The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-13 00:00:00

spect all classes of his countrymen. The hon. geneeman
the member for Birmingham, however, in his speech at
Rochdale declared that there were still large masses of the
people whom the influences of religion, education, and
civilisation had never reached, and yet the grant for public
education had within the last 20 years increased from
£30,000 to £BOO,OOO per annum. Now he (Earl Grosvenor)
thought that was hardly an argument in favour of the pre-
sent bill—it was rather an argument which had a tendency
the other way. However that might be, the great majority
of the house wished to pass a moderate measure of reform
one which would be based on the two great principles—
the good government of the country and the fair represen-
-tation of the people. The question they had now to ask
themselves was, whether or not they had got a bill which
would secure to them these two ends. The question was,
Had they got this? He believed they had not. Then the
question was, How could they obtain it? Would the bill
then before the house accomplish it? That was the ques-
tion, and he was bound to say that ho did not think it would
(Cheers.) He believed that no Reform Bill would ever pass
that house which first of all consults hon. members below
the gangway in preference to the great party who sit above
it, and without consulting hon. members who sit on the
other side of the house. He believed that until their feel-
ing; and wishes were consulted and the question was
taken out of the domain of party—(cheers)—there was no
possibility of any bill passing, unless, as had been sug-
gested by Earl Grey, it was put into the hands of a com-
mittee of the Privy Council, or of an unbiassed commission
For this reason he moved the amendment. He believed
that moderate opinions prevailed, and would continue to
prevail, and that a bill which was founded upon that prin-
• ciple, upon matured opinions andmatured principles, would
• become the law of the country. (Cheers.) He thanked the
1 house in all sincerity for the great patience with which

they had listened to him, and he would only appeal to those
members who sat on his side, and who agreed in the spirit
of the resolution, whether they could not in their consciences
support the resolution, because he believed the Govern-
ment bill would never pass the house. He knew that many
agreed in the spirit of the resolution, though their allegi-
ance to the Government had superior claims upon them.
He appealed to gentlemen out of doors to justify him, be-
cause he had been subjected to great abuse on account of
the course which he had felt it to be his duty to take on
this occasion. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl concluded by
moving the resolution he had placed upon the paper, and
resumed his seat amid loud Opposition cheers.
Lord STANLEY, who was received with great applause
from the Opposition benches, seconded the amendment.
For some minutes the noble lord was very indistinctly
heard. He was understood to say that he seconded the
amendment from the strong conviction he entertatined of
the falseness of the position in which they had become
involved. He did not intend to follow the Chancellor of
the Exchequer through his long and able speech, but he
must observe, in reference to the quotation which the right
hon. gentleman made from the Quarterly Review, and by
which he seemed to wish to affix a stigma upon the Con-
servative party, that he (Lord Stanley) entirely de-
clined to be responsible for any article whatever, of
which he knew nothing and with which he had
nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman also appeared desirous to have it be-
lieved that the Conservative party would wish to
go to war with the United States. Now he (Lord
Stanley) thought that this was some of the tender ground
on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was afraid
to enter. (Cheers.) Why, during the war all that the Con-
servative party wished to see was a recognition of the Con-
federate States ; but the right hon. gentleman himself it
was who declared that Jefferson Davis had made a nation.
(Loud cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had con-
cluded his speech with a powerful appeal to the house, not
only to be wise, but to be wise in time. (Hear, hear.) He
did not know when this necessity for urgent haste in the
matter began in the mind of the right hon. gentleman.
(Hear, hear.) The Reform bill of 1860, brought in by Lord
Russell's Government, was not thrown out by the house ;
it was simply dropped. (Hear, hear.) Those who had left
this question for six years without even an attempt to
settle it were not now justified in turning round and saying
that the house would not be wise unless it passed this bill
with the least possible delay. (Loud cheers.) He did not
intend to discuss the details or the principle of the bill ;
but simply to support the proposition expressed in the re-
solution of his noble friend the member for Chester. What
was it the Ministry asked them to do ? They asked them
to act upon a principle which they themselves six years
ago declared to be an unsound one. In the present case
the original theory on which they proceeded was that
the question of the franchise and the redistribution of
seats were wholly independent of and distinct from each
other, and that they ought to be separately considered.
Her Majesty's Government had now distinctly acknow-
ledged the right of the house to know what they pro-
posed to do about the seats before the house went into
the details of this measure. (Cheers.) But the Govern-
ment said, "We must have your pledge that you
will vote for the second reading. You must perform
that act of faith iu us, and when you have done that we
will reward your submission and your confidence by
telling you what will he the effect of this vote you have
given blindfold." (Cheers.) He wondered that Ministers
did not sue, or that seeing they did not care for, the con-
struction to which that course of policy was exposed. No
one could suppose that they had not got their plan ready.
No one could believe that they did not know what
boroughs they proposed to disfranchise and what con-
stituencies they intended to create. Those facts, however,
were kept back from the house, and why ? Because, as
the leader of the house said at Liverpool—and it was a
singular admission to come from one occupying his position
—the Government knew with whom they were dealing.
(Cheers.) Although the Government asked the House of
Commons to trust them, they were not inclined to trust
the House of Commons. (Cheers.) And why ? Because
—and he did not think he put it unfairly—they thought
that if two measures were brought forward at the same
time, and one of them were a small disfranchisement
scheme, it might so disappoint and disgust several mem-
bers as to make them indifferent to the whole measure of
reform. If, on the other hand, they brought forward a
large scheme of disfranchisement the members whose seats
would be taken away would be inclined to vote against
the whole measure of reform, and thus it might be de-
feated. He wondered that Ministers imagined so transpa-
rent a device would succeed. (Cheers.) He fancied
there was no member so young or so innocent as not to
see the net which had been spread out before the house.
(Renewed cheers.) And after all what would Ministers
gain if their device should succeed? Simply a little time.
If the bill should be read a second time, the opposition
which they wished to prevent on the second reading would
have to be encountered in committee. Under these circum-
stances he thought it was hardly worth while for Ministers
to attempt to press the bill forward at present. The fate not
merely of a member, but of his constituency, might Ilepend
on the vote which he might give on the second reading of
this bill. A largo number of boroughs were upon the border
line, and arrangements night be made which would swamp
the constituency of an enemy and save that of a friend.
(Cheers.) Even the measure of 1832, sound as he thought
it was, was not free from some arrangements of that kind.
(Laughter.) But let it not be supposed that he charged the
Government with intending to make any corrupt bargain
of that kind, but thought that the house ought to con-
sider carefully the position in which they stood with
referenae to this matter. They were going to have
a large redistribution, of seats. Any alteration of that
scheme was still possible, and ought the house to be asked
to vote upon a measure upon which the Government had
staked its existence, while certain infilences which ho had
described might be exercised upon the representatives of
certain constituencies? Who was to guarantee the iden-
tity of the redistribution scheme of 1866 with that of 1867?
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Would the Ministers them-
selves say that they would accept no amendment, and
would not reconsider their perhaps hasty thoughts ? They
could not use language of that kind. And who was to an-
swer for the events of the next 12 months ? Might not
some domestic or foreign event occasion a dissolution of
Parliament within that time ? And if a dissolution
should take place in what an extraordinary position
would the house and the country be placed. If they
appealed to the old constituencies, they would be con-
stituencies which the House by a deliberate vote
had condemned. And if they appealed to the new consti-
tuencies, they would have this still more anomalous state
of things. They would have an appeal from Parliament
to the people under a provisional constitution. (Cheers.)
Who was to guarantee that the same body which
dealt with the question of enfranchisement would be able
also to deal with the question of seats ? A guarantee of
that kind was simply impossible. He did not blame the
Government for not having brought in the bill until statis-
rtiecgarle inft that o r m
taht ieo nah
ea
ndoweenboletluehe
Inredeltafahi
btdahl
vebeeecEfel
aehbtielhnecield.un heuhro
iuthmhsaeadt,t
onl Js
rout
statistical
ate
.e d hidslti
tticht id
little
morebook NI ve siuc ,hwe 1 laidich
information, because the facts in that book turned out
quite different from what the right hon. gentleman ima-
gined them to be—(hear, and laughter)—the whole ques-
tion of Reform should be suspended till another session.
They had no guarantee that if this measure were car-
ried the settlement of the second question would rest in
the hands cf the present House of Commons. Referring
to the expression a "dirty conspiracy," he wished to know
how that term was to be defined. Did it mean a combina-
tion for a temporary purpose of a portion of the Liberal
party with the bulk of the Conservative party ? It could
hardly be that, for he had known two such combinations
within the last few Years, in which part had been taken
by noble lords and hon. gentlemen who now supported
Government, and amongst them the hon. member for Bir-
mingham—once on the occasion of the resolution on the
China war, and on the case of Bernard and Orsini.
Mr. BRIGHT rose to order, but was met by so deter-
mined an opposition from the Conservative side that ho
could not be heard.
Mr. DISRAELI (to Mr. Bright)—Do you rise to order ?
Mr. BRIGHT—I do.
The SPEAKER, rising in answer to cries of "Chair,"
said—The hon. member says that be rises to order, and of
course he will keep to the question of order.
Mr. BRIGHT—I do not wish to interrupt the noble lord.
I only wish to say that on the first 000ason.—. (Renewed

wise

cries of " Order," yielding to which ?Jr. Bright sat down.
Lord STANLEY went on to say that the Liberal
members alluded to had only asserted their right to the
exercise of their own judgment, and their refusal to
submit to the dictation which would say to them,
" Swallow your scruples and follow your leader." He
contended that there was no similarity whatever between
the resolution proposed in 18 59 and the amendment of his
noble friend. The resolution of 1859 affirmed the principle
that no settlement of the Reform question would be satis-
factory that did not include the lowering of the borough
franchise. That resolution was objected to as unusual
and unfair, on the ground that the point raised was one
that could be disposed of in committee if the bill were
allowed to pass a second reading. (Hear, hear.) The pre-
sent bill was only a franchise bill, and it would be con-
trary to the practice of the house to insert in a
franchise bill a clause relating to a different subject.
(Hear, hear.) This was not an amendment that nega-
tived the principle of any Reform, or that even ex-
pressed disapprobation of the principle of the bill.
(Hear, hear.) After the promises that had been made re-
specting reform, he should be unwilling to vote against the
second reading if he could avoid doing so. He would
much rather, if possible, discuss in committee any question
in which there existed a difference of opinion, but they
were cut off from taking that course by the peculiar man-
ner in which the scheme was brought before them. (Oppo-
sition cheers.) They should be able to judge of the effect of
the bill not only in the existing boroughs, but also in the
new boroughs hereafter to be enfranchised. They were
therefore asked to legislate upon a subject about which
they absolutely knew nothing. (Opposition cheers.) Their
judgment ought to be free and unbiased, and founded upon
a full knowledge of the subject. Believing that they could
not so exercise their judgment if they acted in the manner
the Government desired, he should second the amendment
of his noble friend. (Opposition cheers.)
Mr. P. W. MARTIN expressed his intention to support
the bill provided the Government would introduce a clause
' to save the rights of the dockyard artificers, but not other-

Mr. HORSFALL commented with some severity on the
language used by Mr. Bright in reference to Liverpool,
which he described as most unjustifiable. He described
the freemen of that town to be quite as independent as the
£lO householders, and while expressing himself anxious to
assist in any compromise or settlement of the question
when the proper time arrived, expressed himself hostile to
a measure which would transfer the balance of political
power to the working classes, and which would enormously
increase the expense of elections.
Mr. PIM disclaimed any idea of regarding the question
of reform as one of party. He did not wish to see the Go-
vernment displaced, but he could not give his consent to a
fragmentary measure, although ho was quite disposed to
support a fair and moderate measure of concession when
the proper time arrived.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON could not understand
upon what intelligible ground the Opposition were pre-
pared to give their sanction to the amendment of Lord
Grosvenor. That amendment was directed against a real
and practical proposition, and if it were now rejected it
would be impossible to tell when there would be a settle-
ment of the question. He denied that the measure had
been brought in at the dictation of Mr. Bright. It was in-
spired by the pressure of long-standing engagements,
which no honourable men could longer resist. Had the
Government met the new Parliament without a Reform
Bill it would have been said that they had sacrificed their
principles to their places. The fate of the Cabinet was, it
was true, staked upon the bill, but a far more importan t
question than the resignation of Ministers remained behind
—the peace and prosperity of the country.
General PEEL reminded the house that the new-born
zeal of the Government in favour of Reform had been in-
spired by the death of the late Premier. Before the dis-
solution of , George 111. the cry of the Government was?
" The good old King and no Popery," and during the life-
time of Lord Palmerston the cry was, " The good old
Palmerston and no Reform Bill." To ask the House of
Commons to sanction the principle of a Franchise Bill
without accompanying it with a plan for the redistribution
of seats was to treat it like a child. For his own part be
was not prepared to consider one without the other ; and,
so far as the lowering of the franchise was concerned, he
would not give his assent to a £7 occupation in boroughs
even if accompanied by a measure for the redistribution of
amts. He considered that a£7 franchise would open the
door to endless corruption, as it would revive the old free-
men, scot and lot voters, and potwallopers, whose exist'
once was destroyed, or nearly destroyed, by the bill of
1832. If the bill were passed in its present shape it would .
open the door to all descriptions of corruption, and
boroughs would be bought and sold like shares in the
Stock Exchange. The cost of every borough would be
fixed ; a parliamentary bill of fare would be drawn up, Oct
the price of mint sauce for Nottingham "lambs" would et
once be ascertained. He was not indisposed to give the
working classes a reasonable share of political power, for
he was not afraid of them ; but he owned he was afraid of
the men by whom they were likely to be led.
After a few words from Mr. KINGLAKE, justifying
the withdrawal of the amendment of which he had given
notice,
Mr. BANKS-STANHOPE opposed the bill on the
ground that it was not an honest measure. It was aver
known that it was the handiwork of the member for Bir-
mingham, who had openly declared that no measure
would give satisfaction to him and his party out of doors
which was not accompanied by the ballot.
,On the motion of Mr. BAXTER the debate was ad-
journed at half-past twelve o'clock until this afternoon,
after a pretest from Mr. Ayrton against the "feeble" ant!
"uxorious" manner of conducting so serious and
important a discussion. He expressed himself in favour
of sitting day and night until the division had been
,aken.
..a
The other business on the paper was disposed of,
he house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.