The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

tural interest and to give the preponderance to the work-
ing classes, characterising it as the commencement of a
contest between rich and poor, aristocracy and democracy.
Mr. BAINES, on the other hand, as a sincere friend to
our mixed form of government, defended the bill as calcu-
lated to unite all classes by doing justice to large masses
of Our fellow-countrymen. He referred to the statistics of
the progress of education among the working classes, to
the spread of cheap literature, the increase in their habits
of saving, and particularly to the support they had given
to the Volunteer movement, to show that the voters pro-
posed to be admitted were fit for the franchise ; and argued
that the bill would still leave the working classes in a
minority in the representation.
Mr. NEWDEGATE pointed out the difference between
this bill and the measure of 1832, which raised the fran-
chise, but was called a Reform Bill, because it so redistri-
buted the representatron that the will of the people could
be adequately expressed. He dwelt on the deficiencies of
the present county representation, and, though favourable
to a reduction of the franchise, declined to support the
bill, because until the redistribution scheme was produced
it was impossible to see whether those anomalies would be
redressed.

Mr. P. TAYLOR supported the bill, not because it came
up to the wishes of the party below the gangway, but be-
cause the Government intended to stand or fall by it, and
it therefore offered an opportunity of settling this ques-
tion. He recommended a dissolution if the bill were re-
jected.
Mr. R. T. HARVEY, who, speaking from the Conserva-
tive side, was loudly cheered from the Ministerial benches,
also professed his intention to support the bill.

Mr. W. DUNCOMBE condemned the bill on account of
its parentage, which he maintained cast a suspicion on its
honesty.

Mr. L. KING expressed his regret that the opposition
to this bill should have been started on the Liberal side of
the house, and, after referring, amid increasing signs of
impatience, to the history of previous bills, accepted the
measure as an honest settlement.

'Up to this period the debate had been conducted in a thin
and somewhat languid and inattentive house, but when
Mr. Disraeli rose, at 25 minutes past 10, the benches rapidly
filled, and the cheers and counter-cheers began to flow
from side to side with increasing warmth and rapidly as
each telling point was delivered.
Mr. DISRAELI (who was received with loud cheering)
said—Mr. Speaker, before I address myself to the amend-
ment of the noble lord the member for Chester, I will make
one remark upon the many reasons put forth for the intro-
duction of the Government measure. We have to deal with
the twofold question of Parliamentary pledges and of Mi-
nisterial promises. As to the first of these, they may be ful-
filled ; as to the second, they have been violated. Now, sir,
the house will be cautious in accepting some views on this
head of the subject which have been put forward in this
debate. In the course of it some members have touched a
very dangerous question. Hitherto the freedom of Parlia-
ment has been the boast of our predecessors; but the free-
dom of Parliament does not mean merely freedom of discus-
sion, and freedom from arrest ; it means also, above all our
other privileges, liberty of legislation. (Cheers.) When we
hear of Parliament being pledged to a particular course,
are we to understand that the conduct of a preceding Par-
liament is to deprive us of the enjoyment of the highest
and most exalted of our functions ? In this country great
authorities on the subject have been most jealous of any
attempt made on`the liberty of legislation enjoyed by Par-
liament, and they have maintained that in a constitutional
country like England a different principle must be recog-
nised from that which prevails in Imperial Cabinets.
(Hear, hear.) I shall not argue a question of this sort
without great reserve, but we shall all agree that no Par-
liament can be bound by the acts of its predecessors, except
so far as they obtain the form and force of law, though
Parliament, doubtless, enjoys the power to review them.
That course is for example and instruction, and we should
be indeed indifferent to the highest sources of political
wisdom in such a country as England if we disregarded the
precedents of those who preceded us in this house. This is
a question which must depend merely upon any casual
vote of a single House of Parliament. I maintain that this
is a question which we are free to consider. (Hear, hear.)
Let us look at the question of pledges founded on the
conduct of public men. It may be possible that states-
men may have entered upon rash engagements upon a
subject of fatal import, but it does not follow
that, under a different set of circumstances, they are to
follow out a course of which they do not approve, and
which, upon consideration, they believe to be unwise and
inexpedient. lam told there is one ground on which to
appeal to Parliament for its interference, and that is when
you bring forward a measure which has been called for,
and which seems adapted to its end. But I will take the
question out of the regions of obstruction. Is this Parlia-
ment pledged to Parliamentary Reform ? If ever there was
a Parliament not pledged to reform it must be the present.
We know that a Cabinet Council was held before the disso-
lution of the late Parliament to consider the subject, and
they decided upon the course which the Ministry should
pursue. We know that the chief organ of the Government
in this house expressed what the decision was at which the
Cabinet had arrived on this subject; that the Cabinet had
arrived at the decision that they wouldnot go to the country
upon the question of reform, nor in any way pledge them-
selves on that question. We know that,under these circum-
stances, the Chief Minister issued an address which in this
country we regard as the programme of a political party,
and in that address to his constituents, issued immediately,
the very word reform does not appear. We know also that
when the new Parliament assembled the Government, with
very great discretion, having probably themselves decided
upon what they could do in the matter—having decided
probably on submitting a measure of reform to the house—
did not commit themselves in the Address from the Crown
in any manner which could for a moment be supposed to
be an expression of opinion. They only promised us
papers. Therefore, so far as the present Parliament is con-t,
earned, every gentleman, I think, will agree that we are
perfectly free to act in the manner which we think best for
the country. Now, let ice ask if existing statesmen have
broken their promise, for that is a very serious charge ;
and it was made on the high authority of the Secretary of
State for the Department of War, who represents, as he
informed us on a memorable occasion, the educated por-
tion of the public. (Laughter.) He ought not to have made
that statement, imputing broken promises to public men,
among whom chiefly figures his own leader, without due re-
flection. But it is my duty on this occasion to vindicate the
conduct of Lord Russell—(a laugh)—which lam prepared
to do. Lord Russell thought fit in 1852, for a reason to
which the hon. gentleman has just referred, to introduce a
new reform bill, in itself a very good one, and a long time
will probably elapse before we see so good a one. There
was only one great fault, and that was nobody wanted it.
(Loud cheering.) Years elapsed. Lord Russell had not
relinquished his policy, and in 1859 he had an opportunity
of asserting that policy and inducing his party to support
it, and by so doing he became Minister and was obliged to
bring forward a bill. Did he break that pledge ? He
in a reform bill ; and does anybody doubt his sin-
cerity respecting that reform bill. Some allusion had been
made to the emotion he expressed when he withdrew that
bill. I saw in it no subject for derision, and publicly ex-
pressed my sympathy with him. (A laugh.) I want to
know where is • the violated promise. Lord Russell felt
some emotion when he withdrew his bill, but the circum-
stance led to something more important than the withdrawal
of the bill, for it led to the withdrawal of Lord Russell
from this house, and therefore he fulfilled his promise. So
far, then, as Lord Russell was concerned, I hold that the
charge made by the Secretary of State of broken vows on
the part of public men is not founded. I take it for granted
that Lord Russell may be taken as a fair representative of
the Whig party, and therefore no pledge has been broken
by them. Let me make one remark in reference to an ob-
servation made by the Secretary for the Home Department.
He reproached this side of the house for having defeated
the Reform Bill of 1860. (No.) Who says "no" ? That
gentleman could not have been a member of the house at the
time, and he could not have availed himself of the authen-
tic information which is at everybody's command. In the
year 1861 an earnest reformer, or, to avail myself of the
new epithet adopted by all their journals, a "robust" re-
former, absolutely moved an amendment on the Ad-
dress, reproaching Lord Russell with his treachery to the
Reform party. Lord Russell made a statement of his views
to this house as to his conduct respecting the Reform Bill ;
and to that statement I refer all gentlemen who wish for
accurate information on the subject. It is a most interesting
one. He said that he had given up the Reform Bill because '
he found that it was opposed by the Liberal party—(hear)
and not only by the Liberals, but chiefly by those mem-
bers of the party who represented large constituencies;
and he said that he expected that the country would have
supported it by indignation meetings throughout England,
but none were called, and he found that apathy pervaded
both the country and the Liberal party, and therefore he
gave up the question of. Reform. Ho left this house, and
the only time since when we have heard of him on this
question was on that memorable time when ho advised a
state of tranquillity. (A laugh.) Therefore I say that the
Whig party, as represented by Lord Russell, have broken
no vow. Lord Derby was sent for by the Queen in 1858.
There was in the House of Commons at that time a majo-
rity against him of 140, and under these circumstances he
thought it his duty to decline the great honour that her
Majesty was graciously pleased to offer him. But he gave
a reason, and that was that he was not only in a great
minority, but that there was such a feeling in Parliament
that the Reform question would be brought forward, and
he would be put in a minority on it. Although Lord
Derby declined office at that period, her Majesty, after de-
liberation, again applied to Lord Derby, and if the minority
against him had been 240 instead of 140 it would have
been inipossible for him to have refused. (Cheers.) But
that happened which he had anticipated. We were n©t
six weeks in office before the question of reform was
brought forward by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr.
Locke King), and we were in a minority. It was quite
impossible for Lord Derby to retire from office, but it
was absolutely necessary that he should consider his
position. Now I come to the real reason that made
Lord Russell, in 1852, and Lord Derby, in 1859, bring for-
ward reform bills. Sir, I consider these facts most neces-
sary and pertinent to the discussion. (Hear, hear.) If
there was any one subject of which any man was master,
lard Russell was master of the Subject of reform. It was to