The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-27 00:00:00

sincere disposition to conciliate the minds of men—

to conciliate those who were fastidious, or who

might possibly be opposed to Reform, at the expense
of those by whom Reform was ardently supported.
(Cheers.) Now, what are the facts? In 1860 a

measure was proposed involving, as a basis, a £lO
and £6 franchise, which would have brought about
an extension of the suffrage of no less than 460,000
persons. For that £lO and £6 franchise we substi-

,uted franchises of £7 and £l4, the effect of which

was to bring down the figure of 460,000 to about
300,000 ; or to sacrifice about one-third of the

enfranchisement which the bill of 1860 would have

effected. We thought that that was a very large
concession. We thought it better to make it early
than late, but, having made it, it is impossible not
to see that it became our duty to give a stricter in-
terpretation to the pledges we had given to stand or
fall by the bill. And, Sir, 1 may be permitted to

say likewise -r say it without reproach to any one
—I may be permitted to say that, in our own view,
_ _

we likewise adopted and did act upon this inten-
tion, that no secondary difficulty or consideration

should be allowed to interfere with our making
progress with the bill. We accordingly consented
to make changes in our mode of procedure upon
the bill, as much as could be made in any Govern-
ment measure introduced and deliberately perse-
vered with by the Government. We agreed to pro-
duce a bill for the redistribution of seats; we agreed
that that bill should be united with our own bill,
conceding in both these points to the consideration
of the majority of the house, and waiving our
own convictions regarding them. We deemed
that, however just we might think our own
opinion, it did not warrant the serious
public evil of a conflict with the House
of Commons upon the question of the repre-
sentation of the people, especially after what
had happened with regard to that representation in
former years. In the same manner when provisions
of the bill which appeared to us, even although valu-
able, and yet capable of being parted with, were
objected to, we agreed to withdraw them. We
agreed to withdraw the clause respecting leasehold
votes from boroughs in counties, and we also agreed
to modify the fourth clause in a point which was
deemed of importance. These modifications were
acceded to at the instance of gentlemen opposite,
and the last of them excited lively expostulation
from a large number of gentlemen on our side of
the house —(Hear, hear, from the members below
the gangway)—who thought it their duty to give
expression. to their sentiments by a division. , There
remained then but one difficulty with regard to pro-
cedure, and that was our desire to pass some mea-
sure during the present session. With respect to
that desire, when challenged to repeat in strong
terms our expression of it, we deliberately waived
any expression, because we felt it would be invidi-
ous, and might be disrespectful, to flourish such a
declaration in the face of the House of Commons;
and we covered even that subject by a general de-
claration made by me in words authorised expressly
by my colleagues, that we should be loth to quar-
rel with the house, or that portion of the house
which agreed with us, upon any question of pro-
cedure as to the bill. However, we found ourselves
met with these proceedings on the bill : On the 27th
of April my noble friend the member for Chester
made a motion as an amendment, on the second
reading,the effect of which would have been that we
should have been compelled to produce the Seats
Bill before the house had given any opinion what-
ever on the Franchise Bill. That motion, as is
known to the house, was rejected in a house unpre-
cedentedly large by a majority of five, the numbers
being 318 as against 323. The next step in the pro-
gress of the measure was on the 2d of May,when the
hon. baronet the member for Northamptonshire
made a motion to instruct the committee to include
in the bill clauses for the repression of bribery
and corruption. Our difficulty already was, that
we had an ovcrweighted measure, and that it was
almost impossible to find time to consider it. We
remonstrated—we pointed out that that course, at
least, had not been pursued on former occasions ;
but the house thought fit to overrule the view of the
Government, and by a majority of 10 the hon. baro-
net carried his motion. I do not say whether he
was right or wrong. I speak only of the amount of
obstacles which we found besetting us on the road
to the end which we had in view. On the 4th of
June another motion was made by the hon. and
gallant member for Wells, which certainly ended
without a division, but which was debated for three
nights, and which evidently must have had, and was
intended to have, the effect of putting aside the
consideration of the bill for this year. On the 7th
of June the noble lord the member for King's Lynn
made a motion for the purpose of postponing the
enfranchising clauses to the clauses relating to the
redistribution of seats. That motion was made
without any public notice whatever. (Cheers from
the Ministerial side.) But it was within the know-
ledge of the Government at a subsequent period,
that, through channels which I am not able to point
out, information bad been conveyed that either that
motion or some such motion should be made on that
day and at that hour ; such information, however,
being conveyed exclusively to certain gentlemen on
this side of the house whose votes appeared likely
to be favourable to the motion. Notwithstanding
that information, the motion was negatived by
287 against 260. We were then met by the
motion of the right hon. the member for Cambridge
University, who proposed to raise the county
franchise to £2O, and thereby to maim in our view
—at all events greatly to alter—one of the funda-
mental clauses in the bill. The motion was rejected
by a very small majority of only 14 ; and then came
in another form 'a motion which was admitted to
have for one of its objects the raising of the county
franchise—l mean the motion of my hon. friend the
member for Northamptonshire. That motion was
rejected only by a majority of seven. Then came
the motion of my noble friend the member for Gal-
way raising the very same point for the boroughs
which bad been rejected by only seven for the
counties, and applying that principle to the bo-
roughs which had been refused for the counties,
although it was within the knowledge of us all that
whatever difficulty was connected with rateable
value would be greater in the boroughs than in the
counties. (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) That
motion was carried by a majority of eleven, and it
was upon a deliberate review of this series of facts,
from the recital of which I have endeavoured to ex •
elude every qualifying epithet—it was on a delibe-
rate review of this series of facts, combining that
review of previous divisions and debates with what
I have already stated as to the nature of the mo-
tion itself, that we arrived at the conclusion that
effectual progress with the bill—progress such as
would leave the relation and standing ground of
the House of Commons relatively to the bill sensibly
different at the end of our labours from what they
had been in the beginning—that such progress was
impossible, and that consequently between the al-
ternatives of accepting alterations or resignation,
our duty was in the first instance to offer, and
finally, having had through the gracious kindness
of her Majesty an interview, to persevere in the
tender of our resignation. I hope that in convey-
ing to the house the motives which acted on our
minds, I have been fortunate enough to make
it understood that my sole desire was to
present the subject matter with which I have dealt
simply as we viewed it, and that I was not using it
as a reproach or even an argument. It is the duty
of a Government, especially in regard to questions
of gravity, to place the House of Commons in pos-
session, as far as the public interest will allow, of
the motives and considerations by which Ministers
have been guided ; and I trust, therefore, that the
house will excuse me for the time I have occupied
its attention. (Cheers.) I have no more to say
than simply this, that we hold our offices simply and
solely until our successors are appointed. I propose
to move that this house at its rising do adjourn
until Thursday next. I believe that at so early a
date no effectual measures can be taken in forming
a new Administration ; but with the idea that on
Thursday there will be some person with whom we
shall be able to communicate, and at whose instance
we may on that day propose a further adjournment
of the house, I name that day. lam not aware of
any rule that would prevent members whose names
are upon the paper, or who have bills upon the