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

T# 'E SUN, LON!

the judgment of the leader of the Tory party, a bill to
reconstruct the Constitution upon American principles.
(Cheers.) Rising, sir, after one o'clock in the morning,
to review, as well as I can, a debate of eight nights' dura-
tion, I would gladly have passed by the defence, as he
calls it, which the right hon. gentleman has made for
himself and his friends. (Hear, hear.) I will not attempt
to follow him through his details. I have too much respect
for the time of the house to weary it at this hour with
matters which it is in my power to avoid. I have too
much respect for the judgment of the house, and for
those who will become acquainted with our proceedings,
to have the slightest apprehension that any one of the
misstatements, that any one of the misrepresentations con-
sequent upon the misstatements, which have proceeded
from the right hon. gentleman—(interruption from the
Opposition)—will have any influence on the house or the
country. Sir, I will begin by endeavouring to clear away
some misapprehensions which the right hon. gentleman has
assisted to propagate. In the first place, I must presume
to say one word on the subject which has reference to a
great name, a great name in this house and in the country,
I mean the name of Lord Palmerston, It has been assumed
by the gentlemen who are supporters of the amendment
that they honour the memory of Lord Palmerston by de-
scribing him as the enemy of Parliamentary Reform—
(" No, no," and " Yes, yes")—by describing him, especially
as the enemy—(interruption from the Opposition, and
cheers from the Liberal benches)—of that which consti-
tutes the very essence of the very change proposed by this
bill—the reduction of the franchise. 1 will read, there-
fore, a few words which Lord Palmerston used when he
spoke upon the Reform Bill of 1860. He said, " That there
were fundamental principles in that bill which they could
not consent to have infringed, or they would destroy the
bill altogether, and one main principle of the bill was the
reduction of the borough franchise." (Cheers.) It has
been supposed that the life of Lord Palmerston was a
security against the introduction of a measure of Reform.
I think it not less due to Lord Palmerston than to his
colleagues to say that, as far as I am aware—and I pre-
sume that the right hon. gentleman will admit that if
mischief had been brewing in .the Cabinet on the sub-
ject I probably should have known it—(a laugh) —as far
as I am aware there never was a difference of opinion
between Lord Palmerston and his colleagues upon the
question of Reform. (Cheers.) In my opinion we
underwent a great responsibility with regard to the
measure of 1860. The introduction of the measure was
an important step in redemption of a very solemn pledge.
The right hon. gentleman grossly misquoted a speech of
mine. (Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) I will not
say misquoted, but misstated the effect. The right hon.
gentleman referred to my speech, and said that I declared
it would be wrong for the Government to introduce or take
up the question of parliamentary reform until they arrived
at a state of public opinion which would seem to offer a
prospect of success. That, sir, was the unanimous opinion
in the Cabinet. The right hon. gentleman said that the
Secretary for the Home Department had declared that we
did not go to the country last year as the patrons of a great
measure of reform. Certainly not. We made no such pro-
fessions. We left the country to produce its own impartial
judgment. But my right hon. friend has said when the
elections took place he formed the opinion—which I be-
lieve was the opinion formed by the members of the Cabi-
net—that the manifesto which had been given by the coun-
try and by the candidates in respect to parliamentary reform
had rendered it necessary for us to become responsible for
such a measure. (Cheers.) Nor have we the smallest ques-
tion that Lord Palmerston would have differed from that
opinion at the moment of his lamented death. No single
Cabinet had been held for the purpose of considering this
measure which we now adopt; but I do know this—and
it is posthumous record of some interest—that in a con-
versation which he had with one of his colleagues, Lord
Palmerston not long before his death, looking forward to
the dissolution, stated his opinion "that, within a limited
time it would be right for the Government again to intro-
duce the subject of reform." (Cheers.) So much for the
honour of Lord Palmerston, which I must confess has not,
I think, been judiciously referred to during this debate.
(Hear, hear.) I hope that opinion may be expressed with-
out offence or transgressing parliamentary rules. And now
I come to another subject. My hon. friend the member for
Birmingham has been made a charge against the Govern-
ment—(laughter and cheers)—that they are identified
with my hon. friend, and that we are the nominal Ministers
of the Crown, and that ho is its irresponsible and real ad-
viser. To that charge I shall make no reply whatever.
(Hear, hear.) Such persons as are disposed to admit it
must have minds in a condition entirely inaccessible, I will
not say to reason or justice, but at any rate to any obser-
vations I can utter. But more specific charges have been
made, and it is right that I should notice them. It has
been stated that her Majesty's Government have taken ad-
vice from the hon. member for Birmingham upon that sub-
ject, which is one that admits of being dealt with by me.
Let us consider what is the case. I must preface my state-
ment by saying that in my opinion it would be no discredit
to the Government, as was said by the hon. and learned
member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), if as policy recom-
mended that they should consult with the great organs of
opinion in the different sections of their party (cheers)—
and if so, it would, I consider, be culpable in us if we over-
looked the advice of my hon. friend. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment, however, felt no such necessity. They did not
pursue that course of consultation. They felt that they
were responsible for the introduction of this measure; and
not being altogether inexperienced theyhad sufficient con-
fidence in themselves and in their knowledge of the state
of the public mind of the country to form their own judg-
ment with regard to the leading provisions of a bill. We
were aware of the opinions of my hon. friend the member
for Birmingham just as much as hon. members opposite
were aware of them, and through the same channels of in-
formation—the public press of the country. What we under-
stood his opinions to be were these : In a speech which he
made in the course of last autumn he stated that he was in
favour of a certain franchise for counties, the maximum
being £lO, and that he thought the highest suffrage for bo-
roughs ought to be £6. The third point in the hon. member's
speech was that the consideration of the franchise ought
to be separated from the re-distribution of seats. (Op-
position cheers.) And the fourth point was that he
thought the separation ought to take place in order to give
time for the ripening and maturing of the public, so that a
full and satisfactory settlement of the question might take
place. What have we done ? We agreed with my hon.
friend upon the policy and duty of separating the two mea-
sures, and would we not have been the most contemptible
poltroons if, holding that concurrence of opinion with him,
we shrank from acting upom it because the leader of the
Tory party forsooth founded on that concurrence a charge
of subserviency against us—(loud cheers)--a charge which
he knows to be unfounded as well as we do. (Renewed
cheers.) If this subserviency exists, why does it not ex-
hibit itself in other matters ? (Hear, hear.) Why does it
not appear in the adoption of the £lO county franchise
which was adopted by ourselves and the right hon. gen-
tleman himself ? Why does it not appear in the adoption
of a £6 borough franchise, which was included in the bill
of 1860, and which had the express sanction of the mem-
ber for Caine—(cheers and which the hon. member for
Birmingham declared to be the highest figure at which it
ought to be allowed to stand? How is it that these
opinions of my hon. friend have not been followed ? My
hon. friend, nevertheless, with great moderation supports
the bill as it stands. We have now arrived at this state '
of things. We propose a measure for lowering the fran-
chise -a step which had the approval of Lord Palmerston
and Sir George Lewis—but because it is supported by my
hon. friend that support is supposed to taint and poison
the measure. Is it to be believed that such extremes of
political and personal animosity exist in this house—
(cheers)—that the very essence of the facts and objects of
the case is to change its nature because of the support of
an individual? That is the state of facts with regard to
my hon. friend. But I must say one word more. lam
sure he is a great deal more obliged to hon gentlemen oppo-
site than he is to us. It is my firm opinion that it is the
gentlemen who adopt the line of argument that we are
Americanising the institutions of the country that are doing
their utmost Against their will and against their know-
lege—indeed, much of what they boast of having done for
the last thirty years has been against their will—it is those
gentlemen who are doing everything they can to increase
the influence of my hon. friend. And if my hon. friend be
the dangerous man he is supposed to be, and has in his
breast such wicked schemes against the institutions of the
country, it is not through her Majesty's Ministers, nor
through the agency of those who are voting with them on
this occasion, he would obtain means of giving effect to
those schemes, but through the line of arguments and
statements adopted by his and our opponents. (Cheers.)
I will now occupy the house for two minutes touching some
expressions of my own, and my best apology for doing so
will be that they are expressions which have furnished
arguments to several members who have taken part in this
debate. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn, in
his clear, forcible, very argumentative, and, under the cir-
cumstances, by no means uncandid speech, complained of
me for using one of those expressinos which may be shortly
summed up in what I may call the flesh and blood expres-
sion. (Laughter and cheers.) I wish the noble lord and
the member for Caine bad more considered what really
took place with regard to this expression. The member
for Caine occupied half an hour in commenting upon it,
and the right hon. member for llertfordshire for another
half hour detained the house with arguments and denun-
ciations, and I know not what, upon the assumption that
I had used that expression as an argument in favour of ad-
mitting the working classes to the franchise. Tho right
hon. baronet said that as an argument it was a gross ab-
surdity, and so it was. But I never used it here or else-
where in that sense. I used it as a reply, and, if I may pre-
sume to go further, as a reproof—(hear)—of the language
of some of the opponents of the bill. There are, in my opinion
times in debate when extraordinary errors are best met by
the expression of elementary truth. When I heard it stated
by a gentleman of ability that to touch the question of the
u ti representationon,
thoughtof tiht etiemv oer
tkoi nrge
mc liansds ehsi
m wouldthat ttehnedpteor
froervmo
_-
al uce of citizenship gave some presumption of the capacity
for civil rights, and that the burden of proof to the con-
trary lay upon those who exclude them. (Hear, hear) That
;ht
thioonna.rygednoticetmrianne.dlen.
£lO as he has done,
scribinstho wo:kinz classes frona£7 to
teehnetsaimmeentwwayas,
wmhagennilfiehdeaTdtothaerervi

SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1866.

not as an invading army, but as something more—as an
invading ambush, which was to bring ruin and conflag-
ration into the devoted city—when I saw he had not re-
ceded from or recanted any of those unfortunate opinions
of his, but rather cast upon them the light of fresh illus-
tration— then, I say, when these extraordinary opinions
enter into minds of such power, it is time to fall back
upon elementary truths. The noble lord the member for
Stamford also cast censure upon my expressions, and he is
at liberty to do so, if he can show that I used them either
there or elsewhere. What I have said in the nature of pla-
titudes, of truisms, or revolutionary maxims—for they pass
under the whole of these designations as may suit the taste
of different persons—(laughter)—what has been so said
has been said in reference to declarations made by persons
of the greatest weight in this house and to the tumult and
tempestuous cheers which those declarations have been re-
ceived. (Cheers.) But I art thankful to admit that those
cheers, tumultuous and overpowering as they were, did
not represent the universal sentiment on the other side of
the house. My hon. and learned friend the member for
Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) who has taken no part in this de-
bate, spoke the other night—on the occasion of his motion
with respect to the malt duties—spoke of the merits and
the virtues of the working classes in a manner that con-
vinced me he entertained none of those ungenerous senti-
ments. I think I may appeal to my noble friend Lord
Stanley, that it was not I who introduced into these de-
bates expressions of that colour and character. It was
not from my opening speech that they arose, and as-
suredly as long as your debates are conducted after the
form and manner of the noble lord, I may venture to
promise he will hear from me none of those expressions
(Hear, hear.) Coming now to the retrospect of this debate:
Notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. member for
Bucks, it is inevitable that my attention should chiefly
rest upon the remarkable speech we heard yesterday from
the right hon. member for Caine. I will not attempt to
deal with that speech in detail, and that for many reasons,
one of them perhaps is a disinclination to measure swords
with such a champion. (Opposition cheers.) Well, that
complimentary cheer at any rate follows my own admis-
sion. One other reason I have in my recollection, and a
third in his votes. I cannot forget, however he may for-
get his connection with men who sit here—l cannot forget
the services which my right hon. friend has rendered as a
public man. (Hear, hear.) But with regard to his votes,
while I know of no language strong enough to express
the grief and astonishment with which I heard his present
opinions on the question of reform, it is evident from the
frame and working of his mind I think he is entitled to
the admission that he is pursuing the dictates of his con-
science, and that upon general subjects his judgments are
sound and liberal. With regard to his speech, when I
think of the power it displayed, I own I am lost in admi-
ration, although I myself was the subject of a.fair share of
its thrusts and cuts. But when I come to think what was
the end and upshot of that speech—when I saw the right
hon. gentleman exaggerating more and more his fears and
apprehensions for the future, and colouring more and more
highly the phantom visions which he raised—then, 1 say
my admiration was lost in grief and astonishment. I am
reminded of the story which was written for the Princess
Palatine. The story was of a young prince to whose
christening all the fairies came. Each bestowed some
talent upon the child, but the fairy which had not been in-
vited came soon afterwards, and said, "Yes I rind the baby
has been presented with all tie talents but one, and that is
the talent of knowing how to use them." (Great laughter.)
The argument of my right hon. friend, powerful as it was,
rested upon what I must cad a series of unfounded and
erroneous assumptions. We are told that Government has
insulted the House of Comoas—ave hear of degradation
tyranny, despotism—these aresome of the powers of speech
applied in the course of this debate by moderate Liberals
forsooth to the Government. (Laughter and cheers.) Is
that a true charge? The right hon. gentleman is not accus-
tomed to deal with generalities, but, taking hold of an ex-
pression which I used when speaking of the question of
Reform—" he knew with whew ho had to deal"—he said it
was intended for the House of Commons, and consequently
that the House of Commons vas insulted. Now, I did not
apply the expression to the House of Commons, but I will
Henley),
boroughley
for
tell you to whom I did apply ,t. I certainly did not apply
it to either the right hon. gettleman the member for the
University of Cambridge (Mr-Walpole) or to the right hon.
theygentleman are
gentlementhe
franchise ; and if I had done so I should have been guilty
of the grossest injustice. But loos my right hon. friend re-
collect the works of Aristoplanes ?
friendly for
Oxfordshire
to reduction
the
In one of his plays,
conveying a rebuke to one of his characters, the great
comedian turns round and addresses his audience thus
" But, now my good Athenians, pray recollect I am not
speaking of a set, nor of the public, I am only speaking of
a certain depraved and crooked little man." (Laughter.)
Well, I was not speaking of the House of Commons, I was
speak of certain depraved and crooked little men. (Great
laughter and cheers.) And I frankly own I was speaking
first and foremost of my right hon. friend. We knew we
had to deal with my right hon.. friend, especially upon
this question. We knew ho was opposed to the exten-
sion of the borough franchise—that ho was opposed to
reform in every shape. (Cheers.) Nevertheless, though
so opposed we cannot get my right hon. friend to say so
by his vote. (Cheers.) He will not consent to vote di-
rectly against the second vidieg of this bill ; but con-
tending that the bill is a bad bill ho desires to vote for the
amendment on the ground that thouel he thinks it is
a bad bill, wo ought, in his opinion, to have added to
it another bad bill. (Loud cheers and laughter.) There-
fore, I think I was justified in saying that we know with
whom we have to deal. The second head of the indict-
ment was that, after producing a certain amount of sta-
tistics, we said that no more information should be pro-
duced. But what took place was this : That when the de-
mand for more statistics was directed to the anatomy of
classes, and particularly of the working classes, in a man-
ner which seemed to reach the point of conviction, I said,
on the part of the Gnvernment, that we would be no party
to the further production of such statistics. The third
proof that we are consulting the House of Commons is,
that the measure for the redistribution of seats is kept back
from mere wantonness. But that is not the case. The
great apprehension that we lad was, that not only the
representatives of small boroughs, but the enemies of the
reduction of the franchise, world make use of the wilder-
ness of details which belong t) the redistribution of seats
to perplex and endanger the qtestion, so as to make legis-
lation hopeless. Therefore we have adhered to the prin-
ciple that it is the best and safest course to separate the
two questions of reduction of ;he franchise and redistribu-
tion of seats. But, on the other hand, we do not agree
with the member for Birmingham in thinking that after
dealing with the franchise the question of the redis-
tribution of seats might be reserved until the public
mind had ripened on the subject. To do so would be
a base device on our part, and utterly inconsistent with
the honour and character of tie Government, (Cheers.)
And now as to the charge of tyrannising over this
house. If I had been a man who from the very outset
of my career, half a century ago, had with prophetic
foresight fastened on two great groups of questions, those
relating to the removal of civil disabilities, and to par-
liamentary reform ; had I been a man who in early
youth, in the first stage of my parliamentary career, had
made these questions my own, had prosecuted them with
sure and unflagging instinct until the triumph had been
achieved ; if my name was associated for 50 years with
every measure of beneficent legislation—had I been Earl
Russell—there might have been some apology and tempta-
tion for going to some excess in the exercise of authority,
and for applying a pressure to the house which would
otherwise be unjustifiable. But that is not my case. The
right hon. gentleman, secure in the recollection of his own
consistency—(loud cheers)—has taunted me with the errors
of my boyhood. The right hon. gentleman, when he ad-
dressed the member for Westminster, showed his magna-
nimity by declaring that he would not attack the philoso-
pher for what he wrote 40 years ago. But when he caught
one who, 36 years ago, when just emerged froth boyhood,
and still an undergraduate at Oxford, expressed opinions
adverse to the Reform Bill of Which he had long and bitterly
repented, then he could not resist the temptation—he, a
Parliamentary leader Of 20 years' standing, is so ignorant
of the House of Commons, that he thought he had a Par-
liamentary advantage in reyesenting me as an opponent of
the Reform Bill of 1832. A.s he has so exhibited me, let
me exhibit myself. I deep:y regret it. I was bred under
the shadow of the name of Canning. Every influence
connected with that great name governed the politics of my
youth. With Canning I rejoiced in the removal of disabili-
ties, and in the character he gave to our policy abroad.
With Canning I rejoiced in the opening he made to freedom
of commercial intercourse with foreign nations. With
Canning, and under the shadow of that name, and under
that of the still greater pane of Mr. Burke, I grant that
my youthful mind and imagination were impressed just as
the mature mind of the right hon. gentleman is now im-
pressed. There is this difference, however, between us—
that having
these opinions, it seems I moved the debating
society at Oxford to express them clearly, plainly, in
downright forcible English, while the right hon. gentle-
man is obliged to skulk under cover of this amendment.
(Loud cheers.) I envy him not one particle of the ad-
vantage which ho has gained by his discreet reference to
the Oxford Union Debating Society. My position in the
Liberal party is the reverse of that of Earl Russell. Earl
Russell might have been misled by his position into at-
tempting to exercise a pressure on this house. I have none
of the claims lie possesses. I came amongst the Liberal
party as an outcast from those with whom I had been pre-
viously connected. I come before you, to use lawyer's
language, in fin-ma pauperis. I have nothing to offer you
but faithful and honourable service. (Loud cheers.) You
received me with kindness, with indulgence, and with
generosity, and I may say oven in some measure with con-
fidence. The relation between us is this, that you never
can be my debtors, but I must be for ever in your debt.
(Cheers.) Now, sir, let me endeavour to state the actual
condition of the question that is to be decided to-night, for
this is not only a protracted, not only an important debate,
not only a subject on which the House of Commons has
freely lavished on both sides the treasures of its wit, its
argument, its invective, its persuasive powers, but it is an
historical debate. We are now making history. We are
now laying the foundation of much that is to come. This
is a starting point from which I presume the career we
have to run as individuals and parties will take its cha-