The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-30 00:00:00

eiple of Parliamentary reform, and ho advocator] it
as a means by which he alone could control the
oligarchy which then prevailed. Now, who was
that statesman ? It was the son of Chatham.
(cheers)—that very Mr. Pitt who, as we are now
told, by his machinations prevented Lord Grey, and
for 70 years has prevented the Whig party, from
conferring upon the English people the boon and
the advantage of the household franchise. (Cheera
and laughter.) My lords and gentlemen, no dor,sot
in 1832 Lord Grey was perfectly entitled, from. his
high character and from his political conduel", to
take the line which he did take. Lord Grey had
fairly earned the leadership upon that qUeztiou of
Parliamentary Reform ; but when Lord Grey forrnd
his Government he never pretended that in ti.te
policy which he recommended he was reconitnr.;a_
ing a policy peculiar to the Whig party ; ou the
contrary, he said from the first that it was irr.possible
for bins to form a Government except nt'on a very
bi oad basis. Ile appealed successfully to the friend-
ship of Mr. Canning, but that was not enough. He
applied to the Duke of Richmond, the father of one
of my colle,igues, to‘form one of his Ministry, and
he did so. Had he not done so I very much doubt
whether Lord Grey's Cabinet could have been estab-
lished ; therefore I say nothing could be more idle
than the pretence that we invaded the baud to whic'4
we had no right of approach, and that our polit'xii,
opponents had a vested interest in the question of
Parliamentary Reform ; that for 70 years they had
been vainly trying to confer the boon of household
-suffrage on the people of England ; but that we have
come forward in a manner most unauthorised, at the
last moment, claiming a position to which we were
not entitled. When the Reform Bill of 1832 was
passed, Sir R. Peel, by his political Tamworth mani-
festo and his speech in the House of Commons,
pledged the Tory party not to interfere with that,
settlement which was arrived at. It was then the
hatit of those who passed the bill of 1832, and who
found, to their great surprise, that there was It great
danger of a Tory Government being formed, to de-
clare that the real object which Sir R. Peel and
his friends had in view was to repeal the new Re-
form Bill ; and Sir R. Peel, with great prudence, as
it was then universally deemed, entered into that
compact, the reason for which I have always had
great doubts ; but whether that compact was wise or
not, no one will deny it was religiously observed by
the Conservative party. (Cheers.) Every man whO
acted with them scrupulously supported and assisted
Sir R. Peel in carrying that compact into fulfilment;
and I never heard it for one moment whispered that
we long departed from that engagement ; but when
20 years after the bill of 1832 a Minister, filling tho
high capacity of Prime Minister of England—when
in 1852 a Prime .Minister announced that that law
was no longer adequate to the circumstances, and
that he should himself introduce a measure to super-
sede it—why then, I say, the Tory party was im-
mediately exempted from the engagement into which
they had entered, and it was for them to consider the
course which they ought to pursue. (Loud cheers.)
I touch upon this point becatise•it is a subject which
has now for a very long time been circulated with
impunity in the country ; and I want to show to you
that our title was clear to deal with this greatest and
most important of political questions—the distribu-
tion of political power in the State. (Cheers.) After
Lord John Russell had announced his retreat from
the doctrine of finality there was a meeting of gentler-
men connected with the Tory party ; and, taking all
the circumstances of the case into consideration, they
communicated with their friends, and came to a de-
finite and determined resolution that under no cir-
cumstances whatever was the Tory party ever to be
induced to pass a new Reform Bill ; that they would
always assist its introduction, and then attempt to
mould it into that form which they believed would
be moss advantageous to the country—(cheers) and
to that resolution, passed nearly 20 years ago, they
had invariably and religiously adhered. And I can
only say for myself, from the time I ever presumed at
the request of my friends to take any lead in public
affairs, I have never omitted an opportunity of
claiming, whenever this question was brought for-
ward, the right of the Tory party to deal with it
(cheers), deeming that historically we hadas good and
better a right than our opponents, but that, totally
irrespective of these considerations, it was a fatal
position that one of the great constitutional parties of
England should commence their programme by the
admission that on the most vital and interesting of
public questions they were to be considered to be
debarred from ever interfering. (Cheers.) Well,
then, I think, my lords and gentlemen, it must be
agreed, notwithstanding the speech which has re-
cently been delivered in the city of Edinburgh—(a
laugh) —that the question of Parliamentary Reform
was a question for the Tory party to deal with if
they thought proper. (Cheers.) I say so, first, on
abstract political grounds; and, secondly, if neces-
sary, but it is not necessary, I vindicate it on histo-
rical facts totally opposed to that perverted state-
ment which has recently been made in this city.
(Cheers.) Well, my lords and gentlemen, if that
question was ono with which we had a right to deal,
the next question—and it is a much more important
one—is this, having the right to deal with it, ought
we to have dealt with it ? Well, now, it does appear
to me that any man of calm mind, any man accus-
tomed to consider public affairs, any Englishman,
any Scotchman, or any Irishman, who, living in a
free country, does not pass idly this important ques-
tion, as in other countries he might, as to the distri-
bution of power—l thick any man who has calmly
considered this question must have felt it was abso-
lutely necessary for Lord Derby in 1867 to deal with
this question. (Cheers.) Why, what are the facts of
the case? The facts of the case are very brief. They
are these : for 15 years, from 1852 to the end of 1866,
the Government of the Queen had been dealing
with the question of Parliamentary Reform, not the
Parliament of England, for that is a totally different
thing from the Government of the country dealing
with the question, and that being a question of
merely Parliamentary interest supported by some
Parliamentary connection, both may endeavour to
obtain public confidence and public applause by
supporting a particular line of policy. A ques-
tion may be a purely Parliamentary question,
such as the abolition of slavery and mauy other
questions, when it may be right that they should
not be precipitate in their resolution, and that they
should be matured by frequent and continuous dis-
cussion, not merely of years, but, if necessary, on
some questions of generations. But the moment
the Queen's Government comes forward and says
that the question ()tight to be settled, the country
has a right to suppose that the wisest men have given
their consideration to it, and that State necessity
requires that some settlement should be arrived at.
(Cheers.) You might say that it was merely the
Whig party that were of this opinion. Is that the
case ? Every Prime Minister during these 15 years,
and every party that has been in power during those
15 years, had heard announced from the Throne
that the question of Parliamentary Reform, which
is the question of the distribution of power in the
State, was ono which demanded consideration and
settlement. (Cheers.) Every Prime Minister of
every party in power had dealt with that question,
and had failed. Lord John Russell had dealt with
the question, and had faili)d. (Cheers and laughter.)
Lord Aberdeen, at the head of ono of the most
powerful Governments, so far as personal talent is
concerned, that ever existed in this country—Lord
Aberdeen had dealt with the question, and had
failed. Lord Palmerston had dealt with the ques-
tion, and had failed. Lord Derby had dealt with
the question, and had failed. Lord John Russell
had dealt with the question again and had failed.
(Cheers.) Well, you talk about the agitation in the
country—you talk about the unprincipled conduct
of men practising for self-interest end private ends
—but what do you say to agitators who, year after
year, announce that the most important political
question requires a settlement, and year after year,
Ministry after Ministry, the attempt is made and
no settlement is arrived at? (Cheers.) Why, what
is the practical conclusion, under such circumstances,
at which every man could arrive ? It must be this,
and everybody does feel in England, that the great
machine was not adequate to the question, that it
could not meet the difficulties. Well, if the Govern-
ment of the country was not adequate to that which
the country required, then, my lords and gen-
tlemen, I venture to think that I have shown