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

the Conserve fl re party had to consider what course to take
if Lord J. RV filWll should take up the question again. I be-
lieve I may fly. that was a subject which was considered by
the most em heont and loading men—many now departed or
lost to us-1 rem held in the highest honour for their integ-
rity and Pu' 'elk spirit, like the late Duke of Richmond, Mr.
Banks, and others who sat in this house—and many who
still live an el were in intimate communication with Lord
Derby, and -.they came to the resolution that if Lord J.
Russell geese up the Act of '32, nothing would induce them
to take up op position to Parliamentary Reform. And their
course has been consistent throughout. There never was a
bill brought forward of any importance in its details of
which the : econd reading was opposed by us. I think I have
traced the Teestion now at least to the relinquishment of
finality, and. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me
that there vae no appearance of Reform being made a
party question until that period. Many hon. members who
sat in the le euee at that time are familiar with what took
place with r egaael to those bills. Now, sir, there is uo man
whose opinions on Parliamentary Referin are spoken of
with more le sriry than Lord Palmerston. One would con-
elude that Lo Palmorstou was unquestiouably very Con-
servative in his principles, that he was entirely opposed to
any change in on r Parliamentary Constitution, and that it
was only for political convenience, and in order to make
necessary arrangesnents for his indispensable colleagues—
(laughter)—that he ever consented to the introduction of any
measures of Reform. Now, there is not the slightest foun-
detion for any such conclusion. In 1857 Lord Palmerston
was at the culminating point of his power. He hed then
dissolved Parliament on the China vote, he had scattered
all Ws enemies—the Whigs, even those who afterwards
became his friends. (Laughter.) The Opposition, with
which I was connected, suffered, but probably less than
most p ortions of the house, in that penal dissolution. Lord
J. Ruseell, a great authority in this question, only obtained
the representation of the City of London almost as au act of
courtesy, and the most powerful leaders now on the subject
of Parliamentary Reform lost their seats in this house on
that occ mien. (Cheers.) Lord Palmerston had, accordingly,
an indisputable majority. He had none in his Cabinet at
that moment—though all men whom he respected—in a
position to dictate a policy to Lord Palmerston. The house
met in the autumn of 1857 ; Lord Palmerston had, there-
fore, prepared his schemes, it was absolutely unnecessary
for him to introduce the question of Parliamentary Reform,
and yet Lord Palmerstonrecommonded it in the Speech from
the Throne. What happened in 1858 ? Lord Palmerston,
who was supposed to be a Minister supported by the most
powerful majority that ever appeared in Parliament, sud-
denly lost his pride of place. Within 12 months of the dis-
solution, and when Lord Palmerston left office, ho was so
sensible that " some settlement"—as the fashionable phrase
was then—was required, that he said if his successor, Lord
Derby, would give his earnest attention to the subject, and
if he should feel it his duty to bring forward a mode-
rate, well-considered measure, he might be certain it would
receive from him a fair and candid consideration. Well,
sir, Lord Derby did not conceive in those days that Par-
liamentary Reform was exactly a question on which, if he
brought forward a measure, he could count upon any en-
thusiastic support. All parties had not then tried their hand
in vain ; and no circumstances had then occurred which
could justify a Minister in advising the Crown to appeal to
Parliament to consider this question not as a party question.
Lord Derby, however, did think that ho was not put-
ting too favourable an interpretation upon an undertaking
that his efforts should receive a fair and candid considera-
tion, when he concluded that if he did bring forward a
measure, prepared with great care and labour, it should at
least be read a second time, and receive a fair consideration
from Parliament. (Hear.) But that did not prove to be the
case. Notwithstanding this declaration of Lord Palmer-
ston, and notwithstanding the efforts that Lord Palmer-
ston made, the House of Commons set at defiance his autho-
rity, and a private member brought forward an amendment
which gave a totally different colour to the conduct of the
house. And who was that individual? Why, it was Lord
John Russell. (Hear, hear.) Lord John Russell then sat
below the gangway; he was not a member of the Govern-
ment that had retired from office; he was not then a
proximate Minister. He occupied, indeed, a commanding
position, such as a man of his great achievements, high
character, and great talents always would command in this
house ; but he was then in the position of a private
member of Parliament. Well, the House of Commons
followed Lord John Russell, so that it was again the
House of Commons that came forward, and by that vote
made it, I say, a party question. (Cheers.) I do not
object to the conduct of Lord John Russell. I am not con-
tending about the decision which the House arrived at, as
far as the decision itself was concerned, on the Bill of 1859 ;
but this I do say, that it was a very great responsibility on
the part of the House of Commons to throw out that Bill,
and then, when they had forced a change of Ministry, to
be unable to carry their opinions into effect. (Cheers.)
Sir, I have thus shown that the position of the House of
Commons with regard to this question of Parliamentary
Reform is different from that which exists between the
House generally and all other great questions, which are
introduced and initiated in this House by a body of men
who are in the possession of office, or who are candidates
for office, and who, therefore, ought not to shrink from the
responsibility of carrying their opinions into effect. I
have shown that the House of Commons, as regards the
present Ministry and that particular subject, is in a very
perplexing position, and this position increases its respon-
sibility. Fur, with the greatest respect—without the
slightest desire of giving offence to any member of the
House, which would be foreign to my nature—l must at
once say that the country upon this question cannot bears
repetition of the manoeuvres of 1859. (Loud cheers.) It
cannot endure that a measure should be thrown out upon
souse cunning orcaptious point of detail (cheers and counter
cheers), and that then those who have incurred the respon-
sibility should shrink from fulfilling their duty by carrying
a measure on this subject. (Hear.) Well, then, we have to
consider under these difficult circumstances what is the
course that we ought to undertake; and, Sir, it does
appear to us—considering that the House of Commons
itself disturbed the settlement of 1832, considering that
the House itself on five different occasions baffled the
efforts of five Governments to secure that re-settlement
which they have rendered necessary, considering also
that with regard to those who at present sit on these
benches the house have prevented any measure which they
brought forward from being submitted to criticism in de-
tail by allowing it to go into committee, and while taking
that course have been unable to fulfil the expectations of
the country wh en they acceded to power—it does seem to
us that in a position of so much difficulty it is wise to re-
flect whether there is not some course that should be pur-
sued which, without shrinking from the due responsibility
of Ministers, would, at least, insure the house upon this
question from such unfortunate mishaps as have on previous
occasions been experienced by Governments that have at-
tempted to deal with this question. (Hear, hear.) It does
seem to us that this is, from the causes that I have recapi-
tulated, one of those cases of great difficulty—no doubt, and
surrounded by circumstances of exigency which cannot be
denied —which have been contemplated by the wisdom of
our parliamentary
practice, and that we are pursuing only
a constitutional course when we presume to recommend to
the house that before we introduce a bill we may be per-
mitted, upon its main principles, and upon other points of
great and paramount importance, to ask the opinion of the
house, and see whether they will sanction the course which
we recommend. (Cheers.) That, sir, is a course which we
believe to be, under the circumstances, strictly constitu-
tional. It is a course which we believe ought not to be
resorted to unless the circumstances are circumstances of
exigency, and when we appeal to the house to permit us
to adopt that course, we say, without thrusting our in-
dividual feelings upon the house, that in taking that course
we are impelled by a pure sense of public duty as ever
influenced any body of men. (Cheers.) Sir, I will not
notice the first and sovereign objection which may be urged
under ordinary circumstanced to a proposition of pro-
ceeding by way of resolution in this house, because, if the
circumstances to which I have now fully adverted, if the
relations of the house to the subject of Parliamentary Re-
form, if the neccesity of bringing this question to a settle-
ment, are not sufficient, I have no arguments to urge. But
there are other objections to that course which have been
offered, and on which for a moment I will dwell. It is said
that there are disadvantages in proceeding by way of reso-
lution, independent of the great constitutional objection
which nothing but exigency could override, and the first is
that to proceed by resolutions induces delay. Well, sir,
in answer to that I say, with great respect, that I do net
think proceeding by resolutions does induce delay. (Hear.)
I have no doubt that there may be circumstances in which
men, or even the house, not unwilling to trifle with a ques-
tion, might lose a great deal of time upon resolutions,and
take steps which would make consequent legislation' iut-
possible, at least for that session. But, sir, assuming a case
such as the existing case, and th
the resolutions are
brought forward by a Ministry as the basis of legislatiorn
legislation,
to which they will be prepared to proceed when the
reso-
lutions are passed, I cannot myself believe that there is
anything even in the theory of
resolutions which leads to
delay. It is very true that you seem to
do twico what un-
der ordinary circumstances it might be necessary only to do
once ; but then the house knows very
well that the discus-
sions on principles which take place
upon the second read-
ing of a bill, and upon all the various ana,
i-veedsinents which
opposition in the case of public measures
g
for—that all those discussions are anticipated by optrieoll
unity
discus-
sions on resolutions, and that you may very wellell pair the upon resolutions against the discussions
upon
all the vital points of a measure. Practically, moreover,
I do not find that proceeding by resolutions upon great and
important subjects, where otherwise the, • would be circum-
stances of great difficulty, has led to delay. The instances
are not numerous, because the house has rarely adopted that
methodeind of course I am only referring to circumstances of
an:extraordinary character, not to cases where we are obliged
by the orders of the house to have recourse to it ; but oa
looking over the few instances that are recorded in the
journals of the house it does not appear to me that pro-
ceeding by resolutions has induced delay. Of this, at least,
1 ant certain, that it has, I think, in every instance been
followed by successful legislation, and that, generally speak-
ing—indeed, with scarcely an exception —in the very per
in which the resolutions have been brought forward. The
case of the India resolutions is the last instance, and ono
with which we are all familiar; but I may remind those