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

racter. Now, the charge brought against us is this, that
we have introduced a Franchise Bill alone. Is that a
very great offence ? There were two reasons that might
have moved us to it—one was the reason of policy, the de-
sire to avoid uniting unnecessarily independent combina-
tions of persons, causing them to join together, upon dif-
ferent grounds for the common purpose of rejecting our
bill. I don't think we were influenced by such a motive.
But the conclusive motive was that which I mentioned
in introducing the bill, viz., that the passing of a com-
bined bill was impossible, and that if we introduced a
measure which we knew could not pass the house in the
time available for its discussion there would not only be
a failure, but that failure would be attended on our part
with the greatest dishonour. We should have met all and
more of the opposition (though of a different kind) which
has encountered us as leaders at present, and in addition
we should have had the reproach from within that we had
adopted an indirect method of procedure—claiming to be
the friends of Reform while laying upon the table a double
measure which we knew the house could not discuss.
Therefore the question of time— the 12 or 24 days' argu-
ment—is disposed of. My noble friend the member for
King's Lynn told us that our alternative was the post-
ponement of our measure till next year. After what has
passed, let the noble lord put himself in our position. Most
of us have made two or three former failures in this matter
of Reform. When we rejected the Government of Lord
Derby because we were not pleased with his bill, and in
1860 again took up the subject, but only dealt with one
part of the question, was it visited upon us with extreme
severity that we thought more of our own honour and of
the honour of our party, than to attempt dealing with more
than we could accomplish ? Was it, then, so strange a
thing that, after four Reform Bills had failed, we should
think of varying their form— of putting some of the cargo
out of the ship when we found it impossible to carry the
whole ? The house has never laid down the principle
that it will refuse to entertain the franchise reduction ex-
cept in connection with the distribution of seats. Both
in the cases of the bills of the member for West Sussex,
and the member for Leeds, the principle of reducing the
franchise was recognised without insisting upon the
distribution of seats. In the case of Ireland, also, we
dealt with its small boroughs and constituencies without
touching the question of redistribution. Moreover, what
did gentlemen say when they went to their constituents ?
I have examined the addresses of a number of the borough
members, and I find that, out of 117 members who en-
tered into particulars on the subject of Reform, not more
than 16 referred to the subject of the redistribution of
seats. (Loud cheers.) It is thus made apparent that
the vast majority of the borough members who alluded
to reform did so simply in connection with its first and
by far its greatest head, namely, the question of the exten-
sion of the franchise. I therefore do not see how the
Government can be blamed as they have been for the
course they have taken in this matter. Then, again,
with regard to the inconvenience of the separation of
the two matters to which I am referring. What was
the case in 1859 ? How did the noble lord then in power
deal with regard to the question of boundaries and the
redistribution of seats ? With respect to the former, he
did nothing but recommend an inquiry which must
have resulted in subsequent legislation, and with refer-
ence to the latter, he put fifteen seats into his bill,
leaving power to disfranchise afterwards as many as
Parliament chose. And having done this, he complained
of the intolerable inconveniences of making a separation
between the two. (Cheers.) May I say one word upon
an illustration used by the noble lord ? He has told us
that we have got this house, and we should take care
how we touch it. But our object is simply to improve
and make it better. Furthermore, I may call to his re-
collection, as bearing upon the matter of a complete bill,
that five years ago those who sat behind the noble lord
urged the great advantage of having all the chief finan-
cial measures introduced in independent bills. (Cheers.)
The objection has occurred to a great extent, certainly such
as to invite criticism. The right hon. member for Cam-
bridge made a helpful suggestion, and I thank him for it,
when he proposed we should proceed by resolution. We can
easily conceive what the first resolution would be. It
would be very short. Suppose we put a resolution to the
house on such a subject as the reduction of the franchise ;
that might be done. But I want to know how my right
hon. friend would put the redistribution of seats in a reso-
lution. Would he have a resolution saying it is expedient
to take away so many members from 30 or 40 boroughs ?
Would he name those boroughs in the resolution? If he
named them in the resolution, what is the difference be-
tween that and the till ? Nothing would have been gained
by such a course. What is the real merit of our case with
regard to redistribution, which is at the root of the present
difference ? My hon. friend the member for Birmingham,
has said and said truly, and it is demonstrable, that you
might have a scheme of redistribution such as altogether
to frustrate and to intercept the effect of your reduction
of the franchise. If we were to introduce a scheme of
that kind I admit that anything which might be said
against us would be warranted. But wo are not the
persons to do that. Have we given no indications in
former times as to our intentions with regard to redis-
tribution ? I believe that redistribution, though an im-
portant part of the Franchise Bill, is altogether subject
to the Franchise Bill ; because that is limited to a prin-
ciple, and leaves little room for difference of opinion
among fair-minded and moderate men. Our Redistribu-
tion Bills of 1854, 1859, and 1850 have shown some mode
of dividing the seats obtained from small populations be-
tween counties, the enfranchisement of towns, and the
giving of some increase to boroughs. That being so, there
is nothing at all that can fatally affect in any manner a bill
which extends the franchise. The bill of Lord Derby en-
franchised six towns. Birkenhead has been enfranchised
since. These towns have an average population of 20,000;
that is, 120,000 altogether. Well, what is the number of
£7 voters you will create in those towns? It is not worth
considering for a moment. The right hon. gentleman said
millions might be taken out of the counties and put into
the towns. Just so, if they liked to cook them, as it was
called. No doubt they might make redistribution with a
dangerous intention; but we disclaim such intention. If
that was imputed it should be imputed by an enemy. Dan-
gerous intentions should hardly be imputed by political
friends or confidants. (Hear, hear.) We had decided to do
some things and we have done them. It has been said, and
said assiduously, that we have said redistribution might be
postponed until another year, and that it had nothing to
do with the Franchise Bill becoming law. We have said
neither the one nor the other. We have said the Redistri-
bution Bill could not be proceeded with until the Franchise
Bill was secured. That might be upon any stage of the
bill, according to the circumstances of the moment ; but as
to postponing the bill another year, I never said anything
of the sort. I myself said that if it were the pleasure of
the house to prolong the session during the autumn,
the Government would not be the parties to ob-
ject. I am bound to say that, although that offer
has been made, not one of the members so keen for
the redistribution of seats has by a single statement shown
they would accept it. (Cheers.) We have said the redis-
tribution of seats is an essential part of any plan of Reform.
We have stated the political necessity which we feel for
staking our existence as a Government on the Franchise
Bill, as well as on that for the redistribution of seats. We
have said also that if the house has a mind to proceed with
despatch, they shall not be retarded by any laziness of
ours. We have been taunted, not altogether unjustly,
with having made further concessions in order to meet the
views of gentlemen who would wish the bill for the re-
distribution of seats before going into committee on this
bill. What more is required ? (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
If the Franchise Bill falls the Government will fall with
it, and those who wish to redistribute .the seats can come
in and redistribute them. (Laughter.) Can anything be
more obvious than that the Government has every con-
ceivable motive to avoid a dissolution ? We have no reason
to think, as my right hon. friend near me painted out, that
the new constituencies that are in future to be enfran-
chised will be in our favour. It is in your power to get
quite as great an interest in them if you will depart from
the course you are pursuing, show some trust in them, and
refrain from telling us that in giving them them the franchise
we are Americanising our institutions. As to rumours in
this house, I wish it clearly to be understood our object is
to draw a separation clearly between those who really de-
sire a reduction of the franchise in counties, and above all,
in boroughs, and those who do not. (Loud cheers.) We
shall be loth to quarrel upon a mere question of procedure
with any gentleman in whom we recognise a community
of purpose and object with ourselves. We hold procedure
as secondary to the purpose for which it is introduced.
But we cannot undertake to do this. We cannot under-
take to lose the ground we have gained, for in my opinion
we have gained ground. We will not have prevarication,
and no concealment shall exist if we have power to unveil
it to the public eye. (Loud cheers.) That, sir, is the state
of the case with regard to our intentions on the second
reading of the bill. It is well to understand what is meant
by the second reading of the bill. [Here there was some
interruption to the right hon. gentleman's remarks, occa-
sioned by an observation of an hon. member.] lam greatly
pained to be compelled to protract this address at so late an
hour in the morning. Let it be clearly understood we are
not debating the question of savings banks, we are not de-
bating the question of the dockyard franchise, nor a ques-
tion of householders in counties—which, after what has
been stated by the hon. member for Staffordshire, may be
a matter for consideration—we do not ask any gentleman
to pledge himself as to the particular figure at which ho
would fix the reduction of the franchise. (Opposition
cheers.) Wo do not conceal our intention. We do not
intend to Dart with that. We cannot part with it. The
question is, Will the house consent to give a vote for the
second readirg of a bill for the reducticn of the franchise in
counties and in towns? (No, no, by the Opposition.
Ministerial cheers.) That may not be the question ;n the es-
timation of the hon. gentlemen opposite ; but it seems to me
not unfit that those who move the second reading of a
biil should at any rate put the house in possession of
t hat which they believe to be the intention of the bill.
Have we a reason for asking for the second reading of the
bill ? I think we have a strong reason for asking it.
There are two. We gave notice of this bill, and in intro-
ducing it we were saluted from a friend of the Government
with a hostile motion concerted with the opposite party.
(Hear.) My noble friend the member for Chester is a gen-
tleman to whose character I have endeavoured to do jus-