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

we had a right, as a party, to deal with this
question of Parliamentary Reform ; that this
convenient creed that has been circulated of late
throughout the country, and has been preached so
recently in this good city of Edinburgh (cheers),
that the treatment of Parliamentary Reform is a
peculiar object of the Whig party is not true. I
think you will, therefore, admit that it is clear that
that we, as a party, had a right to deal with the
question. (Cheers.) Now I come to the third point
of this inquiry. Having a right to deal with the
question, and feeling that we ought to deal
with the question, which points, I think
you will agree, are proved (cheers and
laughter), did we deal with the question in the
right manner ? (" Hear, hear," and cheers.)
Now, my lords and gentlemen, I say that no man
can give a fair and accurate opinion upon that
momentous question unless he clearly ascertains, in
the first place, what were the relations of Lord
Derby and his party to this question of Parliamen-
tary Reform. Lord Derby succeeded to office as
Prime Minister for the first time in the year 1852,
Lord John Russell having just then failed on the
question of Parliamentary Reform. (Laughter.)
It was not necessary for Lord Derby to deal with
the question. Everybody felt, however wise it
might be to consider it with reference to ultimate
settlement, there was no pressure for an immediate
solution. The measure of Lord John Russell was
considered bad by his friends. Though I, gentle-
men, say so, though there were many to vindicate
his course, yet I considered it was an immature
measure. (Applause.) Then, when we came into
office in 1852, we had to make up our minds to the
general policy we should carry out with regard to
the subject, because we need not bring forward a
measure the Opposition had agitated for three years.
We were quite certain they would bring forward
motions on the subject, and upon these motions the
Government must be prepared to express their
general policy, and so it turned out. We had not
been in office 10 days before notices upon the sub-
ject of Reform were showered on the table like a
snowstorm. (Laughter.) Mr. Hume gave notice
of a motion which he had annually made for
three or four years, and the pressure of which
measure forced Lord John Russell to introduce
a bill about a month after we succeeded to
office. Lord Derby and his colleagues had then to
consider the course they would take, the general
policy they would announce, and the duty fell to
my lot. (Applause.) I hope, my lords and gentle•
men, you will not think me guilty of egotism, if I
speak in these few remarks I have to make of myself
—(cheers)--it is convenient in narrative ; but what
I did at any time I did not only with the consent, but
with the saction of my colleagues. It fell to me to
express the policy of Lord Derby. I told the House
of Commons, in answer to the motion of Mr. Hume
and two or three others by Mr. Locke King and
others, that we were not prepared to deal with
the question of Parliamentary Reform, but we
claimed our right if we thought it necessary to deal
with it. Wesaid, 44Ifit be necessary at any future
time to deal with the great question of the represen-
tation of the people it is our opinion a great mistake
was made in that question under the Act of 1832."
(Hear, hear, and applause.) It was the one in
which Parliament destroyed the relations between
the labouring classes and the Constitution—(cheers)
—and I said then on the part of Lord Derby that if
ever we felt it our duty to deal with the question we
should endeavour to remedy the difficulty, as we
believed it to be the real cause of the failure that
express itself in this couutry in a manner that no
statesman could dispose of, and in my opinion
proved very injurious. (Applause.) There was
another great feature of our policy that I also ex.
pressed to the House of Commons. I said, "If there
is ever to be another Reform Bill we can consent to
new measure unless adequate justices is done to that
majority of the population of England who live in
counties." (Hear, hear, laughter, and applause.)
Now, these were the two great points which in 1852
on the part of Lord Derby we announced we should
insist upon if ever we had to deal with the question
of Reform. Well, in 1852, after the retirement of
Lord Derby, and on the accession of Lord Aberdeen's
Government, we introduced a considerable measure
of reform and failed. There was also the Govern-
ment of Lord Palmerston. The Government of Lord
Palmerston was much engaged with the Crimean
war, and that was supposed to be an excuse, and it
was a very fair excuse for his not continuing legislat-
ing on the subject. But mark this important fact :
when allusions are made, and in a certain sense
justly made, a 3 by our chairman here, to Lord
Palmerston's Reform. Lord Palmerston on the
conclusion of the Crimean war had to appeal to
the country, and he appealed in a most triumph-
ant manner, and had the largest majority that
any Ministry has had since the bill was passed,
and what did he do ? The moment that Par•

Lament met he advised her Majesty to recom-
mend in her Speech from the Throne the ques-
tion of Parliamentary Reform. Therefore, you may
say that Lord Palmerston failed, and unexpectedly.
Lord Derby again found himself Prime Minister i n
1859 ; and I am bound to say this, that, whatever
was the levity of Lord Palmerston at any public
meeting on Parliamentary Reform, he did nothing
of the kind in private. (Applause.) He communi-
cated to his successor, the present Prime Minister of
England, that he thought it of the greatest import-
ance that this question should be settled ; that it
impressed the Crown, impressed Parliament, might
be the source and cause of disaster to the State, and
that if a moderate and well-considered measure were
introduced he would give it a very candid and fair
consideration. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I remem-
ber the conduct of my friend when Mr. Baines
brought forward his motion on reform, and none
but some of those artists who have departed from
among us could have done justice to it. (Applause.)
Lord Derby did make an effort, but I have always
drawn this inference from it—that Lord Palmerston

wished the questio❑ of Reform to be treated not by
his own friends. (Laughter.) Lord Derby did make
the effort in 1859 ; he failed. This is the next rela-
tion of Lord Derby and his party to the question of
Reform. lle had to deal with the question. It was
his opinion, after the most deliberate thought, and
after the most painful investigation of the subject,
that with regard to the borough franchise no reduc-
tion, no degradation of the borough franchise from
£lO to £B, or £7 or £6, would be truly satisfactory;
that it would lead to no settlement ; that you could
arrive at no settlement unless you came to household
suffrage. He was not prepared to recommend
that. Ile did not believe the country would have
supported him in such a course, and therefore he en-
deavoured to carry out the policy which he recom-

mended as to facilitating the admission of the work-
ing classes into the Constitution by a variety of fran-
chises, into which 1 am not going to enter. The lodger
franchise was one. It was treated, of course, with
contempt, but I understand that now it is the pal-
ladium of our liberties. (Laughter.) Well these were
the relations of Lord Derby to the question of Re-
form. He had in 1852 laid it down in his own view
of the case that no settlement which did not revise
the relations of the working classes to the Constitu-
tion of Englund, and at the same time did not do
justice to the populations in the counties that were
so feebly represented, would be satisfactory. In
1859 he endeavoured, so far as he could, with re-
gard to the borough franchise, to carry that into
effect by this new franchise which would have given
some considerable opening to the working classes,
and he also endeavoured, as far as he could, to give
some increased representation to the counties. These,
then, were the relations of Lord Derby and hig
friends from 1852 to 1859, and now mai k this. In
1859 you know what occurred. We were expelled
from power by a resolution of Lord John Russell,
that no settlement of the question of reform could
be satisfactory which did not involve lowering of
the borough franchise. We resisted that, believing
that it was a policy which ought not to be sanc-
tioned by the House of Commons unless it was de-
finitely brought forward, and feeling confident
that it was no mere degradation of the borough
franchise that could bring any satisfactory settle-
ment, we dissolved Parliament upon the issue ; we
appealed to the country. The country did not give
us a majority, and therefore the Parliament and the
country were pledged to the lessening of the frau-
ohise in boroughs. That was a settled point. Well,