The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-21 00:00:00

Why do 1 read these extracts? It is to ask gentlemen on
this side of the house whether they do not now look
back with regret and shame to the injustice with which
Lord John Russell was then treated, and whether it
ought not to teach them some charity to those who are
now suffering similar imputations. (Cheers.) Lord
Russell has lived to rebuke and shame those by whom he
was then assailed and aspersed, and I have that faith in
the justice and generosity of the English public that I be-
lieve the noble lord who has moved this amendment and
his friends will equally have justice done to them notwith-
standing the imputations so unjustly cast upon them.
(Cheers.) I will detain the house very shortly. My hon.
and learned friend referred to the circumstances in which
this Reform Bill was introduced. Se said it was necessary,
and that it was inevitable. Now, let us for a moment in-
quire how far my hon. and learned friend was right in that
statement. What are the circumstances to which my hon.
and learned friend referred? In the autumn of last year
we have been told by some members of the Cabinet that at
the very first Cabinet meeting held after Lord Palmerston's
death this question of reform was considered. What are the
circumstances under which it was considered ? The Se-
cretary of State for the Homo Department told us the other
night that the Cabinet found that at the election the great
majority of the Liberal members had pledged themselves
to reform on their election. My noble friend the member
for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) showed last night that
that was not quite accurate. But what was the character
of those addresses ? Some one has, I understand, been
lately collecting all the addresses of 'the Liberal members
at the last election ; but if they had collected those of 1859
and printed them in parallel columns they would have pre-
sented a remarkable contrast. The dissolution of 1859 was
on the question of the reduction of the borough franchise
and consequently the address of every Liberal member
contained a specific pledge to the advocacy of a £6 franchise.
But the dissolution of 1865 took place under very different
circumstances. The Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, speaking on this matter, told us distinctly that Govern-
ment did not go to the country on reform. He said they re-
ferred that question to the country, and when the country
answered they would be guided by circumstances. The Li-
beral members took their cue from the right hon. baronet, and
instead of pledging themselves to a specific reduction of the
franchise they spoke of reform in general terms, and left
themselves open to deal with it according to circumstances.
What were those circumstances? They know very well so
long as Lord Palmerston was Minister they never would be
asked to support a large and comprehensive bill, because
they knew he would consult the feelings and opinions of
the public generally, and not take counsel with the member
for Birmingham. (Cheers.) Thus, under these circum-
stances, the Government determined to undertake the ques-:
lion of Reform. They had before them a letter written by
my noble friend the member for Haddingtonshire, who had
given notice to move for a commission. They determined
to deal with Reform, and having taken that determination
they determined to institute an inquiry, and with what re-
sult? They were so surprised that, if I am not misin-
formed, they sent back the statistics to be revised by the
clerks; they really could not believe that they showed an
accurate state of things. Am I misinformed on that point ?
I had it on good authority, which I can state, if necessary,
that the Government was so surprised at the effect-of the
returns that they could not believe them. [The Chancellor
of the Exchequer here said they had been sent back for a
reason which did not reach the gallery.] The point is not
a very material one ; but I believo the Government were
taken wholly by surprise at the nature of the returns. Last
year we were all told that some 12 or 15 per cent. of the
working classes would be admitted to the franchise of the
bill of my hon friend the member for Leeds ; and it was
fermi by these returns that they number 25 or 26 per cent.
of the town constituencies already. Well, the Government
determined on introducing a bill dealing with the suffrage
alone, and a paragraph in the Queen's Speech showed that
that was their intention; but when we came to the discus-
sion upon the Address my right hon friend the member for
Kilmarock (Mr. Bouverie) objected to that part of their
policy, and stated in very strong terms that this side of the
house of Commons would not be satisfied with a mere mea-
sure of that character. My right hon. friend's speech on
that occasion rather astonished this side of the house, and
it appears also to have terrified the Government. They in-
stantly modified their policy. It has been supposed that
the noble lord who moved this amendment and those who
support him were parties to the demand of the right hon.
member for Kilmarnock for a more comprehensive bill.
Now, I am not aware that any one member on this side
who supports the amendment of the noble lord has at any
time expressed a desire for a large and comprehensive mea-
sure of Reform. (Ministerial cheers.) My right hon. friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a speech to
which, if it were at an earlier hour in the evening, I should
wish to refer, and in which he made a charge against me,
that Lord tussell, of course under a misapprehension, also
repeated—viz., that I was now against a fragmentary
measure of Reform, although I had voted for it on former
occasions, and that I now wanted a large and comprehen-
sive measure. Now will the Chancellor of the Exchequer
have the goodness to tell me upon what occasion either I
or any one who supports this amendment have ever
asked for a comprehensive measure of Reform ? He cannot
mention any such occasion. The right hon. member for
Kilmarnock, indeed, asked for it, but we never asked for
anything of the kind. We watched with great curiosity the
effect of what was going on, and we saw that the demand
of the right hon. member for Kilmarnock was calculated
very much to embarrass the Government. We know that it
has embrrrassed them, but we were no parties to that em-
barrassment. It was open to the Government to take one
of two courses--either to stand to their policy of bring-
ing in a simple Franchise Bill, or to abandon that line and
introduce a bill dealing both with the franchise and with
the redistributionof !mtg. Either of these linen 9f actl9ll

they might have adopted, and either would have been de-
fensible or at least intelligible, and if defeated upon either
they might have been defeated wihout discredit. But they
chose to pursue a third course. They said, "We will give
you a large scheme, of which we will show you a part, and
you must commit yourselves to that part before you have
seen the whole." That was only a transparent device, but
of course it offered an opening to the right hon. member for
Kilmarnock and those who concurred with him to come
back and vote for the Government. Yet I think their re-
turn has been rather dearly bought, because, although
their votes may save the Government from defeat, still they
can only carry the division with the aid'of those votes by
a narrower majority than any Government was ever satis-
fied with before. (Cheers.) And, under such circumstances,
their victory must be more damaging and more humiliat-
ing than:any defeat could have been if they had taken a
more direct and manly course. (Cheers.) Sir, the Govern-
ment changed their policy, and then it was that the amend-
ment of the noble lord the member for Chester came in. If
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adhered to the Suf-
frage Bill, he would have heard no objection from us on
the ground that he did not also deal with the redistribu-
tion of seats. (" Oh !" and cheers.) I beg to tell my right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am
only now stating what is consistent with the course which
I have all along pursued; and I will make that clear and
intelligible in a moment. What we should have done would
have been this :—lf the Government had introduced and
adhered to their simple Suffrage Bill, we the supporters of
, the noble lord's amendment, would have discussed that bill
upon its merits. We have discussed it as we discussed
the bill of the hon. member for Leeds last year.
It would have been a small scheme, but so far as
their policy was concerned, it would have been perfect and
complete;_ but when without any demand or any objection
on our part they change their policy, and say, "We will deal
also with the distribution of seats," then we said, "As you
are going to deal with a larger scheme we ask to see it."
(Hear.) That was the ground on which the noble lord moved
his amendment. The ground was put in a: very simple way
by the noble lord who seconded the amendment, who asked
what would you say to an architect who offered to build
you a room as part of a house without letting you see the
plans or estimates for the whole building. Your reply
would be " you are not sincere ; you do not intend to
build it all." Ministers say thal they do not understand the
amendment, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will
give me his attention for a moment I think that I can make
it intelligible. Lord Stanley said, "Why should you deal
with reform upon different principles from those on which
you deal with [finance—why should you take part of the
scheme, and ask the house to agree with it, without your
submitting the whole scheme ?" Now, in this house there
is nothing like dealing with great authorities. In this house
we are slaves to authority, and on any grave question of
this kind, if any one whom we respect as an authority has
enunciated a particular doctrine we respect and abide by it.
On the motion for the repeal of the malt tax an eminent
financial authority used these words. He said, " This is an
attempt to commit the house to conclusions while the house
has not in its possession the means of judgment, and the
only effect can be to fetterthe future action of the house,
and to create embarrassment and disappointment." Now
those are wise words, and they were uttered on the 18th
April, 1866, on the motion for the repeal of the malt tax,
and the great authority by whom they were uttered was
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (OppoSition cheers.) I
ask him does he understand the amendment of the noble
lord, for the amendment is based on his own-words that I
have just read? My hon. and learned friend (Mr. Cole-
ridge) addressed himself to another point of the case with
great force and effect and in the spirit of truth, with which
we all agree. He said, " This is a party question; remember
what you are about; you will break up your party; you
will bring in the gentlemen on the other side of the house;
that is the result which I cannot myself keep out of sight, and
I will not take the responsibility of any such proceeding.
Now we must remember that ever since the Reform Act the
Liberal party has consisted of two distinct sections, a mode-
rate and a more advanced section—and although the mode-
rate section has, during the greater part of that time, out-
numbered the others in the proportion of three or four to
one, it has never on any question attempted to fetter the
free action of the more advanced section, whose freedom of
action has brought them into cohesion with successive Li-
beral Administrations, and overthrown more than one Go-
vernment. The Government of Lord Aberdeen was over-
thrown by a motion of the hon. member for Sheffield, sup-
ported by hon. gentlemen opposite, and supported by what
I may call the flower of the old Whig party. Only three
years after that the Government of Lord Palmerston was
outvoted on the China question, on the motion of Mr.Cobden,
supported by gentlemen on the other side of the house,
who were Mr. Cobden's great supporters on that occasion ?
The two most eminent and illustrious names in that division
were that of the noble lord at the head of Government, and
that of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But my hon. and learned friend says " You must take care
whatyou are about; you ought not to bring forward a ques-
tion in which you have the support of the opposite party,
for it may lead to a change of Government, and that is to
be deprecated." It does so happen that when Lord Palmer-
ston was outvoted, on the motion of Mr. Cobden, seconded
by the President of the Board of Trade—(hear)--the debate
was a remarkable one, it was a remarkable division, and it
had a remarkable result. But what it was most remarkable
for was a speech that was delivered by no less a person
than my right hon.friend the President of theßoard of Trade.
The right hon. gentleman (the President of the Board of
Trade) then told his friends that they were not the less to
vote for the amendment because it was supported by hon.
gentlemen opposite, the great majority of the Conservative
party ; and he went on to say that the motion of the hon.
member for the West Riding expressed the views which ho
had always entertained throughout his private life; and the
right hon. gentleman then went on to show the manner in
which independent Liberal members had been treated. He
told the houso there had been a meeting of the Liberal party
lately at the residence of the noble lord (Palmerston), and
he read the report of it in the public newspapers,for it seemed
now to be the fashion to publish the reports of these private
political meetings. He said the meeting was remarkable
more for the absence of certain eminent political men than
for those who attended ; for amongst the names he did not

see those of Lord Russell and many of his immediate friends.
He should like to know what pledges were given, or induce-
ments held out, and he felt bound to make this statement
because he felt that many members for the sake of saving a
Ministry would give their votes not in accordance with
their convictions. The right hon. gentleman then referred
to the disagreeable pressure that had been put on hon.
members to induce them to change their views as of a cha-
racter that couldonly be put on voters at some provincial
contested elections in order to compel them to vote in this
or that direction; and he concluded by saying that hon. gen-
tlemen were at liberty,with due regard to the public interest,
to pronounce their convictions on the motion of the hon.
member for the West Riding. I am only reading all this to
show how in these days hon. gentlemen now deny to us the
liberty and freedom of action they themselves adopted on
that occasion. Those gentlemen were, no doubt, acting
conscientiously, but we are now called dirty conspirators.
Was not the charge of conspiracy brought against them ?
In the list of the names of the Liberal party who voted on
that occasion among the most eminent were those of Lord
R. Grosvenor and Sir Francis Baring. They repudiated
the charge of being conspirators, and the latter said he
never came to a vote with more personal pain or after
more anxious inquiry, but he never gave a vote with
a clearer conscience, and if the time came over again
he would do the same thing. Two years later the
same kind of thing occurred. The Consfpiracy Bill
was brought forward, the motion against it came from this
side of the house below the gangway, and was supported by
the other side, and Lord Palmerston was ejected from office.
I want to know how it was that this was done, and why
we should not now be allowed the same liberty of action.
Hon. members had on that occasion imputations cast upon
them for the course which they took, and they now cast
the same sort of imputations against us. I want now to say
one word as to the amendment of my noble friend. We are
told the issue is changed, that this is not a• question of reform
but a vote of want of confidence in the Government. Now
the Government have it in their power to convert any ques-
tion they like into a vote of want of confidence, and the hon.
and learned member for Belfast said the other evening that
the Government might even make a motion for the adjourn-
ment of the house into a vote of want of confidence. But in
these cases the Government must show their supporters that
the occasion is one which renders that course necessary and
legitimate. We all remember, with reference to the amend-
ment of my noble friend, what occurred the day previousto
the recess. My noble friend said he brought forward his
amendment in no unfriendly feeling to the Government, and
he was anxious not to embarrass them ; and he said if the
Government would give in substance what they did in spirit,
and produce the whole scheme of reform which they had only
seen in part, he would gladly withdraw from the opposition.
But my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not only immovable but defiant, and he changed the
amendment into a vote of want of confidence, the differ-
ence of opinion being simply this, whether the bill for the
redistribution of seats which he had prepared should be
laid before the house a day before or a day after the second
reading of this bill. Was there over so narrow and so need-
less a basis for a vote of want of confidence? The right
hon.gentleman said, first we can show you what you want,
but won't do it; you shall only have that sight when the
bill shall be no sooner produced than withdrawn till next
session. (Cheers.) But even then the noble lord was anxi-
ous to explain to the Government and the house that a vote
of want of confidence is not what he meant, and ho expressed
his sincere respect for the noble lord at the head of the
Government, and his concurrence in the policy of it ; and I
must say, although I feel strongly as to the manner in which
the question of reform was revived immediately on the death
of Lord Palmerston, because I believe it has been against
the wishes and feelings of this country—(cheers)—still, as
to the general policy and proceeding of Government since
it came into office, I have seen many things to approve and
commend, and nothing justly to condemn. If the Govern-
ment had been tried by a vote of want of confidence on
their general policy they would have been supperted on this
side of the house, and there would not have been a single
defaulter. (Hear, hear.) Was it wise of them to raise a false
issue on the one question on which there were so many dif-
ferences of opinion as reform, in reference to which they
were reversing the policy of the most popular minister of