The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-29 00:00:00

made suddenly. He was as much desirous as the hon
member for Birmingham that the working classes should
have a 'large share in the representation ; but he was not
prepared at the present moment, looking at the state of edu-
cation in this country, to give the whole power of the repre-
sentation to the working classes or the holders of small
tenements. He should therefore vote for the resolution of
the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) But he wished to go a step
farther, and look at the position of the house and the coun-
try on this subject. He confessed for his own part, he should
very much like that, the house having carried the resolution
the Government should still go on with their bill, and,
having expunged all the objectionable clauses in committee,
they should make the bill satisfactory to the house and
the country. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Government
ought to be fairly left to the alternative of resigning their
offices or dissolving Parliament. (Hear; hear.) He at least
should throw no obstacle in the way of their doing se, but
he should not think of advising them to dissolve, for he be-
lieved they would cut a very awkward figure on the hust-
ings—(hear)—and therefore he thought that would not be a
safe expedient for them to take. (Hear, hear.) He should,
moreover, like to know what chance there was, when they
had disposed of this Government, of their being able to form
another Administration which would propose and carry a
very different measure from the present ? He was not san-
guine on that subject. His noble friend (Lord J. Russell)
had proposed to the house two great measures on this subject
—one, in 1852, and the other in 1854 ; he could not propose a
less measure now, and if he did propose a measure, where
was he to find the means of carrying it ? As far as the se-
cond reading all the gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side
df the' house would go with the noble lord, but in committee
they could not get on one step without the bill being vio-
lently opposed. The country was not now in the condition
in which it was in 1832, when the cry was " The bill, the
whole bill, and nothing but the bill ;" when the public
were so deeply interested in seeing .a eform Bill carried
which would free them from the influenceof the oligarchical
interest, and when, if a member voted against the bill, the
constituency soon corrected his error. (Hear, hear.) At pre-
sent he saw nothing but popular agitationaslikely to follow
from this question not being settled now. (Hear, hear.) It
was not the fault of the right hon. gentleman the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer that he introduced this bill ; but it was
impossible for them (the Opposition) to support it consis-
tently with their principles. He should, therefore, vote for
the resolution, because the right hon. gentleman told them
he should persist in the confiscation of the county voters.
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Ellice) should, therefore, throw from
his side of the house to the other the consequences of an
agitation which would be most detrimental to the interests
of the country, and particularly of the working classes
themselves. (Hear, hear.)
Col. SMYTH said he should support the second reading
of the bill, reserving to himself the right to propose such
amendments and improvements in committee as he thought
would make it a satisfactory measure to the house and the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. JOHN LOCKE regretted that the Government, not
knowing their followers, had rejected the advice of the
right hon. gentlemen who had retired from among them to
lower the borough franchise to £6: He gathered from all
the speeches he had heard delivered by hon. members on
the Ministerial side of the house that they were in favour
of the two principles contained in the resolution of the noble
lord the member for the City of London, and he would
therefore advise the Government to at once them and
make them the basis of the bill, notwithstanding that the
Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) had raised
the Irish cry of "No surrender." If they had taken that
course at first they would have obtained from the house that
indulgence which they had hitherto enjoyed ; he was willing
to admit that they deserved it for the great ability with
which they had managed the affairs of the country. He
called upon the Government to consider well whether they
could not consistently adopt the resolution. If they did
not intend to adopt the principle of the resolution, it was
absurd to proceed with the bill ; and he thought it was a
misfortune that the Government had not met the resolution
in this spirit.
Lord A. TEMPEST said a great deal had been said about
sympathy with the working classes. The hon. member for
Dorsetshire made, on the first evening, what was acknow-
ledged to be a very talented speech. That hon. gentleman
said that a party in that house were afraid of the working
classes. (An ironical cheer.) He (Lord A. Tempest) would
answer that cheer presently—(hear)—but if the house went
into an analysis of fears, would it not be found that the hon.
member for Dorsetshire was actuated by fear of his next
reception on the hustings ? There was an assumed theory
on the part of the honourable member for Birmingham and
the honourable member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) that they
possessed an exclusive sympathy for the working classes.
But he would challenge those honourable gentlemen to a
comparison with the landed gentry, whether in agriculture
or in trade—for there were members of the aristocracy en-
gaged in trade—in order to see by which of the two classes
the comforts and status of the working classes were most
cared for. All he said to hon. gentlemen opposite was—
Don't put yourselves forward as if you and you only had
sympathy with the working classes. Who was it that re-
sisted the passing of the Factories Act ? Why, hon. gen-
tlemen opposite—(hear, hear)—and who supported it ?
The aristocracy of the upper house and those connected
with them in that ; therefore let not hon. gentlemen oppo-
site pretend to monopolise all sympathy with the working
classes. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the present
Ministrypresented a very favourable contrast to the last,
by their industry, their devotion to business, and their
general courtesy—(hear, hear)—irrespective of all political
views. (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to Lord Malmes-
bury, as it had been said by the right hon, gentleman the
Attorney-General for Ireland, in his eloquent speech on
Friday, it was not the Minister but the policy of the Go-
verment,'which had succeeded. There had been no sub-
•mission to the dictation of foreign Powers ; but English
prisoners had not been left to rot in Neapolitan gaols, and
told afterwards that the eye of the Minister was upon them.
(Hear, hear.) Nor did he wish the Government to accept
the pioposition of the noble lord the member for Tiverton.
(Hear, hear.) There was yet a course open to the Govern-
ment, namely, to withdraw the bill—(trees of " Oh, oh,"
and Cheers)—for the present, and appeal to the house,. not
by a crafty resolution, but by the exhibition of a safe, just,
moderate, and wise measure—(oh, oh, and interruption)—
to appeal to them as to the wisdom and justice of the pro-
positions contained in the bill—as to the prudence of their
conduet • since they. entered upon the administration of
affairs, and, whenever they did so, he (Lord A. Tempest)
believed they willed find the verdict of the house favourable
to them. (He, hoar.)
Several hon. members rose together, but the Speaker's
choice fell upon Mr. M. Milnes.
Mr. M. MILNES said that he thought that considerable
advantage had been gained by the debate that hid taken
place upon the subject, and that a good basis had been
arrived at for reform. He thought that the discussion had
been one that would be satisfactory to the country, and that
it had been discussed in a just and honourable spirit. He
thought the debate had been divided into several heads, in
the same manner as a sermon, and he proposed to divide the
observations that he had to make upon the subject in the same
way. He could not say that he thought the resolution of
the noble lord either factious or unjust. Ho thought that
in considering it one ought to compare the position of
parties; for in rilising a great moral question such as this,
it was impossible not to look at the antecedents of indivi-
duals and of parties. It was impossible to consider it
without considering the disadvantages it was under in
coming from the Government instead of being the produc-
tion of a party which had always been connected with re-
form. It' the Government, instead of bringing in a bill upon
the subject, had -Tailed till a bill had been introduced from
that side of the house—(laughter)—and till all parties on
that side had agreed to a measure—(laughter)—they might
have.enjoyed the position of neutrality which they would
then have had, or if they had not done this they might have
introduced a simple measure upon the subject; either of
those two courses they might have adopted, but they had
chosen to deal with the whole question of reform in pre-
ference. He would not have found so much difficulty in
dealing with the bill if it had not containedone important
principle—that was, the extension of the franchise in
boroughs. His ideas with regard to that were so distinct that
so far from thinking the resolution of the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) a trick or a dodge,
he considered it,or at any rate the latter part of it, a mere
truism. He wished to vote for that principle either now or
in committee ; but he felt himself precluded from the latter
course from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
(Mr. Disraeli), who did not appear to leave such a course
open to the committee. He thought that all such questions
as uniformity of suffrage ought to have been left open, and
then they would have come upon them accidentally as it
were, in committee, and not as a novel plan insisted upon
as a standing place upon which the constitution was to
stand for ever so many years. As to the question of the
disposal of seats, he did not think the country took much
interest in the subject. In the West Riding of Yorkshire,
for instance, instead of being gratified at the prospect of an
increased number of members, the constituency had often
publicly expressed their satisfaction at the present system,
by which they were represented by two, and not four mem-
bers. For the reasons he had stated, he could not vote for
the second reading of the bill ; but if the Government would
withdraw it, and bring it in again in a less objectionable
form, he would give it all the support in his power. (Hear.)
Sir J, GRAHAM said,—Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to
reply to the speech of my hon. friend the member for Pon-
tefract. I have long been anxious to make up my mind on
this question. It is often no less difficult to know what it
is one's diity to do than to perform that duty when we have
made up our minds. I certainly did wish not to have seen
the day arrive when it would be necessary for this house to
reconsider the fundamental principles on which our consti-
tution is based. I took a part—a humble part, but a sin-
cere one—both in the preparation and the passing of the
Reform Bill of 1832. The right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in introducing this bill to thehouse,
used an expresssioft wilich grated on my ears. He said the
statesmen who took part in the Reform of 1832 appeared to
him to have had to treat the subject in many respects
" empirically." I can hardly think the right hon. gentle-
man used that word in its more invidious sense. If it were

necessary to defend the authors of that measure, I should
refer him to the noble lord At the head of the Government
of which he' is a member, without whose aid we should have
experienced great difficulty in carrying that measure of
1832, and I should have to mention such names as those of
Lord Grey, Lord Althorp, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Dur-
ham. I. confidently believe that the memory of these great
men will, be justified from any such reproach by the verdict
of history. (Hear, hear.) But there is another meaning to
the word; empirical which I amrather disposed to think the

right hon. gentleman intended to attack to it—that is to say,

that the • measure of 1832 was an experimental measure.
Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The right
hon. gentleman treated it as an experimental measure. I
should certainly wish to call the attention of the house,
after an experience of 27 years, that the change then effected
was immense. The noble lord the member for the City of
London described it to us as " a bloodless revolution"—
.

happily, bloodless, but still a revolution. hear.) It
undoubtedly transferred the centre of power in this country
from the aristocracy to the middle classes; and, if it be re-
garded as an experimental measure, I am satisfied that the
country, together with myself, entertains the opinion that
that experiment has been largely successful. (Cheers.) It
was the ehject of the framers of that measure so to blend the
influence prtiperty and of numbers that all collision with
the Throne and with the aristocracy, who by its provisions
were deprived of a large share of power, might be avoided ;
and the proportions then adjusted have been so successful
that since,that time the country bag enjoyed better legisla-
tion, greater prosperity, more internal peace, and has been
exposed to less civil discord than at any other period of
equal duration since our Parliamentary history commenced.

(Cheers.) Viewirig it, then, as an experiment, I think ---I

safely avanne that on the whole it has proved success-

ful. For one, I would gladly have adhered, at least during

my life, to that Liettleinent as a final one. Its authors, at the