The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATB ABOLITION BILL

At the request of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQVER,
Sir J. TRELAWNY conr,ented to postpone the second read-
ing of this bill.

REPRESENI"...TION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
• Wr..LSON resumed the debate. He considered the
111"su'le of the Government so objeotionable in principle,
thP4.,, he could not possibly vote for the second
reading, and it was a measure which, in his opinion,
was so radically bad, that it could not be so altered
in committee as to meet the views of the people. The
clauses relating to disfranchisement were so entirely op-
posed to the feelings of the people, that it could not be ex-
pected to receive the sanction of that house. The require-
ment of the commuity was that the franchise should be
expanded, but the tendency of the measure was to
contract. (Hear, hear.) The bill retained not
only what was objectionable in the present system, but in-
troduced much that in itself was most reprehensible. He
denied that the form in which the £lO franchise
was presented was a concession and its real effect
would be to increase the territorial influence, and
to diminish the borough influence. The bill proposed
to disfranchise no less than 100,000 freeholders
in boroughs from the county franchise. If they went care-
fully through the bill they would find that its provisions
disfranchised as many as it enfranchised. Besides it pro-
posed to disfranchise in the counties exactly that descrip-
tion of voters who were the most independent, and sub-
stituted for them a class the very reverse. (Hear, hear.)
The provisions of the bill would also have the effect
0 :manufacturing fictitious votes in small towns. The
sys,tem proposed would be attended also with difficulty at
elections. He contended that property would always exer-
cise an influence in a country like this greater than what
the more numerical majority would possess. The effect of the
Government scheme would be to abolish the present
system, by which different classes were represented, and
make the representation of the country worse than even
that of one class. He was not opposed to the existence of
small boroughs, which he believed had a function to per-
form, but it would not be satisfactory to the people
of this country to have any system introduced that Would
in any degree diminish class legislation and extend that of
individuals. He was opposed to the disfranchisement of
small boroughs, but he was equally opposed to the
adoption of such a system as would convect
them into mere nomination boroughs. He con-
sidered that the whole tendency of the bill was to
give influence to the landed interest and to take it
away from the trading and commercial interests of the
country. He •thought that the Government should have
adopted the resolution of the noble lord the member for the
City of London, and modified their bill in committee, instead
of which the noble lord (Lord Stanley) said they must
accept the bill as it was at present constituted. (Hear,
and cries of "No, no.") He thought, therefore, that that
course effectually closed the door against those who agreed
with him (Mr. Wilson) consenting to the second reading
of the bill. There was no guarantee that, if they went
into committee, they could alter the bill so as to make it
acceptable to the country or the house. He regarded the
question before the house as one of the most important that
could be brought under their consideration, and that the
present crisis was one of the gravest that could be selected
for bringing such a question forward ; and he would be
most happy, therefore, if the Government could settle the
matter. He was therefore actuated by no further motive
in offering the present bill his strenuous opposition, and
supporting the resolution of the noble lord the member for
the City of London. He thought that, under the present
circumstances, the Government were bound, at the earliest
period possible, to bring this question to a satisfactory con-
clusion, (Cheers.)

Sir E. B. LYTTON—The hon. gentleman has vainly
endeavoured, by a great variety of detail, to obscure the
question so clearly put before the house by the right hon.
member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman). That question is, will
you take into consideration a moderate measure of Reform,
which is offered by a powerful Conservative party with a
large concession on their part ; or will you rather wait for
that other measure which the hon. member who has just sat
down says should be proposed as a satisfactory solution of
this question, but which, nevertheless, is not before you, of
which there was not a glimpse in the mere party amend-
ment of the noble lord, and with regard to which you must
calculate the odds whether its provisions will be such as to
satisfy those hon. gentlemen who profess what they call
Radical principles, and to satisfy also those other gentle-
men who have spent the last six-and-twenty years in de-
coying Radical votes and in abjuring Radical principles ?
(Cheers and laughter.) Of course, if you cannot take the
mere principle of a moderate measure from us—if, as you
say, the country will not accept it—then the measure passes
out of the hands of Lord Derby's Government. But into
whose hands will it pass Noble lords and hon. gentlemen
who are at this moment so carefully bridging the gangway
with a rope of sand (Sir W. Ilayter, who was seated in "the
gangway," rose up hastily at this allusion and leftthehouse
amid great laughter) may by their experience patch up the
quarrels of years for the division of a night. But grant that
they triumph. Grant that the solemn lecture which has just
been delivered to Lord Derby by the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Wilson) has its effect, and that no appeal is made to the
country. Grant, also, that you are. in Downing-street to-
morrow, will not the quarrels of years show themselves in
Downing-street also ? (Hear, hear.) But where will be any
Reform Bill ? As my noble friend the Secretary for India
justly said last night, this resolution will answer the noble
lord's purpose much as the Irish Appropriation clause un-
der the same unrivalled destroyer of Governments did be-
fore ; and it may then leave the English suffrage much as
that famous clause left the Irish Church. (Hear.) I think it
must have struck all who have listened to this debate that,
however hon. gentlemen may agree in disapproval of our
bill, they have shown no agreement as to any' other, and
some have even taken pains to imply that there ought to be
no Reform Bill at all. The hon. member for Sandwich
(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugtssen) said last night that rather
than take our measure he would wait—he did not say how
long. (Cheers and laughter.) The hon. member for Par-
mingham has been a little more explicit, and said that in
order to have a good bill he would consent to wait five
years. (Hear.) Well, then, why not move an amendment
which would get us all out of the dilemma, and which, I
am sure, is at the bottom of the hearts of half the Reformers
opposite ? Why not propose as an amendment to this bill
that a good bill should be read a second time this day five
years ? (Much laughter.) For my part, speaking frankly,
I have no superstitious dread ofany of those questions which
are raised by the more ardent Reformers opposite. Some
of these questions I espoused myself many years ago. One
or two of them I still favour, and if on others I have since
modified the opinions I then held, I have done so with no
uncharitable prejudice against those who believe now what
I myself once believed. (Hear.) In arguing the case with
the more advanced Liberals in this house I argue it with
men whom it becomes me to respect. I argue it not with
the mob leaders of 50 years ago. I argue it with gentle-
men of refined education, and some of whom have proved
the independence of their character by the loss of their
seats, rather than yield to what they held to be the mis-
taken judgment of their constituents. (Hear, hear.) Now,
when a Government undertakes a Reform Bill it is impos-
sible to discard the question—what party does that Govern-
ment represent P Conservatives are free as other men to
undertake financial or administrative reforms ; and there
may be points, both in the management of business and
even of policy, in which there is more sympathy between
Conservatives and advanced Liberals than there is between
advanced Liberals and Whigs. But when it comes to
great organic changes your own good sense and your in-
stinct of party honour must tell you that a Conservative
Government could not give the same kind of reform as a
Government which represents your views and is supported
by your constituents. We could only deal with this ques-
tion as men offering a compromise, in which we tender con-
cessions on our side and ask concessions upon yours. What
you lose in amount of reform you gain in the expedition an&
ease with which some reform at least may be effected. This
is not all; a violent party battle upon Parliamentary Re-
form, to be fought throughout the length and breadth of the
kingdom, is in itself a great calamity. I remember what it
was before. Long-life friendships are dissolved, families
are divided. In each town or county, in each section of the
community society is embittered for years; trade and credit
are seriously injured. The metropolis was said to have
suffered in its trade to the amount of £2,000,000 by the
agitation of the great Reform Bill. All those evils in your
views may be counterbalanced by some party triumph for
popular Government such as you would propose. Ali those
evils are not counterbalanced by the Jesuitical amendment
of the noble lord—all those evils are prevented, and some
advantage even to your views is obtained, if, by passing the
second reading of this bill, you will meet the spirit in which
a Conservative party offers to you the grounds for a com-
promise. (Cheers.) Now, I say when we 'undertook this
measure we had two questions to determine—lst, what
could we say was the temper of public opinion ; what did it
require ? 2d, the amount of acknowledged evil ; what is
there to remedy ? Sir, I think few will deny that when we
undertook the question of Parliamentary Reform public
opinion was extremely apathetic. True, nine out of 10 said
loudly, "We must have a Reform Bill ;" but eight out of
every nine whispered to each other, "Does anybody want
one ?" (Cheers and laughter.) Now, is there any reason
why public opinion should have changed on this subject
since last year? Look to the state of Europe. During the
latter part of our consideration of reform war seemed inevit-
able. True, it is peace to-day; can any man say there will
not be war to anorrow ? (Hear, hear.) Is it the precise mo-
ment suddenly to transfer political power from the middle
class, with which, on the whole, it now rests, and, by which,
on the whole, it has been liberally and usefully exercised, to
the wider area of a class, however honest and respectable,
still not yet educated up to the mark which England should
require in a constituency that is to enable her to confront
foreign Powers, not with the force of numbers, but with the
majesty of disciplined intellect ? (Hear, hear.) I remember
that Mr. Fox once said, " What gives England her power
, in Europe ? It can never be numbers ; it must be always in-
tellect. Can England represent intellect in Europe if num-
bers are to make the law of representation in the House of
Commons ?" And now, Sir, when I hear the Government
accused of a want of earnestness and sincerity. in dealing
with this question, I must venture to ask if no insincerity,
no want of earnestness has been shown by many eminent
persons opposite ? When it was supposed out of doors that
we intended to propose a sweeping and comprehensive mea-
sure many of those eminent persons actually became anti-
Reformers. Articles appeared in Whig journals that might
have been written by Mr. Croker. Speeches wore made to
their constituents by Whig members that might have been
made by Lord Liverpool. I appeal to our own social expe-
rience. Were not gentlemen on this side besieged with con-
fidential whispers by gentlemen on the other side, " I hope
your Reform Bill will be a very moderate measure; in fact,
it cannot be too small for public opinion." (Cheers and
laughter.) And now, Sir, because this measure is brought
forward by a Government he opposes, the hon. member for
Devonport declares that it falls short of his expectations.
Sir, that is very naturally the voice of party. I do not think
it is the voice of public opinion, and if public opinion had a
glass window to its bosom we should there see among all
the better educated classes, on the whole a preference to our
bill, with all its shortcomings, rather than to any bill
founded upon the principles which have been set forth
in those public meetings in which our bill has been de-
nounced. (Hear, hear.) Principles as to which I say ,