The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-06 00:00:00

IHPERIAL PARLIAMENI

HOUSE OF LORDS_LAST EVENING.
THE ADDRESS.
(Continual from our Third Edition of last evening.)

Earl RUSSELL—I am happy to say that with regard to
the motion for the Address that has been so fairly and tem-
perately moved and secon led, I can see no reason for ob-
jecting to any part of that Address. With respect to the
Speech, however, I think it necessary to make some obser-
vations. No one can complain either of the brevity or want
of variety in the topics, the only difficulty is to choose among
so many topics those that ono attaches the most importance
to. I will therefore proceed to touch on a few of those topics
that I myself think are the most important. In the first place,
the thing that strikes one's attention is the question of the
late war in Europe, and uporrthat subject I would rather
call the attention of-riarlordships to the statement in the
Speech from the Throne on the prorogation of the last
Parliament than to the very short sentence upon it in the
present Speech. At the end of the session her Majesty was
pleased to declare that she had been no indifferent specta-
tor of events that had taken place on the Continent, but
that she had not taken any part in a conflict in which
neither the honour nor the interest of the people demanded
her active participation. I entirely agree with that sen-
tence. It appears to carry fully and satisfactorily the rea-
sons why her Majesty did not participate in the war
between Prussia and Austria. My lords, her Majesty is
made to say, " I hope that the termination of that war will
lead to the establishment of a durable peace." Well, we
all hope for the same thing, and though I for one sincerely
hope that that will be the case, at the same time I can-
not speak sanguinely upon that subject, because I must
say that ever since the aggression upon Denmark that took
place two years ago against all treaties, and all faith that has
been hitherto observed, there has been roused a spirit of
aggression in Europe, especially on the part of one power,
which may in future lead to great calamities. I trust that
it will not be so ; but it is impossible to view without pain
the probability of some such catastrophe, still more if we
refer to rumours that are afloat upon the subject. The next
topic which is referred to in the Royal Speech is that
with regard to the United States—" I have suggested
to the Government of the United States a mode by which
questions pending between the two countries arising out
of the civil war may receive an amicable solution, and
which, if met, as I trust it will be, in a corresponding
spirit, will remove all grounds of possible misunderstand-
ing, and promote relations of cordial friendship." I believe
that it is not quite good grammar to talk about meeting a
mode; but with regard to the substance of the paragraph,
I must say that I do not see any reasons why one Secre-
tary of State should not enter into communications with
another, even although they may come to different conclu-
sions as to the particular course of action. With regard to
this matter I acted more in conformity with the views of
the American Government than my predecessors had done,
and I see no reason why a Secretary of State may not take
such a course of action amicably, provided that the honour
of the country is not involved in any concession that is
made. Indeed I should hear with extreme and painful
surprise that the noble earl opposite had consented to any
solution of the question by which the honour of the coun-
try was at all compromised. (Hear.) I conclude that the
papers on that subject will be laid before Parliament at
the earliest possible period, and that we shall bo informed
very soon wlea proposition her Majesty's Government las
made, and whether it was met in a corresponding spirit,
such as her Majesty's Government anticipated it would be
met with. Now, my lords, there are various topics in the
Speech which I do not think it necessary to deal with here.
There are many measures of groat importance, and I trust
that when those measures are produced your lordships will
find that the proposals and the measures introduced will
be such as will be conducive to the welfare of the country.
I now come to one subject on which the attention of the
country is fixed, and that is the question of the reform in
Parliament. It is said, " 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 moderation and mutual forbearance, may
lead to the adoption of measures which, with-
out unduly disturbing the balance of political power,
shall freely extend the elective franchise." I hope
I may conclude from that paragraph, which is some-
what mysterious in its wording, that a measure in the shape
of a bill will be very soon introduced into the other house,
and that it will contain provisions so clear that the house will
be able to consider it in a spirit of fairness. I must, however,
request your lordships to allow me to state how it is the
question has arrived at the position at which it at present
stands. There was unfortunately introduced into the Reform
Bill of 1832 by Lord Chandos a clause, which introduced into
the electoral body a set of persons who I should say are the -
most dependent class existing in this country, viz., the
£5O tenants-at-will. (Oh, oh.) It was, therefore, after-
wards proposed that the occupiers of a lower amount in
the counties, and the occupiers of lower than£lo houses in
the towns should bo admitted to the franchise, but it was
constantly opposed on the ground that it would be de-
grading the franchise, and consequently when the noble
earl in 1859 was in power it was declared that the extension
of the franchise must only be in a lateral direction, and that
no lowering of the franchise in towns would be admitted
or listened to, the effect of which would be to exclude every
man under £lO for over—men who ware perfectly able to
exercise the franchise, and who, in my opinion, ought to
enjoy it. The bill of the noble earl had also another great
defect— that of intending to restore nomination boroughs,
for it was clear that by the provisions of that bill a land-
lord who lived 200 miles away would be able to swamp the
inhabitants of the borough. That being the case, I consi-
dered it my duty to endeavour to reject the bill by resolu-
tion on its second reading in the House of Commons, and
on its being carried tho Government of that day was ob-
liged to give up the bill, and they dissolved the Parliament.
Who lowering of the franchise has been constantly opposed
since 1854 and before the general oloetion of 1865 it was
declared by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buck-
'inghamshire that the House of Commons had happily refused
to degrade the franchise by the admission of the best of those
artisans who lived in houses somewhat below £lO per an-
num. That was constantly said and done until last ses-
sion, and then what happened ? Government of that day
thought it right again to introduce a measure of reform,
and I think if your lordships will consider a moment
that the proposition to admit in the counties men who
rented under £5O, and in the boroughs under need
not have so frightened hon. gentlemen, because the prin-
citple tad been admitted in the Reform Bill which was
passed for Ireland. But, unfortunately, that bill, which
proposed to lower the franchise in counties to £l4 and in
boroughs to £7, was mot by an opposition which I have
always considered was neither houourablo to the person
who promoted it nor safe to the country. (Oh, oh, and
hear, hear.) Tho noble earl now at the head of the Go-
vernment, referring on that
aohcocpeasiotuhatto
tthe
wouldpro p obsee da billme mea-
sure the Government, express,
sure which he should be able to support, and that it was
one which would reasonably and satisfactorily settle this
important question. It was desirable, the noble lord said,
to settle it once and for all, and ho promised me that my
bill should have fair play—(hear, hear, from Lord Derby)
—and that it should not meet with any factious opposition
or combination against it, but that it should be considered
and dealt with on its merits. (Bear, hear, from Lord Derby.)
If the bill was one which he approved of he would give it
his cordial support, but if, on the other hand, he consi-
dered it an imperfect, inadequate, and dangerous mea-
sure, he would do his best to throw it out by fair de-
bate and au honourable opposition. (Cheers front the
Ministerial benches.) Now, my opinion is t hat that bill did
net have fair play, but was thrust aside by underhand
means. It was not opposed on its merit; but by a factious
movement and combination against it; nor was it opposed
by a fair debate and honourable opposition. That is
my statement with regard to the bill of last session. It is
hardly regular for me to trace that bill through its stages in
the other house, but I have stated that I do not consider
that it was defeated by fair debate and an honourable oppo-
sition. One proposition was that the county franchise should
be £l4 per annum. That was met by a proposition that it
should be £2O. Now, that was a fair mode of meeting the
bill and of dealing with the question. But let me state the
other course that was proposed. It was not considered suf-
ficient to deal first with the franchise upon the principle
that had been laid down for Ireland; and it was objected to
proceed with that bill by those who were opposed to any
change, as well as by others, on the ground that the subject
should be dealt with as a whole, and that the bill for the
redistribution of seats should be taken first, by which means
much valuable time would have been lost, and the discus-
sion would have occupied some months on the merits and
demerits of that part of the question, so that it would have
been quite impossible to have 4A any atiCitaaiVA QA the-

realii.etn 7gb,
ywoqruiutnxehds6tte.ihroehnTab—nihldNlaritoz
nw. question—viz.,
proceedings,
haem
merits.wo uanatTni ondhf
wefytr ahheainchise—whether XS
act hdpetrahoTpeoyouserae7
to defeat
contraryde feeaal t-
placing rules of
th the
toiu,alespet, etnivi:o,rewt.
tfttt Commons and the practicen
the
be
I call
of honourable opposition, which all parties had adopted for
many years, of giving notice of any important amend-
those who had to meet it should
an unfes in
air
kof the G.t,
abnsoaovt printeder
Gt
overnment
course
hfcneoearnrtsam:atntahhddasaolot
tvptmai httneloalydt--
coo;
,lil:oo.ttntitrial.:w:faiols‘k,i,l,,nttishms:aa:s:tbiiltsoeiwtoudenigtpt.eitwloora That s
sf theaililla late Cji-eorvheasn•nd-
ineut it was not melon its merits, but nn attempt wassnado
at a combination against it on the part of those w'ao were
unable to combine 011 ally other subject. If that was the
case, and Innns well founded in the history of what took
place, the noble earl opposite had nu occasion to say that
he " thanked God that he was not as other men," because
be was quite as bad as those "publicans" of 1859. (A
laugh.) With regard to this bill, which the noble earl is
to produce, I only trust that it will be introduced soon ;
that it will contain clear provisions; and that it will be
considered by the House of Commons. For my own part
I neither promise support, nor threaten opposition. If it
be a good bill, no doubt we shall be happy to see it carried
(hear, hear.) If it be a bad bill, with an incomplete or de-
lusive franchise, why then it would do just that to which
the noble earl objected, and truly objected. Above all, if
we think it leads to future agitation of a perilous character
it will be our duty to oppose it. If the House of Commons
pass a fair bill, and your lordships approve of it, giving a
great body of the artisans of this country that privilege
they aro well fitted to exorcise; if you impose on them
that duty which they are well fitted to perform—that of
exercising one of the most important functions which can be
exercised in a free country, in voting for representatives to
Parliament; in short for selecting men on whom the conduct,
power, faith, and freedom of this country depend for many
years, if you give them that advantage freely and fairly, and
to a proper extent, then you may hope to settle this question ;
but if you endeavour, by any tricks or shuffles, to cheat
them of that fair right, and endeavour to give them less than
thatto which they are entitled, you will not succeed. Public
meetings have declared for manhood suffrage, but hardly
any one in either House of Parliament wishes for manhood
suffrage; but if you give the working classes a fair pro-
portion of votes you may hope to settle tits question for a
considerable time. But if you deal with it unfairly and ina-
dequately there can be no butter theme for agitation at the
general election which must take place soon after the pass-
ing of that bill than that the present House of Commons
cheated the country, and that it was necessary to have a
new Reform Bill and new members who will do their duty
to their constituents more honestly than the members of
the present House of Commons. If I were an agitator I
should wish for nothing better than such a state of things.
(A laugh.) The noble earl having arrived at the conclu-
sion that there ought to be a largo reform, will, I trust,
reduce the franchise to such an extent that his measure
will be accepted by the country. We all know very well
that there are different methods of reasoning, which affect
different minds. Some people are well convinced by the
inductive method. Others are more convinced by the me-
thod of deduction. Some like the algebraic, and others
the geometric method in order to arrive at the truth. But to
noble lords opposite there id no way which succeeds so well
as being in office. (A laugh.) The noble earl, in the speech
he made at Liverpool in the Course of the summer dwelt upon
the advantage arising from a change of Government from
time to time. I quite agree with him in what he said, but
there is a further advantage which he did not mention—
namely, that in coming into office he perceives the truth
of propositions to which he had been opposed for 15 years.
(A laugh.) I have only further to say that I trust the mea-
sure which the Government have announced with respect
to Ireland will have all the merit which should belong to
it, that it will have no injurious effects on the rights of pro-
perty, but will enable tenants to make improvements. If
the noble earl effects those objects he will confer a great
advantage on Ireland. The last time the noble earl was in
office he was fortunate in his selection of his Lord Lieu-
tenant. Lord Eglinton performed his duties in a manner
which satisfied all parties in Ireland and in this country—
(hear)—and I believe he is equally fortunate in his selec-
tion of the present Lord Lieutenant, who has conducted
himself in a manner to which no one can object. (Hear.) Of
course the duties of a Lord Lieutenant are those of adminis-
tration only. As the late Lord Wellesley said, the duty of
the Lord Lieutenant was to administer the law, not to alter
it. There are other questionsof importance affecting Ireland
when we have got rid of reform, and which will deserve
your lordships' attention as much as any question can. My
noble friend whom I see near me, Lord Kimberley, made,
as Lord Lieutenant, many valuable suggestions on the sub-
ject of landlord and tenant, but nothing can be undertaken
on the subject of Ireland without the deepest consideration.
The best intentions are not enough ; but I do trust that
measures for the amelioration of Ireland will be considered
with deliberation and carried. I thank your lordships for
your attention, and I have only now to add that I do not
consider it necessary on the present occasion to move any
11 amendment to the address. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY—I trust that in addressing your
lordships I may be permitted to express my gratitude to
my noble friends behind me for the clear and distinct man-
ner in which they moved and seconded the Address.
(Cheers.) I should have hardly thought it possible to go
through the various topics of a Speech from the Throne
with so much clearness, discretion, and brevity as was done
by my noble friend who moved the Address. (Hear.)
There was not one topic of the Speech which he left un-
touched, and not one that he did not touch upon with per-
fect fairness and discretion. I must also express my satis-
faction that the noble earl who has just sat down has not
found any matter for comment, certainly not for objection,
in the Speech from the Throne. lam more satisfied with
the course which the noble earl has found it expedient to
pursue than even with the noble earl's assurance that he
does not intend to move an amendment to the Address, be-
cause in his somewhat lengthened discourse he has not
confined himself, with one exception, to the various and
important topics of the Speech. The noble earl has entered
into an historical description of the progress and non-pro-
grog; of Reform during the last 35 years, and the various
bills, discussions, and disputes which have taken place.
Now, I must say, at the outset, that I decline to follow the
noble earl through that portion of his speech. Her Ma-
jesty's Ministers have expressed their hop 3 that the great
question of Parliamentary Reform may meet with an early
and satisfactory settlement; they have announced their
intention to bring forward the question at a very early
period; and I may at once relieve the noble lord's anxiety
as to any attemt at delay upon our part by saying that
upon the very earliest possible day—l believe as early es
Monday next—it is the intention of my right hon. friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before the House
settlement of the question, if it be
no hope of a satisfactory
Commonsof
fatter deta itlh.t‘G(lretirr,fliniteeaurt.)BPßrtftcllsaalminsurreefetrhe.anteeth.teor.tehitss
et with s
.) whichlf whentlse noble
bandying
' is mooted we are to commence
etaakdenhausp
thosintehne
question
recriminations
n
parties,
double-dealing, onaonadnowthhaet
not, connexion
with
the political history of the past Ify
vyears or more, and instead of entering upon the subject
Nith the view of considering what is best to be done, then
unfairness, inconsistency,
consistency,
I say, there is no hope that the matter will be settled, and
I shall deeply regret that her Majesty's Ministers have been
induced to bring forward a question which the event will
then have shown can lead only to angry discussions.
(Cheers.) My lords, if we do desire and hope. for a satis-
factory settlement of this question, if we desire to see the
representation of the country placed upon a sound basis, if
we desire t 3 see a settlement of the question which I will
not say shall be final, but which shall render unnecessary
and improbable any further agitation upon the subject for
a very considerable time, then, I say, this object cannot be
attained by making the question one of party and political
strife for the purpose of obtaining office or Parliamentary
majorities. The question must be examined in a fair, deli-
berate, and dispassionate spirit ; we must be prepared to
give and take ; we must be prepared to meet each other's
views, and wo must be prepared, above all things, to cast
away all party objects and be quite frog from mere political
strife. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Noble lords may laugh', .
but I am speaking from the deepest convictions of my mind
when I say that there is no possible Government in this
country that can at the present time carry a Reform Bill.
The noble earl tried to do so last year, and he thought he
had a majority with him when he laid down the principle
that no Government was required, and that no Govern-
ment was ever justified, in bringing forward a Reform Bill
unless it had a reasonable prospect of being able to carry it.
do not go as far as the noble earl, but I say that in the pre-
sent state of parties no Government can hope to carry, by their
own separate and distinct exertions, such a Reform Bill as
would in their view be most desirable ; and I repeat that, if
this question is to be settled, it must be dealt with in a spirit
of mutual forbearance, and not by bandyingrecriminations.
(Hear.) Although I cannot commend the noble earl for
accuracy in reference to the recapitulations of what to k
place in 1859 or 1806, I will not follow him with regard to
one of the points he raised. I will not argue with hint
touching his statement that from 1832 down to 18ti6 the
desire and working of the Conservative party was to keep
the borough franchise from being reduced to £lO, or the
county franchise below .£5O ; but I will remind him, with
regard to the county franchise, that in 109 the Govern
ment of the day proposed a larger extension of the county
franchise than has been proposed since. It is undoubtedly
true that at that time a proposition was made to place the
county and borough franchise upon the same footing, and
in that view of the matter the Government declined to re-
duce the borough franchise, while it proposed a large re-
duction of the county franchise. This principle, however,
was not sanctioned by the country or Parliament, and has
not b,‘en introduced since ; it has been universally admitted
that there should he a differepc:.s bstweon the county and
borough f
(Earl Russell—" Hear.") Then I would
alsoalsoremindnoblegivenopportunities
u: i
nit: enthhy ieso .
upon the subject of Reform, for from 1860 to 1866 the noble
earl had been perfectly satisfied to leave the whole question
at rest, and it was not until last year that he awakened
with a new-zeal for the artisans, nn.i brought forward a

hasty proposition for the consideration of the house. How
that proposition was treated is matter of history; it was not
defeated wholly by the opponents of the noble earl ; but
partially by those whom the noble earl had reckoned among
his supporters ; so ill-considered, so incomplete, so unsa-
tisfactory, and at the same time so dangerous, that although
the House of Commons had unanimously admitted the ex-
pediency of reducing the franchise, yet when its members
came to discuss the changes proposed in the measure before
them, some of the noble earl's supporters, as well as those
opposed to him, pronounced the bill to be not good. (Hear.)
I ask pardon for having been been led to take so much
notice of this topic introduced by the noble earl, and I
think it far better that I should not add another word
upon the subject, but leave it for the consideration of the
other houss, which is principally, though not exclusively,
interested in its settlement. (Hear, hear.) Having addressed
himself to the question of Reform, the noble earl thought
it necessary to refer to only two topics. In the first place,
he hoped that in making any proposition to the United
States Government for the settlement of those unfortunate
differences arising out of the late civil war, the present Go-
vernment would be careful not to stultify the country or
imperil its honour. He did not complain that the present
Government had taken a different course from that which
he had thought fit to pursue, but he hoped we should make
no concessions calculated to sacrifice the honour of the
country. The correspondence upon this subject has not
arrived at a point which will permit me, consistently with
duty, to lay it before the house ; but I will say that, as
early as the public service will permit, it will be laid before
Parliament, and the noble earl will then find that while we
have been disposed to come to an amicable solution of the
existing differences, we have not departed from what is
consistent with the honour of the country, or forfeited
those rights which belong to an independent country.
(Hear, hear.) The noble earl appears to think that some
proposition has been made to the United States Govern-
ment. The fact is that shortly after the accession of the
present Government to office, the United States Govern-
ment addressed a despatch to the Foreign-office, recapitu-
lating the grounds of complaintwhich they stated they had
before offered for the consideration of the office. In answer
to that, my noble relative thought it necessary to enter,
not acrimoniously, but particularly, into a discussion of the
various points raised. And I would state distinctly that
there was one question pressed upon us, as it was pressed
upon the noble earl opposite, to which we thought we
could come to a compromise or settlement. That was
as to the right of thig country to decide at what time and
under what circumstances we should recognise the belli-
gerent rights of the Confederates. In the first place,
the questions of recognising belligerent rights is inherent
in an independent Power; in the next place, a recognition
of belligerent rights should not precede but follow a de-
claration of blockade by the United States ; to blockade is
essentially the exercise of a belligerent right, and when a
blockade was declared between the two parties there were
two courses open to her Majesty's Government—to refuse
to recognise the validity of the blockade on the ground that
there was no belligerent, or, on the other hand, to recognise
the belligerent rights of the two parties. And 1 think the
noble earl very truly said that between the two alternatives
he selected that which was most friendly to the United
States when he recognised that which was a most imperfect
blockade, although, by taking this course, he found himself
under the necessity of recognising correlative obligations.
(Hear, hear.) But I cannot think this is a point on which
the United States Government lay much stress, because
we saw very lately that upon the introduction of the new
Minister from France at Washington a declaration was
officially made that after the evacuation of Mexico by
the French there would no longer remain between the
two countries a single question to lead to a ground for differ-
enc,e or complaint. Now, the Government of the Emperor
of the French and the late Government of her Majesty pur-
sued a precisely identical course with reference to bellige-
rent rights and the recent blockade ; and surely, if there
is no ground of complaint between the United States and
France with reference to the latter's conduct in connexion
with the blockade of the Southern ports, there can be no
ground of complaint against her Majesty's Government in
reference to the same matter. But, my lords, I will say
this - if the United States admit the principle of arbitration,
if they can point out the precise questions which they de-
sire to have submitted to the arbiter, and the grounds upon
which they seek for redress and compensation, we shall be
quite ready to meet them in a friendly spirit, to discuss the
points upon which arbitration is sought, and, if we can find
an impartial arbiter, to refer to his decision the questions at
issue. Such are the points which we have submitted to the
United States Government. It remains to be seen if they
can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I trust they
may, for there are no countries between which friendly re-
lations are more entirely for the interests of both than this
country and the great Republic at the other side of the At-
lantic. (Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more suicidal than
a war between the two countries; nothing more destruc-
tive of their best interests ; and, at the same time, there are
no two countries which have it in their power to be more
useful to one another. (Hear, hear.) I think there is only
one other topic in the Royal Speech to which the noble earl
adverted, and that is the measure to be proposed with re-
gard to the settlement of the relations between landlord
and tenant in Ireland. Ido not at all wish to detract from
the merits which he so properly ascribed to the adminis-
tration of the noble lord the Into Lord-Lieutenant, and I
agree with him that one of the questions most necessary to
be solved in the case of Ireland, and at the same time most
difficult of solution, is the land question. I will not anti-
cipate the discussion of the particular measure we propose
to bring forward. It is ready to be laid upon the table of
the other house, and 1 will only say that while on the one
hand her Majesty's Government anxiously desire to give
every facility to the tenant for benefiting by his improve-
ments, they also desire to maintain the just rights of pro-
perty, which cannot be interfered with without destroying
the whole social condition of the country. (Hear, hoar.)
As the noble earl has not thought proper to comment on
any other portion of the Speech, and as after waiting for
a little time I found that no other noble lord wished to put
a question, I will saynothing more, but will content myself
with expressing my thankfulness to your lordships for the
manner in which you have received the Speech and the
Address, and I hope that it may be an indication of the
corresponding candour and courtesy with which the mea-
sures will be received which will be submiitecl to the con-
sideration of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was agreed to, and
The house adjourned at 20 minutes past 7.

HOUSE OF CONINIONS-YESTERDAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair at one o'clock; after
which hour the members began to arrive in quick
succession. At two o'clock, when Sir Augustus
Clifford, the Usher of the Black Rod, appeared at
the door of the house, and, advancing to the table,
informed the Speaker that the attendance of the
honourable house was required in the House of

Peers,
The SPEAKER immediately left the chair, and the
Chief Clerk read out from the list the order in which
it had been arranged the members should accom-
pany the Speaker. Commencing with the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, the names of the members
of the Government were called, and then afterwards
those of various members ou either side the house,
but after ten or a dozen particular names had been
pronounced nearly the whole of the hon. members
within the house rose from their seats, made a quiet
rush to the door, and followed in the train of the
Speaker in the most admirable confusion.

The SPEAKER having returned, the sitting was
suspended until a quarter before four.
The SPEAKER resumed the chair at a quarter
before four.