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

distinction, it may truly be said that at such a
moment it is not easy for any incoming administra-
tion to step at once into the exact conditions of rela-
tions with Governments and Ministers abroad which
was enjoyed by their predecessors, and the amount
of that difficulty, whatever it may be, is in itself a
public disadvantage. Her Majesty upon these
grounds thought fit to postpone the acceptance of
our resignation as the house has been informed,
until she had had the opportunity of personal con-
ference with my noble friend at the head of the
Government. This day I accompanied my noble
friend to Windsor, and the opportunity was given
to him of tendering those explanations which ap-
peared to us to warrant the course we have pursued,
and of laying before her Majesty the full circum-
stances of the case. Upon receiving these explana-
tions the tender which had been postponed was
accepted, and we now, by her Majesty's gracious
command, only retain the seals of our offices until
the time when our successors shall have been ap-
pointed. Having stated this much, I think it is due
from the Government to the house, that they should
not confine themselves to the dry recital of the
results arrived at in the c3mmunication with her
Majesty, but that in endeavouring to avoid con-
tested and controverted grounds, I should make
some explanations. to the house of a nature to show
that in the step we have taken, we have not acted
unadvisedly or without deliberation. Sir, after the
division which took place upon Monday, and during
the interval which has since occurred, the alternative
which the Government appeared to have principally
before them as the most immediate and legiti-
mate subject of consideration in the present state
of the country, was whether it was their duty
at once to resign their offices, or whether, on
the other hand, they ought to accept the vote
which had been arrived at on the motion of
my noble friend the member for Galway (Lord
Dunkellin), and to endeavour if they could to
adapt that vote and the operation of it to the frame-
work of their measure and the attainment of its
essential object. Now, sir, let me state briefly the
views which we took of the nature and effect of that
vote. We did carefully examine it, in order to see
whether it was in our power to effect such an
adaptation as I have described. At the close of the
debate of last Tuesday, the words which I ventured
to use on the part of the Government did not
amount to an absolute statement that if the vote
was carried against us we should feel it impossible
to conduct the Government of the country, but
they did express the difficulty in which we found
ourselves with respect to the possible conse-
quences of such a vote, 'and I was obliged to say
that we could enter into no engagements in the event
of an adverse division, but must be free to take
such a course as the public interests should ap.
pear to us to require. N ow, sir, when we came to
examine the effect of the motion, and to consider
whether it was possible for us to adopt it, we were
struck with these difficulties. In the first place,
the inequality of its operation in the different
boroughs ; in the 2nd place, the inequalities of its
operation in the same boroughs ; and in the third
place, the almost insurmountable difficulties of
choosing any formal figure of enfranchisement re-
lativeto rating which would express faithfully and
exactly, and without material deviation on one side
or the other, the scale of enfranchisement which we
had contemplated and submitted to the house, and
which we thought ourselves, not by any pedantic
view of the case, but by considerations for the public
interest, bound to adhere to. We found this to be
the case as to the operation of a £6 rating franchise,
because that was the sum indicated :by the noble
mover of the amendment. With regard to the in-
equalities in different boroughs, the figures which
I now give can be tested by any gentleman for
himself, for he has no more to do than refer to the
blue-book which has been laid upon the table of the
house. We had stated to the house a plan by
which a certain number of male occupiers
would be enfranchised by an occupation fran-
chise of £7 in boroughs. We asked ourselves
in the case of each borough, what amount of rat-
ing franchise would give the same numbers as would
have been given by the occupation franchise which
we proposed. We found these were the results. In
16 boroughs a number at least equal to what we
proposed would have been enfranchised by taking a
rateable franchise on the basis of £6. In 39 boroughs
we should have required to take not merely those
above a £6 rating, but those of £6 and upwards.
In 112 boroughs we must have taken £5 and up-
wards ; in 21 boroughs £4 and upwaros ; and in
five boroughs we should have been obliged to take
those even under £4, to have the number of elec-
tors equal to what would have been given by our
£7 occupation franchise. (Cheers from the Minis-
terial side.) I mention this as being the simple re-
sult of the sum. It is not for me to judge what
weight they may have on the minds of others ; but
on ours it had considerable. We then considered a
matter on which I need not dwell, because it wag
dealt with in the debate, but which we felt acutely,
viz., the difficulties in which we should be involved
from establishment of different rates of franchise in
the same boroughs, owing to the great and frequent
differences of rating which prevailed in different
parts of the same town where those parts happened
to belong to different people. Lastly, we had to
consider if we proposed a £6 rating franchise, it in-
volved on the whole a diminution of the franchise,
which in our view was inadmissible. (Cheers from
the Ministerial side.) If, on the other hand, we
proposed a £5 franchise, we should have been ex-
posed to the taunts and objections of which I do
not stop to estimate the value, but which undoubt-
edly would have led to the statement that we had
departed materially from the original framework
and standard of our bill. These difficulties led us
to the conclusion that the vote given on the motion
of the noble lord the member for Galway went very
much to break up the framework of the measure.
But that was not the whole, nor nearly the
whole, of our difficulty. We had to consider our
position as a whole. We had to consider the
previous history of the bill. (Cheers from
the Ministerial side.) And undoubtedly, in
our particular case, the issue was additionally grave
and anxious, because of the pledge we had given in
various forms, and of which we have been reminded
from time to tune in the course of the debate—our
pledge, viz., to stand or fall by our measure. (Cheers.)
Now, these pledges, if they seemed to some to have
been conveyed in rhetorical or inflated forms, were
nevertheless advisedly and deliberately given. (Re-
newed cheers.) In my opinion we pledged, and in
the opinion of the Cabinet the pledge to stand or
fall by a particular measure is a pledge which should
rarely be given. It is thelast weapon in the armoury
of the Government. It should not be lightly taken
down from the wall, and if it is taken downit should
not be replaced until it has served the purposes for
which it was intended. (Cheersfrom the Ministerial
side.) That pledge was given by us under the deepest
'convictions, whether erroneous or not, of public
duty. We looked back over fifteen years, and we
considered what was the history of this question.
We did not forget its inconvenient and itsmischiev-
ous operation during many of those years upon the
character of public men, upon the character of par-
ties, and, permit me to say more, upon the charac-
ter of Parliament as a representative institution.
(Renewed cheers from the Ministerial side.) We
felt that the stake was a stake of the highest order;
that the responsibility was great, and that it was
our duty to use every effort in our power to avoid
offence and conciliate support, and to unite instead
of distracting the minds of men. (Renewed cheers
from the Ministerial side.) We thought, however,
at the same time, that it was our duty firmly and
resolutely to adhere to whatever plan we might
adopt, and that there is no such thing as firm and
resolute progress with subjects of importance and
magnitude like that except by attaching the life of
the Administration to the life of the measures they
propose. (Renewed Ministerial cheers.) Such,
therefore, was the course we took, advisedly and
deliberfitely—not for our own sakes, but for the
sake of far higher and deeper interests involv-
ing that which is the first condition of good govern-
ment in this or any other country, viz., the confi-
dence of the public in those by whom they are
d.
with(Rentenwated
anxiety cheers fromt o r thepursue
rs Ministerial
such
u cha
course,
os side.)
se
o.
Along
we also, as I have said, evinced a most earnest and

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-
tuted 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—l 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 overweighted 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 had 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 had 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 relativelyto 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. I am not aware of
any rule that would prevent members whose names
are upon the paper, or who have bills upon the

order, from proceeding with the business, but I am
sure the house will concur with me in thinking that
such prosecution of business is inconvenient during
a period when there is an absolute abeyance of the
functions of Government, excepting in cases beyond
dispute, when only formal business will have to be
proceeded with. One vote will be taken to-day for
the packet service, the amount of which falls due at
the end of the month, and which will be reported on
Thursday, and will be in time for the purpose in-
tended. (Cheers.)
The motion for the adiournment of the house at
its rising till Thursday was then agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. CIIILDERS, votes
amounting in the aggregate to £1,450,000 were
taken on account for departments belonging to the
Post-office Packet Service.

The house then adjourned until Thursday.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—Lord Russell's Government has breathed
its last with more dignity and consciousness than
some of its friends had expected. Another course
was open to it ten days ago, .but the choice once
made was not one to be spontaneously recalled,
averted by officious interposition, or inflamed into
the calamity of a dissolution. The Leader of the
Commons has spoken his last words, if not quite
in charity with all men, at least with a self-restraint
which proves at once a sense of the occasion and
the sweet uses of adversity. In the account he
renders of himself and his Chief the Queen has to
perform a part of unusual prominence, and every
loyal subject will rejoice to find her Majesty taking
decidedly a more sensible view of the matter than
her late advisers. It certainly requires not only
explanation, but apology, that with half Europe in
arms, and diplomacy rapidly quickening its pace as
well as widening its range, the Government of this
great Empire should throw down the reins upon
such a detail as the choice between rateable value
and estimated rental. The simplicity with which
Lord Russell describes the Queen's surprise at the
question which has dragged her across the island,
and broken up an Administration, will suggest to
some innocent minds a wish that he could change
places with his Sovereign for the nonce, and let her
come to Downing-street, upon finding him com-
fortable quarters at Balmoral. After the Queen,
the two topics on which Mr. Gladstone has spent a
great occasion are a review of the history of the Re-
form Bill and an argument upon the special diffi-
culties arising out of Lord Dunkellin's success. Un-
fortunately, the two topics counteract one another,
as in a bad composition the background of the pic-
ture is only seen to diminish and confuse the prin-
cipal object. Mr. Gladstone attempts a climax sub-
lime in its national import, and affecting in its
personal consequences ; but, as the argument of the
whole is that the last ounce has broken the horse's
back, the closing catastrophe is reduced to that ex-
act weight avoirdupois—that much, and no more.
It really comes upon us with the force of a foregone
conclusion. The patient camel bore a good deal. As
the burden was doubled and trebled, it groaned and
grunted, and ground its teeth, but still stood up
manfully. The brutal drivers heaped one thing on
another. At last a feather, a rag, a dry stick brought
the load beyond the pitch of endurance, and the
poor beast lay down. No doubt, this view of the
case has a certain foundation in fact, but it does not
say much for the great saving principle of " esti-
mated rental." Mr. Gladstone cannot get over his
astonishment and indignation at the treatment of
his bill. It was meant to do so much good to his
party, and in so clever a manner 1 Each successive
division, either for or against him, is still, in his
eyes, a fresh and gratuitous act of persecution. He
cannot understand that others have their views of
the right balance of political power as well as him-
self, and that others can think themselves as clever
and be as obstinate as himself. Like his Chief in the
other house, he refuses to believe that his opponents
can have an opinion entitled to respect. He asks
with surprise why Lord Derby, who had a Reform
Bill of his own—a very good Reform Bill, lie re-
peats—allowed his friends to stand in the way of
this bill, as if the question could not be retorted.
Then, why on earth should the Opposition object to
deal with one thing at once, as if one was not enough?
With the sensitiveness of a saint he recounts
the successive provocations to his temper and trials
to his faith. As we cannot think that any of the
objections were so utterly unreasonable and so
purely malicious, we can only conclude that Mr.
Gladstone had immensely underrated the difficulty
of the task, and that he had overlooked the necessity
of securing adequate support for his measure. The
divisions, the small majorities, the concessions, and
the downright defeats were heavy blows, but not
unlikely, and not unexpected. Then, just as their
cumulative effect has reduced to insignificance the
last fatal blo w,so it becomes in its turn the•measure
of them all. It has been a war of details, as it had
a perfect right to be. Our Constitution itself is a
mass of details. But if anything could have re-
deemed the last decisive question upon which
Government has sacrificed itself, it would have
been some attempt to prove that a principle is
involved in the choice of " estimated ren-
tal." It would be a great relief to think
that this crisis had the dignity of a principle at
stake. But whatever principle there is or could
be imagined in it is abandoned at once. It would
not have given us the requisite numbers, says Mr.
Gladstone ; and, besides that, the assessments are
not equal ; whereas the rental must be fair. Thus
the principle, like a stream sinking in the sand,
disappears before a question of figures and an irre-
gularity of assessment. Even the question of figures
is abandoned as soon as stated. The franchise, it is
admitted, might have been put as low as £5, but,
says Mr. Gladstone, it would have given different
results in different towns. Why should it not ?
Then, as for assessment, it is impossible to do in
England what is done in Ireland and Scotland ?
Such is the petty question upon which Government
has elected to wreck itself and its party at a time
when we have a good many other things to think of
besides Reform. Is such an apology perfectly seri-
ous, and must we take it for granted that Mr. Glad-
stone is astonished to find seventy members defend-
ing their private interests, and an aristocratic class
doing its best to secure its old place in our system ?
Mr. Gladstone's great personal qualities will always
secure for him a very high position in this country.
So will Mr. Bright's. But the men these have to
deal with in a battle for reform feel that they require
all the aids and appliances which fortune and the
actual state of things may give them. They are not
the men to throw away a single chance; and whatever
they find their own they will hold it if they can. No
doubt their private interest must give way to the pub-
lic when necessary, but they will fight for it, and
they are generally very determined, and very united
in its defence. Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone
were bound to foresee all this, for they certainly
would not remove the danger by overlooking it. At
the instigation of a General of Volunteers they have
led their forces to the assault, not of a Quadrila-
teral, but of 50 ancient strongholds, all bound toge-
ther by the tie of a common interest. Was there no
danger in this ? There was, and Mr. Gladstone
knew it. The confessed difficulty, the impossibility
of the task, was the excuse for postponing it, and
even shrouding it in mystery. The reduction of the
franchise, it is admitted, was only a siege opera-
tion, and the boroughs were the real object of at-
tack. There is, then, some real and substantial rea-
son for the resistance made to the bill ; and there is
a little affectation in pretending not to see it. Jus-
tice to the measure itself requires that it should not
be described as the poor innocent flouted and cuffed
by a rude crowd. It proposed a great change. It
was worth a great effort to carry it and an equally
great effort to defeat it. Parliament has not been
fighting about a shadow this session. It has been
fighting about a new Constitution, to tell its tale for
ages. That much is due to the authors and sup-
porters of the bill, and that much is due also to its
foes, in whatever degree of hostility.
HERALD.—In announcing in the House of Com-
mons the Queen's acceptance of her Ministers' re-
signation, Mr. Gladstone did his best to fulfil the
promise with which he set out, that his statement
of the facts which had compelled that resignation
should be confined to uncontroverted points, and
should throw no reproach upon those whose opposi-
tion, finally successful, had overthrown both the
Reform Bill and the Government. Except one
single significant phrase applied to Lord Stanley's
motion, there was nothing hi the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's speech which could give occasion of
complaint or hostile criticism. This was the tone
suited to a time at which controversy and recrimina-
tion would have been out of place, and befitting the
attitude of a Minister retiring from office with honour
unimpeached and dignity unimpaired, on account of a
hostile vote in the House of Commons. Lordßussell,
unfortunately, behaved in a very different manner.
Unable to imitate the reserve of a colleague whose
irascible temper was on this occasion at least
kept under perfect control, the veteran chief of the
defeated Administration suffered his vexation to
betray itself in every sentence of his address to the
Lords, and to lead him into a violent and most in-
decent attack upon the successors to whom her
Majesty is necessarily
.about to appeal. He com-
plained of factious hostility, of obstruction, of de-
lays, as if it had been an unheard of and unconsti-
tutional thing for the Opposition to endeavour to
defeat a bill introduced by the advisers of the
Crown ; accused Lord Derby of having violated the
promise he gave that the Conservative party would
consider the question of reform with a candid desire
for its settlement, and would offer no factious or