The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-13 00:00:00

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

In reply to an HON. MEMBER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
matter would depend entirely upon the conclusion of the
proceedings before the election committees now sitting.
He did not say that such an act would not be introduced.
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.
On the order of the day being read, a number of mem-
bers presented more petitions in favour of the Govern-
ment Reform Bill, the most remarkable of which being
those presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Mr. Bright (a very large one, mounted on a wooden roller,
i signed by 44,000 persons in Birmingham). Sir F. Crossley
also put in his quota, which amounted to a very large
bundle, and Mr. Badzley presented another from Manches-
ter' (as much as he would carry) signed by 73,000 people,
and tastefully tied up with red ribbon ; also by Mr. Baines,
Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Forster, Mr. T. B. Potter, Mr. Seeley,
Mr. M'Laren, from Edinburgh, signed by 17,000; Mr.
Henderson, Mr. Holder, Mr. Cranford, Mr. T. B. Smith,
and Mr. Watkins.
The CHANCELLOR of the tXCHEQUER—I rise, Sir,
to move the second reading of the Representation of the
People Bill (cheers); and, in doing so, I propose to supply a
defect on which some have commented in the statement
with which I introduced the bill to the notice of the house.
It was thought on my part almost disrespectful to the house
—and suggestions of that kind have proceeded from persons
of weight and authority—to have laid a measure of so much
importance on the table without dealing more largely than
I did presume to deal in substantive reasons for its introduc-
tion. I will explain briefly to the house the feelings with
which that measure was introduced. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment—for I do not speak on this point of myself alone—her
Majesty's Government were sensible of the tender nature
of the ground on which they were about to tread. (Cheers
and counter cheers.) They had first to apprehend that they
prejudice the progress of this great question by giving
it unnecessarily, or at all events prematurely, the character
of a party conflict. They had also to apprehend that they
might do what is still more serious—that they might give
to the argument on the subject the character of a conflict
between class and class. (Cheers.) They were determined
that so far as depended upon them the discussion should not
be marked from its commencement by either the one cha-
racter or the other. I was therefore anxiously studious
—with what success I knew not—to tread my way
through the whole of that long and, I fear, wearisome
address without including in it any statement of principle,
any argument, any suggestion, any reference to class
which could in any manner excite hostility on the part of
gentlemen who sit opposite. I was not at that period
aware of any reason, and I am not now aware of any good
reason, why gentlemen who sit opposite, and who may be
disposed to take a temperate and conciliatory
affairs, should not have freely concurred in the enlarge-
ment—as we think the very moderate enlargement—of
u thet
view of public
franchise which we propose. (Cheers.) We had brought
forward forward the measure in what appeared to
h placed
spirit of moderation. We desired that it should
confess that
before the house in the same spirit.
r f
ualin assembly never
wwhitehnoulthaeatorudethheofdesmuarpnrdi
t
proceeded. Had I been a dd rbesescutig
I could have felt no
sfeorat reasons
ththe
quarter
sfnrootma lltvohgfecthhei
before conversant with the soumosi,f,
who had them-
hiatetfsoirn;rlar that gentle-
men who surprise.
ha d themselves t
it a,shesihrdo- had themselves been re-
solves supported
11'"fet)trrujoduction of Reform, who had
spousible forand this is by far the
some' to force piecemeal and
strongest case of
themselves in theme' instances—
partial measures of Refodremmoannd reasons
areluctant Government,
should come forward why the advisers
of tale Crown, forsooth, had troubled the mind of Parlia-
ment and the country by the introduction of the question of
and
Reform. But although I did not venture into reasoning at
large, I did refer to authority—l did refer to two heads of
argument which I thought sufficient for the purpose. One
was the nature of the promise which had been given, and
which had been repeated, more times than one can easily
recollect, with respect to the settlement of this question ;
and in connexion with that promise the peculiar origin of
the question—not from the free and spontaneous choice of
the Government, but out of the very bosom, the very mind
of Parliament itself. The other was a reference to the state
of things that now prevails with regard to popular enfran-
chisement in the strict sense—the enfranchisement of the

working class—as compared with what prevailed in 18
Now, with reference to the origin of the question, I was
challenged in terms of extraordinary boldness. I must
therefore'revert to that again ; and I do so for the sake of
stating that the only fault in the explanation I gave was
that I understated the case of Parliamentary responsi-
bility. In 1851, when this question was first in a serious
form introduced to Parliament by my hon. friend the
member for West Surrey, I stated that, in spite of the
opposition of the Government, a majority of two to one
voted for the introduction of the bill, and now what I
omitted to state, which, at any rate, greatly strengthens the
case, was this—that the house gave that vote and expressed
that determination in favour of the introduction of the bill
even after my noble friend then, as now, at the head of the
Government had stated that the Government would give
their attention to the subject and in the ensuing session
submit a measure to its consideration. And yet, in..theveri-
face and teeth of that pledge given by my noble friend, the
House of Commons took on itself the responsibility of
forcing a vote in favour of the introduction of the bill. Bat
lam told that the bill was subsequently thrown out. No
doubt ; and under what circumstances was it thrown out?
The introduction of the bill was followed by the resigna-
tion of Ministers. The attempt of the distinguished leaders
of the party opposite to form a Government, based as it
was on an intention to propose a fixed duty on corn, en-
tirely failed. In that state of circumstances the Govern-
ment came back by ordinary process and of necessity into
the hands of my noble friend ; and coming back by neces-
sity into his hands, of course it followed that the House of
Commons which accepted him as Minister should accept
also his pledge with reference to Parliamentary Reform,
and decline to proceed with the bill of my hon. friend. But
what did happen, and was remarkable, was that, under these
circumstances, the minority were not satisfied with divid-
ing for the second reading of the bill, but tried to force it
on the Government ; and among the gentlemen who were
thus anxious to force on piecemeal Parliamentary Reform
was my right hon. friend the member for Stroud. (Cheers.)
At a subsequent period, in 1858, the very same measure was
forced on the' Government of Lord Derby. On that occa-
sion I voted against the bill, not
.because I disapproved it,
but because I did not wish to force it on a party who were
not prepared for it. Again, my right hon. friend, hot and
ungovernable in his zeal for piecemeal extension of the
franchise, endeavoured to force on the advisers of the
Crown the adoption of a measure not only confined to the
subject of the franchise, but confined to a special branch
of the franchise. (Hear, hear,) Let us consider who are
the persons who have made to the people of this country
the promises of which I venture to remind this house—.
promises which I think the petitions presented to-day suf-
bfiucitetnotllyie demonstratereeorded in
thenotem
mtooy o
haver been
the fopiezooptlte as
engage
en(ceheegars),
(Cheers.)f
ments o Which
stt
ah t
ee ym
ea
nn
tt i clivpa
sa t g
raenedt e
da s kw
itthhe
something
like a jeer from a portion of the house; but let us consider
for a moment who gave those promises. They were first
given by Lord Russell, they were next given by Lord
Aberdeen, they were afterwards given by Lord Derby and
the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Hear, hear.) Now
what was the promise of the right hon. gentleman, speak-
ing on the part of the Government of which he was the
organ .
Was it a first fault on the part of that Govern-
ment ? Was it an occasional slide ? Was it a slip from
the path of virtue in an unguarded moment (laughter)
which led them to introduce a measure of enfranchisement ?
No, sir, they had time enough to consider their resolution.
The second reading of their bill was met, as the second
reading of our bill is, we are told, to be met, by a hostile
resolution. It was met by a resolution of which, at any
rate, I will say that it was direct and outspoken in its pur-
pose (hear, hear), and gave the country clearly to under-
stand the real motives that were in the minds of its sup-
porters. (Cheers and counter cheers.) That motion was
successful. The Parliament was dissolved. " The dissolu-
tion of Parliament gave an opportunity to the Government
of Lord Derby to consider whether they had been right
or whether they had been wrong in the introduction of a
biil which refused to deal with the borough franchise, and
upon the assembling of the new Parliament the right hon.
gentleman opposite announced the deliberate view of his
Government. On the 7th of June, 1859, he spoke as fol-
lows :

" We are perfectly prepared to deal with that question
of the borough franchise and the introduction of the work-
ing classes by lowering the franchise in boroughs, only
acting in that direction with sincerity; because, if you in-
tend to admit the working classes to the franchise by lower-
in the suffrage in boroughs you must not keep the promise
to the ear and break it to the sense. The lowering of the
suffrage must be done in a manner which satisfactorily and
completely effects your object, and is at the same timtpcon-
sistent with maintaining the institutions of the country."
(Opposition cheers.) You hail with satisfaction the saving
clause of "maintaining the institutions of the country."
(Renewed cheers.) But we do not ask you to sacrifice the

institutions of the country. (Ministerial cheers.) We do
not ask you at this stage of the bill to fix the particular
standard for the lowering of the borough franchise. We
may have your own views on the-subject, and we have re-
duced them to what we think aro the narrow limits of
strict moderation ; but all that we ask you now is whether
you are or are not prepared to act upon the principle
enounced by the right hon. gentleman who had said that
the Uovernment of Lord Derby, having before it the ques-
tion whether it was to continue in the possession of power
or not, was ready to propose the lowering of the borough
franchise. (Cheers.) Well, sir, I do not mean to omit, what
perhaps the hon. gentleman opposite may consider impor-
.

1 taut, that at a subsequent period, unless I am much mis-
taken, the right hon. gentleman retracted those words. I
rather believe, though I cannot give the exact date, that the
right hon. gentleman expressed his repentance with regard
to the promise he had given. (A laugh.) But, sir, the pro-
mise that ho gave he gave while in power—he gave it as
a Minister of the Crown. (Cheers.) He gave it on the oc-
casion of an appeal to Parliament to say who was worthy
to hold power, and who was not worthy to hold it. It was
apromise given, I admit, under political pressure, but it was
a promise on that account all the more important, and if in
the ease and leisure of opposition the right hon. gentleman
has retracted it, and it is not the first time such things have
taken place. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition)--
" Ease will retract vows made in pain."

(Laughter.) But what I wish to say is this —the right hon.
gentleman had a perfect right to make the promise, and
he had a perfect right to retract it. It is not for me to
question his discretion in the one step, nor do I intend to
do so in the other. But let not the right hon. gentleman.
suppose, and let not any member of his party suppose, that
the retractation of pledges once given by a Minister of the
Crown causes those pledges to be as though they had never
been made. They can never be effaced from the record of
time ; they form material facts in regard to the settlement
of this question. B. constitutional Government cannot go
before the representatives of a free people to-day and say,
" I promise you this, that, and the other," and to-morrow
say to them, " I have changed my mind and retract my
promise." (Cheers.) That promise was subsequently given
by the late Lord Palmerston, who took office upon the
basis of a proposal to introduce an extension of the fran-
chise which, if not numerically wider, yet adopted nume-

rically a lower figure than that which we now propose ;
and I say that if that series of events does not constitute
an engagement between the governors of the country and
those who sit in this house, and between tho statesmen of
this country and the people, I for one know not in what
way or under what circumstances it is possible that such
an engagement should be formed. (Hear, hear.) Sir, it is
necessary to go into the history of this question—it is ne-
cessary to lay firmly and broadly the grounds of our discus-
sion, because although I was more sanguine at a former
period, I do not conceal from myself that we may now be
upon the threshold of a long and a painful controversy.
(Hear, hear.) It is with the deepest grief that I contem-
atewwheateofmorem-
plate the course that has been taken by that great party
which I conscientiously believe had no adverse interest in
regard to the settlement of this question, though they have
unhappily chosen to consider that they have such en
far
terest. But let us consider—and it is my justification
is sometimes given. Now,
tdhwiselhilinstgoryupon the history of the questiond—in,
for
rlefer to
may
stiommeesttsmpeeaks,
Iwtbitink,h haboste.wr
not be altogether
weeklypress a momentary excitementii.kowise a quarterly press,
impossible. But, sir, we
whatdthe
I may justly term the_ philosophy
I had the privilege, through
the Quarterly Review, li
and to that quarterly In
tut e n thein daily
haste,
m aiynan pressd aeryteiCllleiSll
ti press hswotaeosvroe:prbey:enao entitled tal ewd
ht to
history.rwhere
look
II
leellent and respected friend the
the kindness o!is iiiiiiyng
publisher, of
consulting
as it is viewed by the acutest minds
philosophy of
periodical. I see from this kind • that can be .
.of history
sort of food is sometimes served up for the most in-
what
appetites of the higher in-
tellectual aPPo classes. (A laugh.)
The Review was published,
I think, to-day, and what lam
going to quote is from a history of the Reform Bill. It is
highly complimentary to my hon. friend the member for
Birmingham as regards his weight and power, but not
quite so much as respects his moral character. (Laughter.)
The article in question is a philosophical statement of the
real causes of this li,,:forni Bill, and, starting from 1860, it
shows why we have not had a Reform Bill since 18G0, and
why we have a Reform 'Bill now. These are its words :
" Just as in 1880 and 1861 the reforming zeal of the
Radicals was brought off by the sacrifice of the Paper
Duty, so, from 1861 to 1865, it was appeased by the sacri-
fice of the gallant Confederacy. But with the fall of Itiqi-
mond Mr. Bright's heart was set at ease concerning the
,_
fate of the Government to which his true allegiance L.
given."
I need not say what Government is intended ; it is not the
British Government :
"And the moment Lord Palmerston was removed by
death the Government instinctively felt that the time had
o their insatiable
agally.ai come roun for buywas ngotin ff
ohin°gnefor itre
but to reproduce
.n Thistimed there

a Reform Bill."
(Opposition cheers.) Thus it appears that there are gentle-
men who think that it was the duty of this country not to
have sacrificed the "gallant Confederacy," and who think
that what they call the sacrifice of the paper duty was a
measure adopted simply to appease my hon. friend (Opposi-
tion cheers), although they themselves had recommended
that measure (Ministerial cheers)—gentlemen who search
in such hidden recesses for what they call the causes of
events, but who are entirely oblivious of the fact of these
repeated and solemn engagements of the Throne and tlio
Government of the country, although they were engage-