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

IMPERIAL PARMA BUNT

HOUSE OF COMAIONS.—LisT EN-ENING.

THE REFORM QUESTION.

On the order of the day for the consideration of so much
of her Majesty's gracious speech as relates to the repre-
sentation of the people in Parliament,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was
received with loud cheers, said—l move that the para-
graph of her Majesty's gracious speech bo read.
The paragraph was accordingly read by the clerk at the
table.

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 Government, clearly
to convey to theiouse the interpretation 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 Commons,
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 aro the
last men in this house who would depreciate the import-
ance of the tics of party ; they aro 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 been connected in this house. On the
contrary, they feel -they painfully and profoundly feel-
that this is the occasion of all others when they would have
most earnestly to appeal for a continuaeco of that support,
of that confidence, of that sympathy, of that friendship, and
oven of that forbearance on which they before rested with
assurance. Sir, the meaning that they 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 longer be 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 meo, and we hope that the House of Com-
mons, notwithstanding that expression of opinion from 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.
(Near, hear.) And, sir, we have arrived at that conclusion
that it is not for the advantage of the country that Parlia-
mentary Reform should bo a question that should decide
the fate of the Ministry, that it should not be what is com-
monly called a party 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 Whig Govern-
ment, headed by Lord John Russell, which dealt with this
subject and failed. In the year 1854 there 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 -a Government which
was headed again by Earl Russell-which attempted to
deal with this question and failed. There may be some who
will 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 wo con-
template 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 and prac-
tised. Although the mode by which they were assorted
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, fur example, it
was possEblo for the labouring classes to return both in .m-
-bars 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 exercised 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 great error.
It is fair to admit that, as they were thou enjoyed and
practised, they were perhaps ill adapted to our present
social state; and though the labouring classes, in the most
considerable seats of labour, might with the old machinery
not have been 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 Moan Bill, and were supported with enthusiasm
by powerful classes, were able then to override the objec-
tions from influential quarters. They were 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. Pool on this subject aro familiar to
the house. He warned the Goiernment of the day that in
putting an end to the rights of freemen as they then
existed, and terminatiug all those other means by which
the householder in many boroughs registered his
i 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 fur want of advocacy-and advocacy of the
highest and ablest character-in this house. One of the
most shining lights of our time, Sir William Follot,
brought those claims before the house on more than
ono occasion with that eloquence for which he wss remark-
able, and that power of argument for which he was dis-
tinguished. Other rights for the then existing generation
were, in another place, not only vindicated but saved by no
less a person than Lord Lyndhurst. Sir, I would not,
especially after mentioning such names, refer to anything
I have myself expressed. If I may be permitted tosay
undue no circumstance would I ever refer to anything
have said here merely in vindication of . myself or my col-
leagues.. But if I have made a declaration upon public
question question of groat importance as the oigan. of a party,
have been requested by men of great einiuen.ce. to express
an pinion 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, in 1852, when I first had the honour of
a sent 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 R:-
form was very much in fashion,- and I think it was upon
one of the motious of the hon. iiismber for Surrey (Air.
Locke Ring), which ho brought forward immediately after
the formation of the Government of 1852, that it beeamO
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 of 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 tho ex-
pression of a deep and sincere conviction on my part—that
I think in the construction of that memorable law, the Its-
form Act of 1832,.there was a very greet deficiency, which

oos working
tir
eno gr
maintain
wcl
were
r s enseki
tunhoet:h.eleewa franchise.goerwore
consisted in a want of due consideration of the rights of the
nnngdgetrearitouisottirononls.d system
qtyno the
st :Us constitution. by the suffrages of the freemen, the political rights of the
whylabWe vir-
tuallythe destroyed those rights. Ido not for a moment now
existing arrangements should be interfered with • but then
I never heard a reason why a more satisfactory' arrange-
ment could not have been substituted in lieu of theoldon
And I trace much of the discontent in this country,ll- e.
at times has been painfully felt, to that omission." w 161
ce-in Act wasr
That will at least show that the question was one which,
having born taken up originally, ev-aen the Pei
introduced into this house, by a party in the Se, te not then
this
ow
extract
te dsceo ljau rsitti qounow tohd, which
but
the I
Ihouse-se e rasehas
n
successful, has since never been entirely- desested by them.
h
On every fitting occasion there have been expressions of
opinionleeal ,is
similar
to ho
e the
heard was made by me as a Minister, after dulyconsultiug
those with whom I have the hoecur to act. Measures ,of
disfranchis(quent of this kind ceitld not now be tolereeee .
but in 1832 it was not difficult to carry them with 'tripe-
nay. Tha position of the labouring classes in 1b32 dif-
fered from their position in 1847: but such was the ex-
citement produ -ad by the measure of 1832 in the country
generally, especially among those influential chteses who
considerably benefited by it, and whose power eves im-
mensely increased by it, that it was utterly impoesible that
any policy which was projected by the authors of the bill of •
1332 could have been successfully opposed either in this
house or by those who, outside the house, wereteore imme-
diately interested in the question. That, however, which
Sir R. Peel told the Government of Lord Grey inevitably
happened. lie said, "As time advances and the country
prospers, you will find the labouring class whose Parlia-
mentary rights you are now destroying will take the op-
portunity of claiming again the privileges which you have
thoughtlessly taken from them, and for which you offer no
substitute." (Rear.) Since 1832 this country has, no doubt,
made great progress. But it is during the last 10 years
that progress has been most remarkable. I will not now
attempt to inquire into the causes, the particular cause;
which have brought about that great advance. But 1 think
I may say there is one sovereign cause which is at the bot-
tom of everything, and that is the increased application 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 has produced.
They are prodigious ; but, to my mind, the moral results
are not less startling. The revolution in locomotion, which
would strike us every day as a miracle if we were not fami-
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 :desires and the opportunities of
men ; and it is science that has ennobled labour. There
aro 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 uo 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 hare mot with vexatious
opposition, and have encountered a sinister spirit of neglect
and intentional delay. (Cheers.) On the contrary, sir,
forming my opinion from what I have seen out of doors,
and, I am sorry to add, income 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, P s seine 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 rimy 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 ten 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 mot 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 ware at all adapted to supply the defi-
ciency which we aro 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 1852, introduced by Lord J.
Russell, as eminently a premature movement, for it did not
even situ at supplying the deficiency to which I refer. I
do not blame Earl Russell for bringing forward that bill.
I have via licated 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,
found himself night after night attacked, as it were, by
members of this house who proposed isolated measures
applying only to some fragmentary portion of the great
question of Reform. He knew the danger which might
accrue if such isolated measures were adopted. He knew
that, whether the result was democratic or oligarchic, con-
sequences might ensue from such a course whioh would
probably startle 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. Hon. gentlemen
rose night after night, asking him at ono time about the
borough,.at another about the county franchise, at another
bringing forward proposals which would have completely
revolutionised 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
to 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 carry
them 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 com-
menced the disturbance of the settlement of '32. And here
I wouldask the house to reflect on these two circumstances.
Tho origin of Parliamentary Reform as a question in the
House of Cemmons must be found in the conduct of indi-
viduals—of independent members of this house. This,
therefore, is a Rouse of Commons 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 made by organised parties,.by bodiesresponsibloloc t a
settlement of a question which was then
of men, and by leaders of political connexions, to o
bringing no charge of misconduct again any members of t
• a
the house or against the house of Commons self , I re.
against unsettled. I am
inay have been perfectly justified in what it did.
speaking historically on the subject. The House of Com-
monsl
will not cuter into any controversy to-night on the
course pursued. The members of the house may
have
beenv ch it
justified coming forward and sedulously at-
tempting to disturb the settlement of '32. They have been
justified in defeating any measure which may have been
'hi
brought forward by suceossive Ministers to settle the
points in controversy. All that I do not deny ; but I think
all Must admit that the House of Commons, with regard to
this question of Parliamentary Reform, has incurred, as it
were, certain peculiar responsibilities. They originated the
question, and at the same time they have prevented the
settling of it. Now, though few will doubt that, under
these circumstances, the House of Commons itself, 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-
ment are peculiarly difficult and perplexing, because it is
to be observed that, although the House of Commons de-
feated all the five measures that wore 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 read a second time, but in tho case of the bill of
Lord Derby's Government they thought fit —I am not going
for a moment to question the propriety of their conduct—
not to permit that measure to be road 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 iu 1859 that made Parliamentary Reform a party
question. Until the vote taken on that occasion it was not
so. (" Oh I Oh I") 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 tut now going to prove, the statement that I
made just now. 1 nay that until 1859 Parliamentary re-
form was not a Parliamentary question. When Sir R. Peel,
in 1831, was called upon to form a Government, there was
then considerable odium raised against him owing to the
insinuations of what wore then called sincere Reformers —(a
laugh)—that on grounds of party policy he would disturbko
the Act of '32. Sir R. Peel found it impossible to ina
way against
character, would
steps which, from their grave and solemn c
house,
when
dilly impress the public mind. It was in
thisof First Minister
call, upon to take the responsible
eut of all his party,
solemn declaration, with the comp
tetle settlement of '32.
wider circumstances of great difllicul
that he would nevse seek to disturblcot
Was
religiously oh-
(Rear, hear.) And that engageitiof
with all its virtue;
served. Although the
settl'lneuwas no doubt conceived and
positiont3s, that he made the
and I have never denied
party feeling,
andinmany
of
its
ruiner
carried with extreme palls
t)ageous to the party Ord carried
provisions highly
them
the compact entered icto by Sir R,
withstanding all that,
observed, 1 an( it was suet
Peel and his party was religiously
(laughter) —I don't blame them for that —I say, note
uutillBsl and 1852, when dark rumours were abroad as to
Lord Russall, who in very solemnnn
r in this house had fledged himself on the faith of
the r
the intentions of Lor
principle of finality—Otear, Lear). • tlra
manner
l er
higs to the