The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-08 00:00:00

The modes of attaining that end may be variously sug-
gested. My right hon. friend the member for Gateshead
suggested a kind of suspension clause in the Franchise
Bill. My hon. friend the member for Wick suggested that
these two bills should proceed pari passu ; meaning, I sup-
pose, that the corresponding stages of the two bills should
bo taken in succession, ona at a time. But even then, if
our minds had arrived at a certain stage of jealousy, that
does not wholly attain the point, inasmuch as you cannot
read the two bills a third time at the same moment ; there-
fore, it is an abstract possibility of the separation, even at
the last moment, of two Siamese twins. Another proposal
—I do not remember whether it was made in the debate,
but it has been mentioned—is the incorporation of the two
bills into one. No doubt there is but one point of view in
which we have ever felt a difficulty with respect to the
combination of the two bills. When this question was in-
troduced wo did not feel ourselves in a condition to say to
the House of Commons, "We now ask you to amend the
representation of the people, and we ask you to make what-
ever sacrifice of time and personal convenience which may
be necessary in order to complete the treatment of the mea-
sure." But at a subsequent stage of our discussion I did
state to the house that we had no objection whatever to go
on continuously and successively with these subjects pro-
vided it were understood they were not to be dropped, but
that we should persevere till they were disposed of. That
statement did not necessarily mean an altered session, be-
cause there is another method which has been adopted on
rare occasions, and which might be again resorted to to
prevent the dropping of a measure, viz., a lengthened ad-
journment of the house in the months of July or August
until the month of September or October. (Laughter.) It
is quite evident from the laughter of hon. gentlemen oppo-
site that they are not anxious for the combination of the
two bills. (Hear.) I wish to describe simply but clearly to
the house what is the position of the Government. What
the Government object to is the loss of the year. (Cheers.)
We are not willing to be parties to the loss of the
year and to the postponement of the subject. We
may have been right or we may have been wrong, but we
felt it to be wise to approach the subject during the pre-
sent year, and we believe that we were right. (Cheers.)
What I think is obvious is, that having approached it we
ought not to recede from it. (Hear.) Our intention is to per-
severe with that which we have proposed. If it be the ge-
neral desire of the house to adopt any other method—and
other methods may be suggested besides those I have men-
tioned—for attaining the object of the noble lord (Stanley)
viz., of guaranteeing that these questions shall not be se-
parated, we are perfectly ready to adopt such method—
(hear)—subject only to the condition that we go forward
and we do not throw over the subject for the year. (Hear.)
On a former night, looking back to what had been done at
the period of the Reform Act, I did state that we had come
to the conclusion that it would be impossible to dispose of
the subject of the redistribution of seats within the limits
of the session. The house is aware of the difficulties
under which computations of that kind are formed. If
there is a disposition to agree to the redistribution of seats,
there is no intrinsic difficulty in the matter which requires
very prolonged discussion ; but, on the other hand, if
there is a disposition to treat the question of the redistri-
bution of seats as a matter of controversy, and to stickle
for every point as it arises, the points which may be raised
upon it are so numerous that there might be a very large
demand indeed on the time of Parliament in order to get
through it. It was in view of the probability of such a
large demand that I said we had come to the conclusion
that we could not probably dispose of the whole subject
during the session. But in regard to that matter wo are
in the hands of the house. We should be very glad, if it be
the pleasure of the house, to proceed with greater despatch
than we had been sanguine enough to anticipate, and
which will be in our view all the better for us and for the
country. (Hear.) However, sir, the point which has been
urged upon us is that the subjects should not be sepa-
rated, but that ono should securely and c3rtainly follow
in the train of the other. Tho point which we have to
urge is that the year shall not be lost. (Hear, hear.)
And, therefore, if it be proposed to combine the sub-
jects, either by combining the two bills into one or by any
other method satisfactory to the house, we shall give a wil-
ling consideration to the subject, if only it be understood
that we adhere to our original proposition, and that is, that
as a Government we have no intention to advise a proro-
gation of Parliament till the whole subject—meaning by
the whole subject the question of the franchise and the
question of the redistribution of seats—isdisposed of by the
judgment of Parliament. (Hear.) Sir, I hope what I have
said has made clear to the house the position in which the
Government desire to be understood as standing. I will
not at the present moment say anything
impression is
res-
pect to the proceeding on this bill. Our is that
the members of the house have been waiting to learn the
character and substance of the bill, and that they will
probably come to a final judgment on the question of pro-
cedure. I will therefore only at present remind the house
that in the debate on the amendment I stated generally
that which I am now endeavouring to explain fully and
clearly, viz., our desire not to quarrel with any portion of
the house, agreeing with us as to the end in view, upon
thequestion of procedure. (Hear.) If we have had de-
bates which have involved matter of warmth and interest,
the whole of these debates I put out of view and memory.
For the present purpose I assume we have met together for
the prosecution of this bill with all despatch compatible
with a due consideration of the subject. There is one
method—a resolution to prolong our labour till the whole
matter is disposed of—by which, as it appears to us, the
ends of combining the two subjects and of not losing time
are brought into harmony. Be that as it may, there is no
element, as I hope the house will see, of reproach, suspi-
cion, or controversy in the declaration I now make. We
are frankly ready to enter into such arrangement as will
give the house the best security that it will retain in its
own hands the power of dealing with the whole subject,
only we must not lose the time and labour which have
been already spent. I have now only to add that her
Majesty's Government will not advise a prorogation
till the whole matter be disposed of, if it be the desire
of the house to combine the two bills into one. Of course
I must be understood as reserving all causes of public
policy or exigency which may arise ; my observations being
meant to apply only to this case, that no prorogation would
be advised in the ordinary course of business until this
subject was disposed of. (Cheers.) In some manner or
other I cannot but entertain a hope that some method of
proceeding with regard to this question will be devised so
as to prevent our coming to any issue on these matters of
time and convenience. I am sure it will be eminently
satisfactory to the Government that we, having addressed
ourselves to the settlement of a question of such
_vast im-
portance, should treat it with that earnestness of purpose
which on every ground it appears to demand. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving for leave
to bring in the bill.

Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I rise only to touch on one of the
three subjects which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
brought under our consideration. When he rose I did not
contemplate I should have to trouble the house on either
of those subjects ; but I shall confine myself entirely to the
question of procedure. I must say I have listened to the
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject
with feelings akin to astonishment. (Hear, hear.) It is
generally considered the duty of a private member of the
house,when he brings forwarda bill or proposes a measure,
that he should at least indicate the mode in which he in-
tends to ask the opinion of the house, and the time ho
thinks it may be convenient to ask for that opinion. But
so far as I could collect from the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, he has not at all given any means to the house by
which they can arrive at any conclusion as to the course
which the Government propose the house should adopt in
this matter. Irrespective of being a member of this house,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings forward this mea-
sure as leader of the House of Commons, and it is his duty
to regulate the general course of business of the house.
But here is most important business before the house,
which has engaged our attention during a great portion
of the session, and which is contemplated by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer as being likely
.to engage
the rest of our time, brought before us, so far as I can learn,
without any explanation. lam really at a loss to know on
what day, and in what manner, the opinion of the house
will 146. taken upon the important subject introduced by the
Government. I must put it to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that the usual practice has been to offer the hous2
information with regard to tho mode of procedure, which
is one of the most important duties of the Government. I
hope we shall be informed on what day our opinion will
be called for upon this most important subject. (Opposi-
tion cheers.)
There were loud cries of " Gladstone, Gladstone," fol-
lowed by repeated ironical cheers.
Mr. BOUVERIE remarked that the proper time to take
any issue on a bill was on the second reading. The real
pinch in all this question, ho believed, was the redistribu-
tion of seats. Ile urged the house to settle the matter in
the manner proposed by the Government, which, while he
believed it would be satisfactory to hon. members, would,
he was sure, be acceptable to the country.
Sir H. CAIRNS pointed out that the Government, hav-
ing been reproved and condemned by a minority of the
house (which, but for Cabinet Ministers and Scotch votes,
would have been a majority), now declared that it was for
the House to dictate what the course of the Cabinet should
be. Seeing, then, that the Government had relinquished
the reins, it only remained for the house to resolve itself
into a committee to consider how the affairs of the country
should bo carried out.

General PEEL announced that at every stage the mea-
sure should meet with his most strenuous opposition.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied that
the Government were justly chargeable with the abdica-
tion of power. At present, ho proposed to place the second
reading of this bill on the i;np;,r for Monday next.
After a few words; from Mr. RoBERTsoN and Sir R.
KNIGIITLEY,

Leave was given to introduce the bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE briefly explained the Reform
measure relating to Scotland. It would reduce the borough
franchise to £7, which would increase trio electoral body
by 26,000, of whom 17,000 would bo working men. Iu
counties the franchise would be reduced from .£3O to £l4,
which would nearly double the number of electors having
an occupation franchise. The property franchise would
also bo reduced from £lO to .£5, with the condition of pre-
sent residence.