The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT trnisentetrs if of
ptobsse
ibClreowinn with advoiwewn tooartnhoestseotf-
the whole complex question of Parliamentary.
Reform, so far as it can be dealt with comprehen-
sively at one sweep by the Imperial Legislature,
there is a very wide-spread sense that the statesman
upon whom it devolves this evening to open up the
question anew in the House of Commons is one who
i has obtained as perfect a mastery of his subject as
any man in either House of Parliament. And it
is the consciousness of this which has imparted
such peculiar interest to the statement looked for
from his lips this evening.
For many years no Ministerial statement has
beat looked for with such keen and lively expecta-
tion. Not once, perhaps, ever since the famous
night, now more than a good round score of years
ago, when Sir Robert Peel made his memorable
speech announcing the abrogation of the Corn
Laws.] _ __

HOUSE OF LORDS--LAST EVEN'LNG.
The LORD CHANORLIOR took his seat ( m the Woolsack-
at 5 o'clock.

LANDLORD &ND TENANT (IR ELAND).

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave+ notice that on
Monday he should lay before their lordships a bill to
deal with the land question in Ireland.

THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IR ELAND.

The Bishop of DOWN moved an address to hor Majesty
for a return from the Ecclesiastical Commis: loners (Ire-
land) of the gross and not revenue of the Established
Church in Ireland, specifying the various heads from
which such revenue was divided, and inoluding the
revenues of the Church now in the hands of the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners derived from ecclosiastict 1 sources.

The Archbishop of DUBLIN objected to the production
of the return on the ground that the information had
already been published in a return which had been made
in 1864.

- 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 passel 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.
On the order of the day for the consideration of so much
of her Majesty's gracious speech as relate's to the repre-
sentation of the people in Parliament,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was
re :rived ith loud cheers, said—l move that the para-
graph of her Majesty's gracious speech be read.
The pa .agraph was accordingly read by the clerk at the
table.

The Bishop of DOWN still persevered for the produc-
tion of the return he asked for.

The Marquis of CLANRICAIIDE thought tho rotura
ought to b 3 given.
The Earl of DERBY thought that after what had
fallen from the Archbishop of Dublin that the making this
return would only occasion a deal of trouble and needless
expense, it would be butter for the ilght rev. prolate not to
press for their production.

After a few words from Lord CRANWORTH,
The motion for the return was rejected, and their lord
ships adjom

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-LAST EVENING.

The SPRAXIM took the chair at 4 o'clock.
The attendance of members at the commencement of
the evening did not exceed that of ordinary occasions.
The Strangers' and Speaker's Galleries wore well filled, but
beyond this there was nothing in the early par:, of the
sitting to indicate that a subjed of importance was to be
brought under the consideration of the house. At twenty
minutes past four o'clock Mr. Disraeli entered, and walked
up the body of the house to his seat on the Government
benches without the slightest notice from either side of the
houso. '•At half-past fotrr the house assumed a more
crowded appearance, the Oppostion aide
,being that on
which the greatest number of members were present.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose,
amid cheering from the Ministerial benches. He said-I
wish, sir, on the part of her Majesty's Govei-nment, clearly
to convey to the house the interprete:ion which they put
upon those gracious words that have just been read, and
which, under their advice, her Majesty deigned to address
to her Parliament. They are significant words-her Ma-
jesty from the Throne appeals to the House of Common;l
in deliberating on the most important subject of a political
character-namely, the distribution of power in her State
-that they should divest themselves of that party spirit
which, generally speaking-(hear)--is the legitimate and
efficient, the customary and constitutional, influence by
which all public questions in this day are brought to a sa-
tisfactory settlement. Sir, her Majesty's Ministers are the
last men in this house who would depreciate the import-
ance of the ties of party ; they are the last men who would
wish to derogate from the legitimate functions of party. In
their opinion party organisation is the condition of Par-
mentary government, and without it they see no security
for either efficiency or independence in a popular assembly.
Nor, least of all, sir, on this occasion are they inclined in
any way to refrain from appealing to the support of those
with whom, for long years of public alliance and private
friendship, they have beenconnected in this house. Olathe
contrary, they feel -they painfully and profoundly feel-
that this is the occasion of allothere when they would have
most earnestly to appeal for a continuance of that support,
of that confidence, of that sympathy, of that friendship, and
even of that forbearance on which they before rested with
assurance. Sir, the meaning that tfiey attribute to those
words is that, under the circumstances in which the house
found itself, it was in our opinion expedient that Parlia-
mentary Reform should no lunge; bo a question which
should decide the fate of Ministries. (Ironical cheers from
the Opposition and counter-cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) Sir, we have arrived at that conclusion with the
conviction that it is consistent with our duty and our
honouras public men, and we hope that the House of Com-
mons, notwithstanding that expression of op'nion froin a
very limited quarter--(Ministerial cheers)-after due con-
sideration, will also be of opinion that such a course is
compatible on their part with all those principles and all
those sentiments that ought to influence public men.
(Hear, hear.) And, sir, we have arrived at that conclusion
that it is not for the advantage of the country that Paella!
mentery Reform should be a question that should decide
the fate of the Ministry, that it should not be what is com-
monly called a patty question, for this simple but to us
irresistible reason, that all parties in the State have at-
tempted to deal with it and all parties in the State have
failed. (Cheers.) In 1852 there was a pure Wilig Govern-
ment, headed by Lord John Russell, which dealt with this
subject and failed. In the year 1854 tfft3re was a coalition
Government, headed by the Earl of Aberdeen, which at-
' tempted to deal with this question and failed. In the year
1859 there was a Conservative Government, headed by the
Earl of Derby, which attempted to deal with this question
and failed. In the year 1860 there was a moderate Liberal
Government, headed by Lord Palmerston, which attempted
to deal with .this question and failed. In the year 1866
there was a -a Government-(laughter)-which I will,
notwithstanding the present rage for analysis, describe as
a moderate Liberal Government-Tai Government which
was headed again by Earl Russell-which attempted to
deal with this question and failed. There may be some who
w,ll urge these circumstances as an argument to show that
the question was one which ought not to have been dealt
with, that there was no necessity whatever to draw the at-
tention of Parliament to its consideration. Sir, all that I
have to say on the part of my colleagues is that this is not
the opinion of her Majesty's Government. In the opinion
of her Majesty's Government, the seeds for, perhaps, the
most considerable portion of those changes that we Call-
tomp!ate were sown in the memorable act of 1832. Until the
act of 1832 was passed the claims of the labouring classes
to a share in our Parliamentary system were acknow-
ledged and their rights were enjoyed end prac-
tised. Although the mode by which they were asserted
may not have been happily adapted to the circumstances of
the present century, there can be no doubt that those claims
were definitely acknowledged and acted upon, indepen-
dently of party. Before the act of 1832, for example, it
was possible for the labouring classes to return both mem-
bers for Preston, a town of now nearly 200,000 inhabitants;
they might also have returned two for the city of Coven-
try, then, as now, the seat of an important and ingenious
branch of oar manufactures; and there were a great many
places in England in which they exorcised a considerable,
if not a preponderating, influence. But it was thought fit
at that time to abolish those rights and privileges. I think
myself-I thought so then- that was a very groat error.
It is fair to admit that, as they were then enjoyed and
practised, they were perhaps ill adapted to our present
social state; and though the labouring elaeses, in the most
considerable seats of labour, might with the old machinery
not have seen represented, that was not a reason for abo-
lishing the right, but rather for remodelling it, and adapt-
ing it to the new circumstances with which statesmen then
had to deal. Nor, Sir, did the abolition of those rights pass
unregarded in this house ? Those who were the framers
of that Reform Bill, and were supported with enthusiasm
by powerful classes, were able then to override the objec-
tions from influential quarters. They wore warned by some
of the greatest authorities of this house as to the danger
and impolicy of the course they were pursuing. The me-
morable words of Sir R. Peel on this subject are familiar to
the house. He warned the Government of the day that in
putting an end to the rights of freemen as they then
existed, and terminating all those other means by which
the householder in many boroughs registered his vote and
exercised it, they were embarking in a course which even-
tually must involve them in danger and inconvenience.
The rights of those electors which were then attacked
were not lost for want o: advocacy-and advocacy of the
highest and ablest character-in this house. One of the
most shining lights of our time, Sir William Pellet,
brought those claims before the house on more than
one occasion with that eloquence for which he was remark-
able, end that power of argument for which ho was dis-
tinguished. Other rights for the then existing generation
were, in another place, not only vindicated but saved by no
reltr y g
less a person than Lord Lyndhurst. Sir,f Itowaonuldth
sniont,
especially after mentioning such names,
I yt to
hsian
nhdaevrenmoyesirecluf
circumstance would
If
llmovayerberepfeerrintotedan y
g
u
have said here merely in vindication of myself or my col-
leagues. But if I have made a declaration upon a public
question of great importance as the organ of a party, if I
have been requested by men of great eminence to express
an opinion upon some subject of great public importance
in this house, I think it is no assumption to refer to it, not
as the expression of an individual, but, as in a certain
sense historic, as illustrative of the conduct and opinion of
a party. Now, sir, iu 1852, when I first had the honour of
a seat on this bench the question of Parliamentary Re-
form was then rife, though it was then urged in a very
different spirit, and with very different objects from those
which now animate its advocates. In about the first week
- certainly within the first month-of our accession to
office it was absolutely necessary that we should come to a
conclusion respecting the policy we should pursue upon
that subject. At that time what was called piecemeal Re-
form was very much in fashion, and I think it was upon
one of the motions of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr.
Locke King), which he brought forward immediately after
the formation of the Government of 1852, that it became
necessary for me to consult Lord Derby and the most emi-
nent of his colleagues as to the line we should pursue re-
specting Reform. Perhaps the house will allow me to
quote one passage from what I said on that occasion. I
objected to the motion el' the hon. member for Surrey, my
objection being a broad one-namely, that Parliamentary
Reform was not a subject which ought to be treated in a
piecemeal manner, and I said with reference to this motion,
and with the full concurrence of Lord Derby and of my
colleagues ;-
"But we have also another objection to this bill. I have
often said in this house-I repeat it, now, and it is the ex-
pression of a deep and sincere conviction on my part-that
I"think in the construction of that memorable law, the Re-
form Act of 1832, thew was a very great deficiency, which

Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN asked the Secretary
of State for the Home Department whether the Goyern
ment contemplated legislation upon the subject of the
turnpike system during the present Session.
Mr. WALPOLE said the question was ono he would
prefer postponing to answer.

BUNHILL-FIELDS BURIAL GROUND.
In reply to Mr. CRAWFORD,

Mr. WALPOLE said there were questions it was almost
impossible to answer either by an affirmative or negative.
There were largo claims involved, and a voluminous cor-
respondence had taken place. The best answer ho could
g:ve was that an unopposed moaon would be agreed
to that evening, which would give the hon. gentleman
all the information he required.