The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-11 00:00:00

OUTSIDE THE HOUSE.

The attendance of persons to witness the arrival
of the different members of Parliament this even-
ing, in Palace-yard, was very small, not over 40 or
50 at the most. Earl Russell came down to the House
in an open carriage, and alighted at the great door
of Westminster Hall, but no notice was taken of
his lordship. The noble earl then passed into
Westminster Hall, and on his passage to the House
of Peers he had to pass a number of persons who
had assembled here, but not the slightest recognition
took place. Mr. Bright came down to the house in
a hackney cab, and entered the house by the
comparatively private carriage entrance in
Palace-yard. There was not the slightest
attempt at a demonstration, although thousands of
persons were passing in close proximity to the house
after having witnessed the departure of the Reform
League procession.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose
at exactly at a Quarter to five o'clock to deliver his
eagerly looked-for explanations as to the intentions
of her Majesty's Government in regard to the whole
question of Parliamentary Reform, and as to the
significance of every well-weighed word in the most
notable of all the numerous announcements con-
tained in the Royal Speech of Tuesday—that para-
graph, namely, in which the Sovereign observed to
the Lords and Commons through the lips of the
Lord High Chancellor— _ _

" Your attention will again be called to the state of the
representation of the people in Parliament, and I trust
that your deliberations, conducted in a spirit of modera-
tion and mutual forbearance, may lead to the adoption of
measures which, without unduly disturbing the balance of
political power, shall freely extend the electoral fran-
chise."

The right hon. gentleman might almost be said to
have avowedly taken that distinct porticn of the
Speech from the Throne in effect as the text or
theme for his elucidatory address of this evening.
According to Parliamentary phrase in point of fact,
he appeared at the table in obedience to the first
of the Orders of the Day, as set forth in these suffi-
ciently plain terms upon the paper of the House of
Commons for the 11th of February— " Represen-
tation of the People— consideration of so
much of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech as
relates to the representation of tbo People
in Parliament." He began by stating his wish to
put clearly before the house the Ministerial inter-
pretation attached to the word of that paragraph
in the Royal Speech addressed to Parliament. He
deprecated the continuance of the application of
mere party feeling to the consideration of the great
question of Parliamentary Reform. He said that
the necessity of maintaining of the organisation:of
party was fully recognised by the Government.
The meaning attributed by him to these words is,
that Parliamentary Reform should no longer be a
question • which should decide the fate of
Ministers. It is consistent with the duty
of Ministers to the Crown and country.
Ministers hope that such a course is compatible
with those principles which ought to influence the
opinion of public men. Reform, he said, should
no longer be a party question—all parties having
attempted to deal with it, and all have failed, In

1852, for example, it was dealt with 'by a Whig
Government, headed by Lord Russell, but ineffec-
tually. In 1854 a Coalition Government, headed
by Lord Aberdeen, attempted to deal with this
question and failed. In 1859 a Conservative
Government, headed by Lord Derby, attempted
to deal with it and failed. In 1860 a
Moderate Liberal Government, headed by
Lord Palmerston, attempted to deal with it
and failed. In 1866 another, he would not say
immoderate Liberal Government, again headed by
Lord Russell, attempted to deal with that question
and failed. Therefore he conceived that after all
these attempts and all these failures the question
should no longer be, as he had said, a mere
party question, and ono on which the fate of
Ministers ought precariously to be dependent.
He alluded to the arguments in favour of modifica-
tions in the operation of the Reform Bill of 1832,
long since recognised by men like Sir Robert Peel
and Sir William Follett and others. Disclaiming
any intention to expound the opinions expressed by
himself in that house upon former occasione, he
still thought he might be permitted to resort
to the views which he had some years since
deemed it necessary to express, in regard
to the filling up of what he could
not but recognise as deficiencies in the Reform Bill
of 1832—namely, at an intermediate period when
piecemeal Reform was somewhat the fashion. Mea-
sures of disrranchisement, lie argued, could be
passed in 1832 with impunity--measures that could
not be dreamt of at subsequent periods. The in-
creased application of science to social life had led
since 1832 to an immense advance is the
prosperity and industry of the population
at large. The rapidity of locomotion, that would
be a miracle of daily recurrence, but that we are so
familiar with it. The application of steam power
to the press, and so forth. All these had, by the
agency of science, ennobled labour. He deprecated
the application of something like terrorism to the
hurried settlement of this all-important sub-
ject. Parliamentary Reform had been a par-
liamentary question for fifteen years yet,
in his opinion, among all the past questions
perhaps there was none which had had less discus-
sion of a practical character, or that had in it less
difficulty. The Reform Bill of 1852 he regarded
as premature—nevertheless, he recognised the pro-
duction of it in 1852 by Lord John Russell as
strictly an act of self-defence. Independent mem-
bers had been those who had disturbed first the
settlement of the question in 1832. Parliamentary
Reform then was a House of Commons question.
It was not a party question. It was a House of
Commons question. He charged no party with
error in this, in alluding to those independent mem-
bers. But he held the house itself, and no party,
as responsible for the settlement of this ques-
tion. The situation now obtained he re-
cognised, of course, as peculiarly difficult
and embarrassing. Lord Russell's vote of 1859, in
suppressing Lord Derby's proposed Reform Bill,
had first transformed the House of Commons ques-
tion into a party question. For rendering it
a party question, then, for the first time, Lord
Russell was responsible. He demonstrated
that up to the time when Lord John Rus-
sell declared for Finality, Reform was still even
then no party question. In 1857, again, when Lord
Palmerston had attained the culminating point of
power, his enemies were scattered to the winds ;
placed in a minority upon the China question, he
subjected Parliament to a penal dissolution. Re-
turned to the house with an immense majority, he
(Lord Palmerston) introduced the question of Par-
liamentary Reform into the Royal Speech and failed.
On the introduction of the Reform Bill it was still
not by any means a party question. But then, by
the vote of Lord Russell, in 1859—Lord Russell
being then below the gangway, a private member
of Parliament—had rendered it for the first time
a party question. He did not complain of this.
He mentioned it simply as a fact. He could not,
however, endure the repetition of the measures of
1859. The course determined upon, therefore, to
be followed by the Government, under these cir-
cumstances, after these five previous failures in the
attempt to revise the Act of 1832—was to avoid,
if possible, these risks by another miscarriage.
The position was one, of course, of great
difficulty. The Ministers then asked permission to
be allowed to submit to the, house the course which
they propose to adopt in treating the question of
Parliamentary Reform. They answered, first of
all, the objections advanced by some against the
notion of proceeding upon a question like
this by resolutions. One was that it necessitated
delay. That he took leave to deny. Proceed-
ing by resolution, with a determination at
starting to act vigorously with a view to
practical legislation, he could not conceive himself
would in any way lead to delay. On the contrary,
whenever the course of proceeding by resolution.,
had been adopted it had resulted in practical
legislation. In the instance of the India Bill the
interval necessitated was what—one month Ano-
ther objection to proceeding by resolution was that
resolutions:were vague. To a certain extent it was so,
but of all persons in the house likely to be anxious to
draw out the resolutions with permission, it would
be the members of the Government who were re-
sponsible for them. Foremost, for example, among
resolutions that would have to be submitted to the
house would be one applying to the extension of the
franchise. If Reform were introduced with a resolution
about the franchise to the effect that the franchise
should be extended in boroughs and in counties he
should call that a vague resolution. (Laughter.)
The question is—shall the House of Commons be
reconstructed in accordance with the principles
of the English Constiution or on the principles
of many other countries. (Cheers.) Her Ma-
jesty's Government propose to reconstruct the
House of Commons in accordance with the prin-
ciple of the English Constitution. They regard
the English Constitution as no mere phrase. They
regard the Constitution to imply under that term
the three co-ordinate powers of the King, Lords, and
Commons. We should cling to the Constitution as
it is, as it has hitherto been, as a system, as the only
guide, the only political guide, in the midst of the
abounding difficulties that surround us. He here
drew an eloquent and impressive picture
of the contrasting powers of the Lords
and the Commons in the Parliament of
England. The Peers, the said, he regarded as
more powerful everywhere throughout England
than in their own house. The Commons, retaining
the financial administration of the country in its
hands, retaining in its hands the purse-strings of the
nation, and being a great deliberative assembly,
The Americans had the same intelligence, the same
intellect, the same brains, and, perhaps, more
energy, but their House of Representatives was not
to be compared to the Hcuse of Commons, because
it was elected by one class. (Hear, hear, and
H
cheers.) Together with America he would mention
France, but the representations
countries could not be said to rule the
hear.) He had on a former occasion attempted to
c oi in
n tbroyt. h(
these
ear
,
deal with the subject
nderedthit impossible
that then beset the qu of Restion reeform, bat e difficulties
on the present occasion. He hoped to be able to
induce the house
(LEFT SPEAKING.

Foreigu Mail Packet List.

MAILS DUE.

%ustralla and New Zealand, via Southampton. Feb. 19.
Ditto, via Marseilles Feb. 13.
Brazil and Cape Verde. by British packet. ..... 6.
Ditto, by Frenoli packet • Feb 22
cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena Fcb. 27
tjlaina, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton Feb 19.
Ditto, via Marseilles. Feb. 13
Falkland Islands

Gibraltar, via Southampton Feb. 13.
India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Fcb 13
Ditto, via Marseilles
India (Bombay), via Southampton. Feb. 13
Ditto, via Marseilles ..
liana, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Feb. 13.
Ditto, via Marseilles Feb 7.
11auritius, via Southampton
Ditto, via Marseilles. Feb. 73
gawfoundland
Portugal

Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon
Jutted Mates and British North America, by Bri-

tish packet.

..Feb. 21.

Ditto, by United States paokyt, via Southamp-
ton
Ditto, via Cork
Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry ..Feb. 8,