with the subject than the speech of the hon.
gentleman opposite. (Cheers, and laughter.) They had
heard to-night something of the dignity and wisdom of the
proposed course. He (Mr. Osborne) considered that the
noble lord had discharged his duty with dignity, but he
very much questioned the wisdom of the house in the course
they were taking. What were they in point of fact doing?
They were doing nothing but offering a premium for out-
of 'doors agitation. (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen said that
the people were indifferent on the subject of reform—that
inhis mind vas not a theme for congratulation, forit showed
that the people had no sympathy with the present House of
Commons. (Cheers.) What were all the motions for post-
ponement—all the infAruutitnis to the committee which
' stood upon the paper—penned for, but to obstruct the bill ?
(Cheers, anti " No.") There had been no fair stand-up fight
on the question. The second reading had passed not sub
silentio—for that was impossible—for they knew the power
of talk in that house was enormous—(laughter)—but it had
passed without a fight. The bill had not been defeated, but
had been got rid of by a species of political assassination—
by administering small doses of adjournment—(hear, hear)
—and now in the month of June, the bill not having got
into committee, and there being no chance of its going into
committee if all the obstructive motions on the paper were
persisted in, the noble lord the member for Marylebone com-
plained of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary for dropping
the bill. (Hear.) The noble lord (J. Russell) had no other
course—but it became that house to consider, and to consi-
der seriously, the position in which it had placed itself—for
out, of doors he believed it would not be regarded with either
respect or credit. 'What was their position in respect to this
reform question? The right hon. gentleman, the leader of
the Opposition party, said in 1859, when speaking in sup-
port of the Reform Bill of the late Government, and depre-
cating further postponement—" that for 15 years reform
had been a Parliamentary question, and that for 10 years it
had been a Ministerial question. That five times it had been
announced as a Cabinet measure, and five times it had been
promised in the speech from the throne," and yet in 1860
they were doing what they did in 1359, defeating the Re-
form Bill by delay. He thought it was calamitous for the
party that the right hon. gentleman opposite had brought in
a reform bill at all, but having done so he regretted that it
was so summarily rejected, and thought its rejection most
unfortunate. (Opposition cheers.), He was inclined to think
that the right hon., gentleman opposite was right in the
course he took in relation to the Reform Bill and the late
Government, and that he was most unfortunate in the way
it was met by the party now in power. (Hear, hear, from
the same quarter.) But what had been the position of the
question since ? Hon. gentlemen opposite were recent con-
verts to reform—for everybody was a reformer now—the
only question was as to the pace and who should drive the
ctoach—(hear, hear, and laughter)—but hon. gentlemen
opposite by whom this measure was first brought forward,
did they even so much as hint at any opposition to the
principle of the bill ? The right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Droitwich was the first to complain, and he 'did so
very much in the spirit of Sir Fretful Plagiary. His com-
plaint was that there was nothing in the bill to complain of.
The right hon. gentleman the leader, it was true, objected
that the bill would swamp property and intelligence, but he
supported the second reading, and the bill was allowed to
pass the second reading 'without a division; and now they
had all these pretexts for amendment, which were too
transparent to deceive anybody except the noble lord the
member for Marylebone, and he would no doubt change
his opinion the next time he went to a meeting at the York-
shire Stings. (Laughter.) He was of opinion that the
people of England, so far from being dissatisfied with the
course taken by the noble lord (J. Russell), would sym-
pathise with his position—though he 'did not think they
would very much sympathise with the position in which
the great body of the House of Commons stood. (Hear.)
"An open foe might prove a curse,
But a pretended friend was worse."

(Hear, hear.) What was the language used in reference
to this reform bill by the nobler lord the leader of the Con •
servative party in another place ? He said, " I am of
opinion that it is highly inconvenient and dangerous that
from session to session a question of this importance and
interest should be perpetually kept dangling before the legis-
lature and the country." (Hear, hear.) And he added
that, without pledging-himself to the details, he would give
the subject his attention with an honest and earnest desire
not to trifle any longer with this great and important ques-
tion. (Hear, hear.) But what had the party opposite been
doing all this session but trifling with this great and impor-
tant question ? Ile had quoted the declaration of the noble
lord the leader of the Conservative party in the other house.
What was said by the leader in the House of Commons ?
"Was Parliamentary reform," he asked, "a subject to be
left to faction, to be dealt with in times of excitement, and
to be settled, not by the reason, but by the passions of the
people ?" What vas the house goingio do now ? Were
they going to allow that passion and not reason of the peo-
ple to settle the question ? (Hear, hear.) Could there a
time more fit to pass a reform bill than the present, a time
w'aen the people would be satisfied with much less than
they would be eventually if the settlement of the question
were postponed ? He knew the time had gone by for
discussing the mer4ure ; nor was it his intention to do so,
but this he would say, if the house, were content thus from
year to year to shuffle off the question with pretexts and
delays that deceived no man in or out of the house, the time
might come when, with a bad harvest, and discontent
raging both at hone and abroad, they might be called upon
to pass a Measure that was really not influenced by the
reason but the passion of the people. (Cheers.) He was
surprised that the Conservative party, with such a fair offer
as had been made by the noble lord to settle the ques-
tion in a way so conformable to the tenets of their own
political creed, should not have eagerly accepted it and
assisted in passing the bill, and thus enabled the House
of Commons to show that they were really consistent in
their desire to settle the question. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN, though it had long been obvious that
the bill must bo withdrawn, considered that the announce-
ment made that evening by his treble friend (Lord J., Aini.

sell) was none the less pleasing that it was unexpected. It
was not necessary for the hon. member for Birmingham to

seek to hide the causes of that withdrawal. The reasons

for 'Withdrawing the bill were two—the late/was of the sea-

sion end the unpoirttlarity of the nteasuro itself. (Hear.)

More than a month had beat laat at the commencement of

the session in introducing the bill in Math instead of January.

The bill, when it made its appearance, created great disap-

pointment—it pleased nobody. The most vehement
speeches against it—the strongest outpourings of wrath—

came from behind the Treasury bench. And not only that,
but having at the last trial of strength a bare majority of
21, there were no less than 70 amendments of which notice
was given by gentlemen on the ministerial side of the

house. The noble lord said there were 70 amendments—
the fact was there were 90 altogether, of which 70 were

from the ministerial and N from the opposition side of the
house. That fact showed the general feeling of the house on
the one side and on the other; and if he might be per-

mitted by way of parenthesis to express an opinion, it was
that there was one section of the house to whom the bill

was entirely unpalatable. It was not dreaded by gentle-
men on the other side of the house, who were not returned
by the democracy but in spite of it, but those who had the
most dread of the bill were those members with aristocratic
leanings whose constituencies would be rendered democratic
by the bill. When art attempt was made, as was made by
his hon. friend near him, to fasten the responsibility on one
side of the house which attached to all, to represent the
hostility to, this bill as hostility to all reform, he must say
the house ought to interfere, and if they. were to get rid of
the bill itself, they ought to get rid of all the delusions and
hypocrisy connected with it. (Opposition cheers.) And
when he saw to-night the seed sown of a new crop of mis-
representations—when he saw those who had now become
bankrupts because they had been trading in bad bills of re-
form—when he saw them scolding and warning those whom
they had in vain sought to control, he said they ought Jo
have—and for a few moments he would take—the oppor-
tunity of settling one or two short accounts of the past be-
fore they had another reform bill. He did not wish, unless
reference had been made to it, to allude to the past history
of reform ; but he might say, now that ho really did that,
not as regarded the past, but for the sake of the future, the
house ought now to take stock of its condition, especially
as his hon. friend near him had endeavoured to pin the
noble lord to produce another reform bill in the autumn.
Now, the house and the country had lately become familiar
with the whole history of this reform agitation. It origi-
nated in the mistaken belief in some politicians that be-
cause the Reform Bill of 1832 gave strength and popu-
larity to the Liberal party, therefore, when that party was
no longer popular, it had nothing to do but to resuscitate
the cry of reform for its leaders to be borne once more
on the shoulders of the people to power. That, he
was afraid, was the origin of the Reform Bill of 1852. They
had lately had some revelations as to the history of the
Reform Bill. In that Reform Cabinet there was only ono
reformer of the sincerity of whose motives they asked no
explanation. But he thought these revelations of the past
ought to guide them for the future. It became the public
to know how gentlemen reconciled it to their 'personal
honour, in an almost unanimous Cabinet against Reform,
still to make themselves parties to a Reform Bill. We now
learned it, did not stop there. Two years afterwards those
same gentlemen who had been alarmed by the very moderate
Reform Bill of the noble lord in 1852 made themselves once
more parties to another measure so much larger that it was
difficult to -understand how it could emanate from the same
body. No Minister had yet made the same revelations with
regard to the bill of 1854 that Lord Grey had made with re-
gard to the bill of 1852. When theywere made they would
form probably a curious addition to the history of the bill of
1854. He wished to call attention to the blunders of those
who had been teaching them on this question. Ought they
not to have known that the failure of the bill of 1852, the
failure of the much larger bill of 1854, and the failure of the
agitation for a still larger measure of reform—that the
failure of all those efforts proved that the people drew
a distinction between the real Reform Bill of 1832
and the artificial Reform Bills brought in afterwards,
that they would not lend themselves to further organic
changes the necessity of which they did not see, and the
plan of which they did not comprehend and approve; and
though there were doubtless great anomalies in our system,
they knew that anomalies were not grievances, they would
not lend themselves to those rash attempts at further con-
stitutional changes. They wanted rather to enjoy the
blessings they had already. received in quiet and rest, than
injuriously and mischievously to agitate for more. But
although the agitation for reform was discountenanced by
the nation, it was not suffered to drop by those in higher
places. Unfortunately the noble lord, the present head of
the Government, in 1858 once more raised expectation only
to disappoint it; he had almost said to trifle with it. In
1859 the Derby Government succeeded to office and in-
herited, as they thought, the duty, and certainly the diffi-
culty, of legislating on reform. His hon. friend the member
for Liskeard alluded just now to the bill introduced by the
Government of Lord Derby, and to the course which ho
(Mr. Horsman) thought it his duty to pursue with respect
to that measure. He had avoided this session taking any
part in the., reform discussions, because last year he took a
course which was painful to him, and which separated him
from his friends---(ironical cheers)—after 24 years of more
constant and consistent acting with his party than the
hen. gentleman who cheered him. For the first time he
separated from his friends on that occasion. He did not
do so without much thought, without much warning and
remonstrance in private before ho gave it in public, and he
thought it was not becoming in the hon. gentleman whose
services to hie party had beEn less constant and less labori-
ous than his, to sneer at what he did. But since ho had
done so he would allude to what he did on that occasion.
When it was made known to him that it was the intention
of the party to reject the bill of Lord Derby, he gave his
advice by an illustration which had now become familiar.
He said the Liberal party had one of three courses to pur-
sue; it might reject the bill on the second reading, or it
might amend it in committee, or it might strangle it by an
abstract resolution. He said the two first courses were
legitimate, and the third course would be very illegitimate,
that it would be discreditable and embarrassing, and on
that account he could not vote for it. He showed how it
would be embarrassing; he said they would have a narrow
division, a reduced party majority, and they would lose a
year. (Opposition cheers.) His opinions were recorded ;
he had lately referred to them, and he had no occasion now
to reproach himself with them. Ho was answered by his
hon. friend the member for Birmingham, " You are mis-
taken; a year will not be lost. A new bill can be intro-
duced in tho session, it can be passed in an autumn sitting,
and in 1860 we shall meet under the new constituencies."
Well, the bill was rejected, aud the announcement of the
dissolution which followed took the breath out of the mover
and seconder of the resolution,. This was again followed by
the dissolution, which took away some valuable elements of
their partymajority. But when the new Government was
formed there was no hurry about the new Reform Bill. The
summer session ended without any bill. The autumn
passed by, and there , was no sign of a bill. Parliament
met very early this session, and though there was but a
very small programme, the bill was put off for more than
a month. He protested against that delay, but he re-
ceived no support in that protest from the hon. member
for Birmingham. He protested because he thought that,
after the course which the house had taken on the question
of feform, it was absolutely essential that they should
come to some settlement this year. But he found that
a great change had come over the dream of. the ardent
Reformers who were sitting near him. The secret of the
proposed bill had to some extent oozed out, and
it had produced tranquillity. There was a great
contrast between the chivalry of 1860 and the impatience
of 1859. The fact was that both the Government and their
supporters found themselves in an embarrassing and awk-
ward position. They had burned their fingefs by rejecting
the bill of their opponents, and they were equally embarras-
sed in having to support a bill that was no better. There-
fore the bill was put off till the ides of March, in the hope
that by some interposition of Providence it might be post-
poned to some indefinite period. The appearance of the bill
was the bursting of a bubble. It was denounced on all sides.
The member. for Bristol said he bad seen several Reform
Bills introduced, but this was the worst of all. It was not
liberal enough for members on that side of the house, and
members on the other side said it was not Conservative.
The member for Huddersfield said it gave them nothing but
fresh ground for agitation; the member for Edinburgh said
it gave them nothing but cause for alarm, and the hon.
member for Galway said it was revolutionary; and when
they found that the second reading was put off till the 3d of
May, and the committee till the ;4th of June, everybody
knew that the bill was in effect abandoned, and it had been
abandoned to-night. There was only one point of the speech
of the noble lord in abandoning it, to which he wished to
refer. Tho hon. member for Birmingham tried to fix
upon the noble lord a pledge to bring in another bill,
and his hon. friend endeavoured to fix on his political
opponents in that house that which they ought to un-
derstand, to acknowledge, and avow to have been the
general feeling in the house against the bill. This ques-
i tion of Parliamentary Reform had been trifled with, and
in the course of the present session there had been no satis-
factory attempt to solve it. And he must be permitted to
say, that of all the men—and ho was sorry he was not in his
place—of all the men who had been inconsistent on this
question, and who was least justified in casting any reproach
on the sincerity or zeal of others, that man was the hon.
member NI. Birmingham. He (Mr. Bright) had given up
every principle, he had falsified every profession, and broken
every pledge, in order to support this bill. Two_ years ago
the hon. ,gentleman had a bill of his own, which was
heralded through the country with a great flourish of trum-
pets. They had not seen that bill, but the hon. member had
supported a bill from which was excluded every one of the
provisions which, according to his own statement, were es-
sential. This bill gave a£6 rental franchise, but the hon.
member said it would give votes to only five per cent. of
those who ought to, be enfranchised, and yet he was pre-
pared to take this as a settlement of the franchise. But the
hon. member went further than that. He said to-night he
should have been sorry to have seen this bill mangled in
committee, and £8 substituted for £6. But what occurred
on Friday night ? When the noble lord said he was reedy to
accept an amendment on the franchise, the hon. member for
Birmingham followed him and said he was a party to that
compromise, that it was the best the house could make, and
that he, for his part, m ould do all he could to carry it out,