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

tall.

UST.

IBER.

working consistedin
classestt w ainnt ofthe
ed due considerationfranchise.
ti nd
Under
rf ther rightslthe
o-..sysotfem
by r the
eesuffwraeregeasoknof
otwheiefdregedemhoni
tthhee
ooponliettiitirionghtswoef the
labourer
din retthhoese rwigehrets.
notl deotrnoontgfreasor aomoso.mwehnyt now
wishtuly
to
existing arrangements should be interfered with • but then
I never heard a reason why a more satisfactory' arra
beenast pshaionfwultlfiaftetlt,hetoptittioonnivvissasione'which
meat could not havebeen substituted in lieu of the olduogeo.-
And I trace much of the discontent in this country, whichn
aitltaimes t
will mat
having been taken up originally, when the Reform Act wa;
introduced into this house, by a party in the Statenot then
successful, has since never been entirely deserted by them.
On every fitt'ng occasion there have been expressions of
opinion sim;lar to those just quoted, but I have read this
extract because the declaration which the house has now
heard was made by me as a Minister, after dulyqoossitiog
those with whom I have the honour to act. lie:wore, of
disfranchisement of this kind could not now be tolerated ;
but in 1832 it was not difficult to carry them yrith impu-
nity. The position of the labouring classes in 1832 dif-
fered from their position in !867: but such -was the ex-
citement produced by the measure of 1832 is.. the country
generally, espocia'ly among those influential classes who
considerably benefited by it, and whose power was im-
mensely increased by it, that it was utterly- impossible that
any policy which was projected by the authors of the bill of
1832 could have been successfully opposed either in this
house or by those who, outside the house, were more imme-
diately interested in the question. That, however, which.
Sir R. Peel told the Government of Lord Grey inevitably
happened. He said, "As time advances and the country '
prospers, you will find the labouring class whose Parli A_
mentary rights you are now destroying will take the op-
portunity of claiming again the privileges which you bay°
thoughtlessly taken from them, and for which you off er no
substitute." (Hear.) Since 1832 this country has, no ifoubt,
made great progress. But it is during the last 10, yours
that progress has been most remarkable. I will not, now
attempt to inquire into the causes, the particular causes,
which have brought about that great advance. But I think
I may say there is one sovereign cause which is at the bot-
tom of everything, and that is the increased appl;,cation of
science to social life. That I believe to be the main cause
of the vast changes we have seen in the condition and
feelings of classes. We are all familiar with the material
results which the application of science hen produced.
They are piedigious ; but, to my Mind, the moral results
are not less startling. The revelation in locomotion, which
would strike us every day as a miracle if We *were not faini-
liar with it, has given the great body of the inhabitants of
this country in some degree the enlightening advantages
of travel. The mode in which steam power is applied to
the printing press in these days produces effects more
startling than the first discovery of printing in the 15th
century. It is science that has raised wages ; it is science
that has increased the :de3ires and the opportunities of
men ; and it is science that has ennobled labour. There
are some who say its effects must be to equalise the con-
dition of men. That is a controversy. lam not anxious
to-night on that or any other subject to enter into contro-
versy , • but this, I think, may be said, and the dogma will
not be impugned—there is no doubt the application of
science to social life has elevated the condition of the
working classes. (Cheers.) Having said this in all sin-
cerity, I must repudiate an opinion which is too preva-
lent, and, as I think, is utterly unfounded—the opinion
that, especially in this house, the legitimate
claims of the labouring class to their due share
in the Parliamentary system have mot with vexatious
opposition, and have encountered a sinister spirit of neglect
and intentional delay. (Cheers.) On the contrary,
forming my opinion from what I have seen out of doors,
and, I am son/ to add, in some measure within these walls,
I should say that these claims have been treated rather with
an Epicurean feeling, which, anxious not to be troubled by
the settlement of a disagreeable and, perhaps, as some think,
a dangerous question, would agree to anything for present
ease without any thought of our duty towards those who
may follow us. (Loud cheers.) All I can say of such a
feeling is that I think it more dangerous than any of those
opinions which perhaps to-day may have alarmed the minds
of some, and which, if practised. would injure the future of
those who preach them. I have no hesitation in saying that
as far as I can form an opinion, and I am sure on this head
it is an impartial one, I know of no great question—no
question, I mean, that largely influences the history of this
country, and touches the principles upon which our Consti-
tution rests—which has met with less discussion and with
less difficulty than the one now engaging our attention.
(Oh, and hear.) It is sometimes said that Parliamentary
Reform has been a Parliamentary question for 15 years.'
It is very true that the attention of Parliament has been
called to schemes forreconstructing this house ; but I deny
that these schemes were at all adapted to supply the defi-
ciency which we are now considering, or were at all con-
ceived in a spirit likely to bring about any satisfactory re-
sult. I look upon the bill of 1832, introduced by Lord J.

Russell, as eminently a premature movement, for it did not
even aim at supplying the deficiency to which I refer. I
do not blame Earl Russell for bringing forward that bill.
I have vinlicated him before in this house when attacked
upon that head. I look upon the measure of 1852 as
strictly a measure of self-defence. Lord John Russell,
who understood the question of Parliamentary Reform,
:aund himelf night after night attacked, as it wore, by
members of this house who proposed isolated measures
applying only to some fragmentary portion of the great
question of Retorts. He knew-the-danger which might
aczrue if such isolated measures were adopted. He knew
that, whether the result was democratic or oligarchic, con-
sequences might ensue from such a course which would

probably starae their proposers as much as anybody else.
Therefore Lord John Russell, after five years' campaign-
ing against his Liberal friends, found it absolutely neces-
sary to make some effort for a comprehensive settlement of
the question of Parliamentary Reform. lion. gentlemen
rose night after night, asking him at one time about the
borough, at another about the county franchise, at another
bringing forward proposals which would have completely
revoluConised the whole system by which votes are given
and registered, and Lord John Russell eventually proposed
a scheme to deal with these points. But I beg the house

remark that the disturbance of the settlement of '32 did

not originate with Lord J. Russell. It originated entirely
with the House of Commons. It was not Lord J. Russell,

or his rivals, or any body of public men, who, when they
make proposals to this house, make them at least with a
sense of responsibility, that they may be called on to early

hem into action.

That was not the case.

It was the

House of Commons, it was those whom we habitually de-

scribe as independent members—(a laugh)—who coin-

menced tho disturbance of the settlement of '32. And here
I would ask the house to reflect on these two circumstances.

The origin of Parliamentary Reform as a question in the

House of Commons must be found in the conduct of indi-

viduals—of independent members of this housa. This,
therefore, is a House of Co-nmons question ; it is not a
party question. And it is remarkable that the House of
Commons, having been the originators of the disturbance
of the settlement of '32, have defeated every attempt that
has been mado by organised parties, by responsible bodies
of men, and by leaders of political connexions, to effect a
settlement of a question which was then unsettled. I am
bringing no charge of misconduct against any members of
the house or against, the house of Commons itseff ; I am
speaking historically on the subject. The House of Com-
mons may have been pet:ectly justified in what it did.
I will not enter into any controversy to-night on the
course which it pursued. The members of the house may
have been justified in coming forward and sedulously at-
tempting to disturb the settlement of '32. They have been
justified in de:sating any measwe which may have been

brought forward by successive Miuisters to settle the

points in controversy. All that I do not deny; but I thick

a!1 must admit that the House of Commons, with regard to

this question of Parliamentary Reform, has inourrod, as it
were, certain peculiar responsibilities. They originated th•

question, and at the samo timo they have prevented tho
settling of it. Now, though few will doubt that, under
these circumstances, the House of Commons itsolf, as in-

dependent of any particular party organisation, has incurred
a peculiar responsibility with respect to this question, it
can, I think, hardly be denied that with regard to the pre-
sent subject the relations between this house and Govern-
meat are peculiarly difficult and perple/ing, because it is
to be observed that;although the House of Commons de-

feated all the five measures that were brought forward by
Lord Russell, Lord Aberdeen, LOrd Palmerston, and Lord
Derby, they did in four of these instances permit the mea-
sure to be road a second time, but in the case of the bill of
Lord Derby's Government they thought fit—l am not going
for a moment to question the propriety of their coniuct—
not to permit that measure to be read a second time. (Loud
cries of "Hear, hear.") Now I say, without the slightest
soreness on the subject, that it was the opposition of Lord
J. Russell in 1859 that made Parliamentary Reform a parry
question. Until the vote taken on that occasion it was not
so. (" Oh 1 Ohl") Well, no man is so sensible of the ad-
vantages of free discussion as myself. lam always ready
to acknowledge its practical value. I must, therefore, re-
peat, and I am now going to prove, the statement that I
made just now. 1 say that until 1859 Parliamentary re-
form was not a Parliamentary, question. When Sir R. Peel,
in 1834, was called upon to form a Government, there was
then considerable odium raised against him owing to the
insinuations of what were then called sincere Reformers—(a

- .•
laugh)—that on grounds of party policy he would disturb
the Act of '32. Sir R. Peel found it impossible to make
way against these unfounded aspersions, unless be took
steps which, from their grave and solemn character, would
duly impress the public mind. It was in this house, when
called upon to take the responsible position of First 3f iuister
under circumstances of groat difficulty, that he made the
solemn declaration, with the complete assent of all his party,
that he would never seek to disturb the settlement of '32.
(Hear, hear.) And that engagement was religiously ob-
served. Although the settlement of '32, with all its virtues,
and I have never denied them, was no doubt conceived and
carried with extreme party feeling, and in many of its minor
provisions highly advantageous to the party that carried
them—(laughter) —I don't blame them for that—l say, not-
withstanding all that, the compact entered into by Sir R.
Peel and his party was religiously observed, and it was net
until 1851 and 1852, when dark rumours were abroad as to
the intentions of Lord J. Russell, who in a very solemn
manner in this house had pledged himself on the faith of
the Whigs to the principle of finality—(hear, hear) . that