The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-05 00:00:00

But then it was said that the noble'arl had changed the
opinions which he expressed in a book published last year.
That might be the case, but other people had also changed
their opinions. The hon. member then quoted from a
speech delivered by Mr. Lowe at Kidderminster II few
'ears ago. In that speech Mr. Lowe, referring to the zeal
of the Conservatives for rAorm, said it reminded hint of a
,sying of Sheridan, on seeing a Highlander in a large pair
of breeches, that "converts were always enthusiastic." Ile
then went on to say that, iu accordance with the principle
of the first reform bill, he was ready to vote for disfran-
chising boroughs which, in violation of the constitution,
had fallen into the hands of a single patron, whoappointed
tile members they should return. He also said that he was
ready to disfranchise boroughs which were so insignifi-
cant as not to deserve a representation in Parliament.
Those (said Mr. Osborne) were formerly the opinions of
the right hon. member who was now opposed to allreform.
Was there ever a Highlander who made his appearance in
so big a pair of breeches? (Laughter.) But, after all, this
question of the redistribution of seats was eminently one
for committee, and he was a very poor reformer who would
get rid of a £7 borough franchise because he disliked the
other part of the measure. He knew the difficulty of pass-
ing any reform bill in that house too well to reject sum-
marily any measure of the kind, howeverimperfect. There
was one thing he hoped the Government would not do.
He trusted they would not accept the insidious advice of
the member for Droitwich to refer the question to a royal
commission. Nothing could be more damaging than this
to the cause of representative government, amid he would
not give her Majesty's Ministers an atom of support if
he thought they contemplated anything of the kind. He
had no fear of the result. A reform bill would certainly
be passed, although it might be delayed. It was, however,
the interest of the Conservative party to pass a moderate
measure now when they might, or they would hereafter
be compelled to assent to ono of a far mote Liberal cha-
racter. Let the Government stand firm on the £7 borough
franchise and on other points he for one should be ready
to meet gentlemen opposite in a fair spirit, and compro-
mise whatever might appear excessive in the bill before
the house. (Cheers.)

Mr. ADDERLEY commented on the strange proceeding
of Earl Grosvenor in voting for bills, one of which he had
characterised as indefensible and the other as confused and
intolerable. If it was the case that the Redistribution Bill
was to be withdrawn, it was useless to continue to dis-
cuss it. He contended that the principle on which both
bills was founded was altogether different to that on
which the first Reform Act was based.

The debate was continued by Mr. Gronfell, Lord R.
Montagu, Mr. Pim (who returned to the support of the
Denby Government), Mr. Walrond, Mr. Wyld, Mr. Mitford, Mr.
Seymour, and Sir T. Bateson.
Mr. COLERIDGE expressed a hope that the house
would consent to go into committee on these bills by such
a majority as to justify the pressing on of those measures
in the present year. He urged
to be
it was desirable that
tnhoe
means confessed
osnhfoe
susl
edd notop p
o appearne ts of reform,only
s statesmant andla ng
exiiplgrersesefodkman.
extension
enl
of thef
He enumerated most of the leaders ofbethe Opposition. as by
opiniondistinctly
pa
it.
oMn
oru.
uLcoe Ndvae
awa
ianss
tt
ahne
whonth had
Eulogising the abilities and eloquence of 3.11. Lowe, he
expressed a belief that those abilities were grieveuslw
mis-
employed—and ho designated the principles of thelright
hon. gentleman as mere materialism and detestable, and ho
distinguished them carefully from those of conservatism.
He deprecated the keeping up a pother about democracy,
as connected with such a moderate measure of reform as
that now in discussion. Despite of sarcasms and jokes
against the honour of the Government in regard to reform,
he felt that the honour of the Government and the Liberal
party was pledged to a measure of that character.
Mr. WHITESIDE, after vindicating Mr. Lowe from the
criticism of the previous speaker, proceeded to quote from
Mr. Mill's works arguments which he contended went to
show that the extension of the franchise tended to put the
intellectual few beneath the feet of the ignorant many. He
urged that in fact no pledge had been given by the Govern-
ment to the introduction and furtherance of reform.

Mr. MARSH argued in favour of postponement of the
bills, in order that the commissions of inquiry into corrupt
practicei in certain boroughs might report ; when seats
might be found for places it was desirable to enfranchise.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was
received with cheers upon rising, said— The right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Dublin complained, Ithink, in the
course of his speech, that there was no reality in this debate.
Well, sir, if it be so, it is not our fault. (Hear, hear.) Every
step we have taken, both since and before the period when
our Franchise Bill was introduced into the honse, has been a
real step, grounded upon the best consideration we could
give the actual circumstances of the case. (Hear, hear.)
Now, let me briefly remind the house of what has actually
taken place. We introduced, in the first place, a single bill,
and it has been objected that we introduced it on the 12th
of March. With respect to the question of the single
bill, I have to say that the hon. and learned gentleman the
member for Belfast stated, in his able speech, that the
Government had admitted that they were in error in the

attempt to separate the two parts of the subject. Sir, the
Government have never made any such admission, and
have never entertained any such belief. (Ministerial cheers.)
With regard to the introduction of the bill on the 12th
March; I must say I was somewhat in a difficulty to recon-
cile the two opinions expressed by the right hon. baronet
the member for Droitwich, who, in the very same speech
found fault with us for not having postponed the measure
altogether, with a view to the further consideration of it,
till next year; and then, a few minutes afterwards, for not
having introduced it, if at all, at the very commencement
of the present session. Well, sir, if he finds fault with
the measure as crude and immature—(" hear, hear," from
the Opposition benches)—when he had all the time up
to the commencement of March in considering and prepar-
ing it, what would he have said if it had been introduced
in the first week of February ? (Hear, hear.) But, sir,
this question of the 12th of March has been made more
of than it deserves. It was not in our power to have,
introduced the measure, had we been prepared with it,
in the first two or three weeks of the session. Have we
forgotten how we were urged to postpone the Jamaica
question and other subjects of importance to the cattle
plague ? In fact, this question of the 12th of March has
been made more of it than deserved. I do not feel that the
circumstances connected with the introduction of this bill
on the 12th March would justify us in receding from the
position which we took up before the house. (Hear, hear.)
We have been attacked in the course which we pursued
because we did not consult the opinions of persons of mo-
derate opinions and of those opposed to us. As to oppo-
nents, it may be stated, as a general rule, that it would be
almost impossible to be guided by their opinions, and that
to pursue such a course would be to show ourselvesguided
by a dangerous policy. If we had done so we might have
been accused of shabby attempts to devolve the responsi-
bility on those to whom it does not belong. (Hear, hear.)
As to the measure of 1860 we know that it was introduced
under the express sanction of Lord Palmerston, and when
that measure is compared with the present, enough is shown
to indicato the desire of her Majesty's Government to meet
the fooling of different parties in the house, and to do all
that lies in their power to conciliate different sections of it.
(Hear, hear.) We have been censured for giving way, and
for not adhering to our original decision to prosecute
the question of the franchise without mixing up with it
any other question. We made two concessions, and two
very important concessions. Suspicions were entertained
as to our intentions. When we had introduced the bill
for the extension of the franchise complaints were made
that we did not introduce the measure for the redistribu-
tion of seats. We did not altogether willingly assent to
that proposition, though wo ultimately complied with it.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) We saw that by assenting to
such a course the difficulties would increase as we made
progress; and besides that we saw the difficulty in which
we should be placed by seeming to break with the
House of Commons on the question of reform. (Hear, s
hear.) I think we took the prudent course, and
certainly that which was conciliatory. (Hear:tiohneadri?,
not assent to the course that we took,
The right hon. gentleman the leaderl of the
It of the
first determined efforts against the hetah°tePwreeswsu'ere able
withstoodmemibtserprfoor-
gress, and the motion of those
negatived. Then came the
Chester (Earl Grosvenor)
to surmount the opposition of tnhoobsbleiel
shouldwas
be united, but the great dan-
gerdemand that the bills
in
to a
rupture with the majo-
rity of all was that of coming to
Again we conceded—(hear,
whoear l the
of the House of Cohme
mconcession was justified by cir-
cumstances, I believaellt
events it indicated our disposition to
hear') We felt that, in a controversy of
concede. (Hear, tiear.,
should have a strict
render to the
this sort, we
y for the success or non-success of the attempt to
indicate the serious juncture at which
btiyat
settle this question. (Cheers and laughter.) If there be
:,,iy gentleman who, by laughter, dissents from that pro-
-we have arrived, and therefore the representatives of the
people should open their eyes to the full importance of the
question. As to the discouraging circumstance that after
the bills had been united a majority of the house deter-
mined to improve the bill for the '
settlement
of the franchise
by coupling with it provisions relating to the difficult
question of corrupt practices, I would\refer on that ques-
tion to the authority of a noble peer in the other house (the_
vcousmitisota:tehet
Earl of Derby) who, in addressing the members of the
Upper House, said he trusted their lordships would never
consent to couple together two questions essentially diffe-
rent from each other—the one for the prevention of bri-
bery, and the other affecting the constituencies tbemasedievz
(Cheers and counter cheers.) A concession
s fromn' the
reply to Lord Derby's earnest appeal. (Laughteroniliation we
Opposition.) In response to our efforts. at. respect
to which we
have had to meet this motion, with lesPec
'n it, though there are
are told that there is no reality
''
there is a compact
some behind us who support it, while •
This seems to supply indications
phalanx in front of us.
"'here
of concert. (Hear, hear.) accused to be a variance
...
between the motion as originally proposed,
riginally rind as brought
honourable and gallant member (Captain
forward by the in conjunction with some friends
Hayter), and when 1, t
_._ .
he difference, the right hon. gen-
took notice of
near me,
;,„, (Air. Disraeli) by the course he followed,
tleman opposite
note Disraeli)
privy to the views of those by whom he
indicated his being
rqr• Disraeli made a motion of dissent.) Then
was opposed. 1/4` *
the right hon. gentleman seems to have a divining faculty