The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLI A MENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Carnarvonshire Railway and Caledonian Railway (For-
farshire,) Bills were read a second time.
The Earl of CARNARVON said he wished to call the
attention of the noble Duke (Marlborough) to the fact that
the noble duke was reported to have said that the bill
called the " Ten Minutes Bill" was proposed by him (Lord
Carnarvon). He would now ask the noble Duke whether
that was the case.
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said that what he said
was that the Ten Minutes Bill was introduced to suit the
feelings of the noble earl and others in the C;tbinet.
Lord CARNARVON was understood to dissent from
the bill, and the subject dropped.

TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE)

BILL.

The Duko of MARLBOROUGH gave notice that he
should move that this bill be read that day three months.
VACCINATION BILL.
This bill was committed and passed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, on the resumption of
the debate on this important question, said it was
not pleasant to speak upon a question which
ono would most probably not bo able to alter.
Ito was, however, always glad when a great measure was
introduced into that house to hear that it was to be of
vital consequence to the interests of the people. But he
had heard no such sentiments from the noble earl oppo-
site ; he had only said that this bill, and he quoted his
lordship's words, " Was so Conservative in its mea-
sures as to leave no ground of apprehension." Ho
had trusted that others who would come after, members
of the Government, would say something more in favour
of the bill; but it seemed to him that their only argu-
ments seemed to be that of setting bill against bilk and Ca-
binet Minister against Cabinet Minister. This bill had
come to them from the other house without a division, and
successful in almost every clause, and as this was the last
opportunity of expressing their opinion on it, he should
trouble them with the few remarks he was about to make.
He should have wished the bill to have been passed upon
a principle which should induce the working men to en-
deavour to gain the benefit of tho franchise by increased
industry and sobriety. He had al ways himself boon a
Radical, and should be so till the and of his days, but his
great object was to advance the.condition to the highest
degree of the working man. He should like to see
the working man, from tho condition even of
a sweep, raise himself by honest industry to be
Prime Minister. With regard to this measure,
however, ho could not approve of a bill which would
suddenly give to the residuum of society what ought to
belong to the honest, hard-working man. They must
prepare the way before they introduced such extreme
measures—make the people fit to receive them in ac-
cordance with the condition of the people.
Why when wo can go down stairs should
we jump out of window? He quite agreed with the
noble duke, the President of the Council, this
was not a final measure. It was only a rest-
ing-place by the way, but he (the noble earl)
considered that it was not a happy resting-place. There
could be no finality except in death. The house-
hold suffrage was not a resting place, even in the
sense of repose. The measure goes a great way in-
deed, but the arguments went much further. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a declaration
that every man of mature age, untainted by crime, had a
moral right to the suffrage. (Dissent.) Well, ho had un-
derstood so—he might have erred ; at all events, they had
instilled into the minds cf the people that the franchise
was a right and not a trust. (Dissent.) But he knew that
that impression had gone abroad amongst the people. Ho
had heard one friend say that the object of going
so low was to satisfy all classes. They had, by
making the vote a. right, ,established universal
suffrage. By the lodger franchise they had given a vote

to a man who had no opportunity of exercising the duty of
a citizen. Ho paid no rates of taxes, he did not servo
on juries, nor did in any way perform the func- I
tions of a citizen. (Hear, hear.) Ile would show
them that in one district which ho knew where there were I
144 houses, which now returned 15 voters, would, under
the new bill, supply 97.
The Earl of DERBY was understood to say that most
of them paid £lO of rent.
The Earl of SHAD CESBURY said that he was coming
to that, but that affected mai nod men only. The Reform
League had said unless you reduced the franchise to 2s 6d.
you would exclude the whole of the young men unmarried
in certain districts, but if they reduced it for those who
would not pay more, they would reduce it for those who
cannot. It was certain they would never know tho amount
or number of persons who, when the registers were opena,
would claim the suffrage. They would find that by this
lodger franchise they had almost come to universal
suffrage. It had been promised on both sides of
the house that no prepOnderating class should
be allowed, bit now there was the greatest apprehen-
sion that the democratic class would preponderate.
He considered that the suffrage which they were about to
give would act in the most dangerous way against old
established institutions. It would act against,tinn
Church of England ho believed. He considered Wit
those who would then prevail would be antagonistic to the
Church of England. He knew what was the feeling iu
their own House, but what would happen when there was
that democratic pressure exercised he could pretty well
imagine. Were wo not living in a time when nothing
was taken as granted, whpLe2sce;ything 'nest Iln trasteil
'ft-first principle Every man now wished to rise to a
higher position, and that would exclude them from the
Legislature. He did not think they should go off by
violence, but with the elegant softness of a dis-
solving view. There was a strange feeling growing up,
and ho would read them an extraordinary paragraph from
the Times' Correspondent in America. It stated that Mr.
Wade, president of the United States' Senate, had been on
a tour to Kansas, and there he said that he found that,
since the question of slavery had' been dis-
posed of, that those of labour and capital should
now occupy public attention, and he said that
as far as the distribution of property was concerned
that it was not right that one man should
labour and another should not. They would have
a society, formed soon for the redistribution of property.
If this feeling was rising in the United States, why should
it not spring up here ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR described the resolution of
Earl Grey as meagre and indefinite, but still not devoid of
a useful purpose, as it had secured the thorough discussion
of the bill. Ile regretted, therefore, that the noble earl
had not announced his intention to withdraw it, as it did
not appear to have friends at either side of the house. The
noble and learned lord having replied one by one to the
propositions contained in the resolution, observed that the
attitude of the Opposition was calculated to make the pub-
lic dissatisfied with the bill, which they did not intend to
reject or even to amend. In his view the bill possessed
the elements of stability as much as any measure of tho
kind could do. He contended that a Conservative Govern-
ment had a perfect right to grapple with the subject after
the repeated failures of their opponents. Broad and liberal
as the scheme undoubtedly was, it was at the same time
based on the constitutional foundation of taxation and the
discharge of public duties. With regard to the redistribu-
tion of seats, the noble and learned lord declared his belief
that not even an angel from heaven could frame a scheme
that would give satisfaction to everybody. The question
of redistribution belonged essentially to the Commons,
who would, be said, be entitled to resent any interference
on the part of their lordships. He hoped, therefore, that
the bill would be sent back to the Commons in a shape
that would meet the just expectations of the representa-
tives of the people:
The Duke of ARGYLL could not share in the appre-
hension which some noble lords felt with respect to the
effect of the bill. He could not, however, conceal from
himself that the measure would result in a very great and
serious change. It was, in fact, not a compromise, but
complete surrender—a surrender of all the principles that
had been held for so long a period by the Conservative
party. They called the personal payment of rates a great
principle, but that was to practise an imposition on com-
mon sense. However much he might deprecate the sud-
den manner in which Ministers had become converts to
Reform, still he had faith and confidence in the conces-
sions about to be made, and his firm belief was that the
bill would in the end be productive of the best conse-
quences to the country.

Tho Duke of RICHMOND, having observed that the
measure had received the unanimous support of the entire
Cabinet, proceeded to argue that the bill was not so dan-
gerous in its character as it had been represented to be,
and that there was no reason to indulge in gloomy predic-
tions in its regard. In his opinion the most dangerous
revolutionists were the men who, blindly resisting all
changes until too late, destroyed the institutions which, by
timely strengthening, they might have preserved. It was
not the Government who would cause a revolution, but
those who resisted changes, and, like Lord Carnarvon,
pointed their attacks with so much personal and unneces-
sary acerbity. Animadverting on the jealousy displayed
by the Opposition at a Conservative Administration pre-
suming to deal with the question of Reform, the noble
duke remarked that the Liberals appeared to think that
they not only enjoyed a fee simple, but had entailed it on
their heirs for ever.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, so far from taunting
the Government, thanked them for hinging in a measure
so large as household suffrage, for he believed that nothing
short of chat principle would ensure a safe and permanent
settlement of the question.

This view was also supported by Lard Faversham.
Lori HOUGHTON was of opinion that a better measure
might have been obtained had the Conservatives given
their support to Earl Russell's Administration last session.

The Earl of HARRO WBY described the bill as a sweep-
ing measure of democracy that would disfranchise the
upper and middle classes and deliver them over to the
poorest and most numerous classes below them.
Lord CAIRNS contended that the merits er demerits of
the bill were of more importance than the consistency or
inconsistency of the Conservative party, and a far more
legitimate question for their lordships to discuss. He ad-
mitted, for his own part, that he wculd have been glad if
the country could have remained content with the arrange-
ment of 1832. Having, however, abandoned that settle-
ment, thoy could not hope to create a new privileged class
of householders. If, for instance, they had proposed a .£6
qualification, they would next have been met with another
proposal for £5. The result would. have been a sort of
Dutch auction, until they came down to household suffrage
pure and simple. The personal payment of rates, combined
with residence, would be a check upon that, while the
State would have a guarantee of the fitness of the voter
to exercise the privilege of the franchise. True, Parlia-
ment might hereafter sweep away the conditions of the
new franchise, but the experience of the last five-and-
thirty years, during which these conditions had worked
admirably under the Reform Act, favoured the conclusion
that it would not. As to the lodger franchise abstractedly
it ought to receive the support of the Conservative party
especially ; therefore he did not share in the alarming ap-
prehensions which had been conjured up in the House of
Commons by Mr. Lowe, and in their lordships' chamber
by Lord.Carnarvon. Referring to the county franchise,
the noble and learned lord said ho regarded "a hard and
fast line" as inevitable if they wished to have a different
franchise from that of the boroughs. With regard to tho re-
distribution scheme, ho remarked that while objections were
easy and plentiful enough, no one had yet ventured to
shadow forth a substitute for that contained in the bill.
To the amendment of Earl Grey he was opposed, because
ho looked upon it not only as mischievous, and certain to
place their lordships in a false position, but as a proposi-
tion which, if carried, would make it impossible for
Ministers to proceed with the bill.
Earl RUSSELL was not inclined to blame the Govern-
ment for introducing a Reform Bill, for he had never re-
garded the question of Parliamentary Reform as ono to be
monopolised either by himself or his party. Tho great
object in a scheme of reform was so to extend tho fran-
chise to the artisan classes as to satisfy their l„ims for
some years, and next to check the prevalence of bribery
and corruption consequent upon the desire of the wealthy
to obtain scats in Parliament. So far as the bill was con-
cerned it avoided rather than met the first of these points,
and at the same time would entail other evils which it
ought to have avoided; for the scheme of redistribution
was admitted on all sides to be so defective that it could
not possibly last. It was absurd to say they could not
maintain a " hard and fast line" when under the bill itself
they had a £lO lodger and a .£l2 county franchise, and ho
thought a £5 or oven a .Eti rating in boroughs would have
been a franchise to conneand general support. On the
other hand, he feared that the extension of the franchise to
the lowest class of householders, as proposed by the bill,
would greatly encourage and lead to an increase of cor-
rupt practices, to serious disturbances at elections, and to
the return of a House of Commons of a deteriorated cha-
racter. He Ins not insensible to the useful purpose served
by small boroughs, but he thought it would have been
well had the Government proposed to abolish the least
important of them, and to transfer the seats to the rising
towns. In conclusion, the noble earl commented upon the
resolution of Lord Grey, to which ho said he entertained
invincible objections, because its effect would be to com-
mit the house to an extreme, and possibly a false position.

The Earl of DERBY—After the discussion which has
taken place. I. must say that it appears to me almost inex-
plicable why this amendment should have been moved.
The noble earl who introduced it only just commenced to
touch upon the topic when he was prevented by physical

disability, his voice failing him, from explaining the rea-
sons for its introduction, and no one who has spoken since
has touched upon it, except my noble and learned friend,
who has given a most conc:usive and argumentative an-
swer to it. I conclude, therefore, the noble earl will fol-
low the advice given to him by the noble earl opposite, and
withdraw the amendment, giving your lordships no further
trouble about it. I have said that 1 cannot understand•
what is the motive for the introduction of the amendment,
unless the noble earl intended to press it to a division with
a view of frustrating the measure, or df keeping a larger
number of your lordships present at the debate on the
second reading than would otherwise have been the case.
If that was his object it was not a very important one, but
it has answered its purpo:e. Your lordships might equally
have had an opportunity of discussing the merits of the
bill either on this or a subsequent stage. Seeing there has
been such a lengthened discussion, I shall only occupy a
few minutes of your lordships' time in correcting one or
two misstatements, and giving one or two explanations.
The first thing that strikes me as somewhat remarkable is
that, although the criticism of the bill has not been
very sparing or very mild, there has been not only an
entire absence of any suggestions of a substitute, but a
most extraordinary difference of opinion among those who
object to the provisions of the bill. Four or five peers
have spoken against the bill, and not one of them
can agree as to the principle of the objections to be
made to the franchise, or what substitute could be
made for it. The noble earl opposite agreed that there
was no stopping place between a £lO and a household
suffrage, and that if we did net adhere to the £lO we must
come doeVn to the household franchise; but the noble earl
who moved the amendment said that on the whole he
should have preferred adhering to the £lO franchise. But
was that possible ? It is admitted on all hands that
the £lO franchise is totally condemned, and therefore
there was no other alternative than to come down to
household suffrage, and I think that we have made out a
clear case in favour of the measure proposed by her Ma-
jesty's Government. That is not the view taken by the
noble earl, nor that other noble earl (the Earl of earner-
von), who professed to be filled with such gloomy appre-
hensions, and indulged in such Cassandra-like vaticina-
tions as to the unfortunate results which he thinks will
spring from this measure. These two gloomy prophets of
evil concur in one respect, differing however from the
noble earl who moved the amendment. My noble friend
opposite says, " You ought not to jump out of the window
when you can walk down the stairs." But suppose that
when you have got to the first landing you are kicked on
to the second, and from that to the ground floor—is that a
preferable mode of exit? (Laughter.) The argument of
the noble earl is an extraordinary one ; he says that you
ought to reduce the franchise because in a few years you
will be called upon to reduce it further, in a few years to
reduce it further still, and then after the expiration of a
few more years you will find yourself at the end of the
flight of stairs. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Five and
thirty years ago we heard much about "bit by bit reform."
The noble earl opposite (Lord Russell)will remember what
was the language hell on that subject. He will remember
Low strongly he argued against it—how strongly I argued
against it—how strongly the Government of the day argued
against it, for we thought it would only stimulate the coun-
try, and lay the ground for perpetual and never-ceasing
agitation. My nal() friend (Lord Carnarvon) says he has
always considered the franchise too low, but he does not
give us to understand how much too low it is. He also says
it is too uniform, but my noble friend (Lord Cairns) has
shown that while the present franchise is really uniform, that
which we propose is calculated to ensure considerable va-
riety. My noble friend (Lord Carnarvon) appears to con-
template a distinct representation of the working classes;
but I
would
h cannotousariseem
from
conceive
the
p
lr anrepresenting
plan element of discord so great as
f bay
having
e f apcoao poorer ande inthe
same others
representing the wealthier classes, each contending for
their separate interests, instead of having between them
members representing the combined interests of both.
(Hear, hear.) The noble earl who has just sat down con-
demns the proposed franchise ; but he does not see his way
to improve it. He does not see his way to make it more
moderate or more conservative, and the only alteration he
would suggest is to abolish the main restriction on
unlimited household suffrage, namely, the payment of
rates. My noble friend (Lord Granville), differing from
him, finds to fault with household suffrage. My noble
friend (Lord Shaftesbury) wishes to adhere to £lO ; but
he is willing to go down bit by bit.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY— I said I would go down
at once to £7.

• The Earl of DERBY-fee, at once ; but what next ?
(Hear, hear.) A few more descents and he will bo at
household suffrage. My noble friend (Lord Carnarron)
says " The franchise is too low, but I can't tell you how
much higher it should be." The noble earl (Lord Russell)
says the franchise is very objectionable, but he does not
know how to improve it,except by making it more radical.
My noble friend would descend bit by bit; and the noble
earl opposite finds no fault with our franchise, and thinks
it a very good one indeed. (A laugh.) I must remind
noble lords that when we come into committee they will
have to state what their objections really are, and suggest
definite amendments. My noble friend (Lord Caimarvon)
is in alarm abobt the lodger franchise. He says that w 9
are proceeding upon very imperfect information. I quite
admit that we aro. My noble friend states that the lodger
franchise might admit 100,000 to the vote, or it might
admit 500,000. I believe that it will have a very consider-
able effect in the metropolis, and very little effect any-
where else. Mr. Gladstone, however, stated last year that
it would introduce not half a million to the franchise—not
even 100,000—but 60,000 at the outside. (Hear.) I will
not deal with the question of the securities, the absence of
which has so much distressed my noble friends who sits
below me, further than to say that with regard to the dual
vote, that proposition met with no favour, and was forth-
with withdrawn as a matter that could not be carried ; and
that with reference to the two years' residence, that pro-
posal was not abandoned by the Government, but we di-
vided upon the question of two years or one, and were
beaten by a considerable majority. I ask, is my noble
friend prepared to say that because we gave up the dual
vote, and were beaten by a considerable majority, largely
composed of Conservative members, on the question of the
two years' repidenco, we ought, therefore, to have aban-
doned our proposal of a household franchise limited by a
one year's residence and the personal payment of rates ?
The noble earl opposite (Earl Granville), in the course of
his speech yesterday, said that in my retrospect I had been
guilty of various sins of commission and omission, and had
made various false statements and misquotations. It is
very easy to make such charges, but I should have been
better satisfied had the noble earl pointed out what were
the particular errors and misquotations 1 had made. Ido
not think 1 made a single quotation in the whole of my
speech, and what the other errors were I am unable to un-
derstand. The noble earl also related certain anecdotes,
and said it was reported that on the occasion of a Conser-
vative deputation waiting upon me, I stated that, "at all
events we had dished up the Whigs." (Laughter.) The
noble earl added that he thought the report was a fabrica-
tion. If it were so I do not understand why he introduced
it ; still less do I understand how ho could rest on it an ar-
gument that could only be founded on the probability of its
being true. (Hear, hear.) He paid the course pursued in
the other House gave him reason to believe that the anec-
dote was not unlikely, inasmuch as the leaders of the Con-
servative party were ready at any moment to sacrifice their
political consistency and honour in order to throw dis-
credit on their political opponents. The noble earl also
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was challenged in
the House of Ccmmons with having given way on ten dif-
ferent occasions upon important points that were pressed
on him by Mr. Gladstone. He repeated the statement
which has been made and satisfactorily refuted in the
House of Commons, and said the answer of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was this:—" To prove that I was not
acting under the imperious dictation of Mr. Gladstone, as
you assert, I can only say that Mr. Gladstone's name
appears in no less than 18 divisions as an opponent of the
Government," and the noble earl adds that therefore the only
at
y
answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give to t
charge was that if he had been compelled to give way ou
ton different occasions, he had at least had the satisfaction
of placing Mr. Gladstone in a minority on 1
8 different
occasions. Now, I ask, is that a fair representation of what
noble earl has
took place in the House of Commons? ri
charged me with taking upon myself all the
rebkusriontelossd(!
cf thefie
house and keeping my colleagues in the the business of the
house and keeping my collcagUes in the ackg
alluded to this more particularly because
cencor
ofofthnei
oboil;
leagues had then risen to answer the s
Is.f that speech did
earl the late Secretary for the Colon;
not receive an immediate answerwhin•
Cabinet, I take upon myself the
tton t
oio ar
e on; bs
ie br i Ini
ft
y the
o of
that. It was upon my
answer was not the debate, and I felt that
gi yen, a s Isnwtgaogse not des i that
ts
an
niuitnriondleudciiantge
any acrimonious feeling hefornohbilse earl was
eweals-
the attack which had beeinn
t 1 th
It ether consisten mi e
ineaddniffibcyultt
ono which it might at first b
leagues to answer in terms a og
WO all entertain for the
high respect and esteem
noble earl's high character. (Hear, hear.) With
tat
reXard to the manner in which my
of the noble
results that
friend has
dampedb all our glowing expectations
may follow the carrying of this measure, I cannot help
quoting some linos from Collins's well known
" Ode to tho
which seem to me
Passions," to be appropriate. After
some glowing description and a song of hope, in which the
charming landscape is regarded with delight and anticipa-
tion, tho song is interrupted—and hero Ido not moan for a
moment to compare my noble friend to the passion there
represented—and we are told :
And longer had she sung,
But with a frown Revenge impatient rose.
He threw his blood-redeword in thulad down

Was ne'er prophetic sound so full of woo. •
(Hear, hear.) " Woo to you statesmen," says tho noble
earl, "if you follow this melancholy course." But my
noble friend gives ua the satisfaction of hearing that ho
did not mean the slightest personal offence towards us, and
that however severe might have been his animadversions
upon his colleagues, he had not the slightest personal bit-
terness in his mind. It is most satisfactory to receive that
assurance, because it shows to what extent a man may
misinterpret the tone, the language, the gesture, the man-
ner of another. I certainly could not otherwise have con-
ceived how my noble friend, when ho was pouring down
upon us the vials of his wrath, and charging us with or-
ganised hypocrisy, with the repudiation of all our pledges
and the violation of all our principles—l could not other-
wise have conceived that that was the language of a sin-
cerely attached friend (hear, hear, and laughter),—over-
flowing with the milk of human kindness, and only sor-
rowing over the backslidings of the friends he esteemed
beyond measure, and over whose misdeeds ho could not for-
bear dropping a tender tear. (Loud laughter.) I believe my
noble friend felt no bitterness; but if it were possible for
mY noble friend to entertain bitterness towards others, I
should like to know how ho would express it—(hear,
hear, and laughter)—and how he would characterise more
strongly than he has done the course taken by my right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom, I am
bound to do the justice of saying, that we mainly owe the
.progress and success of talk measure, from-lii-; calla en-
durance, his indomitable patience, his inimitable temper,
and his perfect invulnerability to such attacks as were
made by my noble friend. (Cheers and counter cheers.) It
is to him we owe it that this measure passed through the
House of Commons in a manner which conciliated the
esteem and support of opponents, without at the samo time
alienating the good will of friends. But my noble friend
said if he meant to be bitter he would have gone back to
the year 1846, and he would have reminded my right hon.
friend of the attacks he then made on the late Sir R. Peel.
Now, 1 recollect my noble and learned friend on the wool-
sack once stated that he heard a counsel use the following
language—" I htwe another argument, which I will not
mention, and it is this." (Laughter.) In the same way
my noble friend declared that he would not allude to the
conduct of my right hon. friend towards Sir Robert Peel
in 1856. (Renewed laughter.) lam convinced of the
entire forbearance of my noble friend, and I am now re-
minded by the course taken by him of the Psalmist, " Let
the righteous rather smite me friendly." I bow my head
in all meekness to the chastisement of mynoble friend, and
I only thank my stars that if that is an exhibition of his
friendship thatil am not likely to incur his hostility, and if
that is the friendship, God help those who aro subjected to
the outpouring of the venom of his wrath. (Laughter.) I
now turn to another point which has been mentioned by
a noble friend opposite (Earl Granville.) My noble friend
gave me credit for possessing almost unlimited influence
in this house, and he attributed that influence to the free
use I had made of the privilege of creating peers. Now,
I must say that I felt not a little surprised at hear-
ing such a statement from one of the leading
members cf the Whig Government; (Cheers.) I find
that since the commencement of this present reign down
to the beginning of last year the Conservative party
created just 15 peerages, while the Whigs dur-
ing the same period have created precisely 6E.
(Hear, hear.) And yet the noble earl attributes my influence
in this house to the lavish way in which I have used this
privilege of the Crown. With regard to the question of re-
distribution, it is, to say the least, unreasonable to call upon
the Government, because the noble earl does not appear
satisfied with the amount of redistribution, to take a course
which would disturb the whole system agreed upon by the
House of Commons. I think it is somewhat more reasonable
that I should ask the noble earl in whatmanner he proposes
to alter the redistribution—whether he proposes to strike
off a larger number of the small boroughs in order to largely
increase the representation of counties ? I should like to
know what are the leading views of those who object to the
Government measure, but the noble earl sheltered himself
under the convenient declaration that he had no precon-
ceived scheme of his own. (A. laugh.)
Earl GRANVILLE—I said I did not press upon the
Government any preconceived scheme.
The Earl of DERBY—Then you have a preconceived
scheme. (Laughter.) I must say with regard to this and
other points, it is not fair to the Government to make simple
objection to particular parts of the bill without pointing
out how those objections can be removed, and without tak-
ing the usual Parliamentary course of placing amendments
upon the paper, to which amendments I pledge myself and
the Government that the fullest consideration would be
given. To call upon the Government to amend the bill
without saying in what manner it ought to be amended was
utterly unreasonable and unconstitutional. (Hear, hear.)
Though I shall not go into the charges of inconsistency
made against the Government, I am content to rest their
case on the real and true grounds—viz., that in the posi-
tion in which we found ourselves, it was absolutely neces-
sary we should bring in a Reform Bill which we had reason
to believe would meet with the general wishes of Parliament.
To that paramount necessity I for the sake of the country was
perfectly willing on my own part to risk the taunt or charge
of inconsistency, which, when yon consider the altered
circumstances of the case, I do not think can be pressed
against me or my colleagues with any semblance of justice.
But, apart from those charges, I am perfectly satisfied
with the fair and open manner in which the bill has been
dealt with, and I only trust the noble lord who brought
forward the amendment, seeing the general sense of the
house is decidedly against him, and having attained the
object for which it was brought forward, will be satisfied
to withdraw it, and allow the bill to be read a second time
(Cheers.)
Earl GREY, in reply, said he was still of opinion that
the amendment was a proper one to submit to the house,
and was not prepared to withdraw it. But as it appeared
the amendment would not receive the support he antici-
pated, he would not put their lordships to the trouble of a
division, and would not challenge the decision of the noble
and learned lord on the woolsack if he said the opinion
was against it. Ho denied that the small party headed
by Lord Grosvenor who opposed the bill of the late
government last year acted by his advice. He certainly
approved of Lord Grosvenor's resolution, but the subse-
quent conduct of that party was directly contrary to the
advice which ho gave them.
Tho LORD CHANCELLOR then put the amendment,
which was negatived without a division, but with two
dissentients—namely, Earl Grey and the Earl of
Harrowby.
The original question that " The bill be now read a
second time" was put and carried nemine contradicente.
The Earl of DERBY stated that he proposed to fix the
committee as the first order on Monday next. The other
orders were disposed of, and their lordships adjourned at
twelve minutes past one o'clock.