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

But then it was said that the noble earl 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 a few
years ago. In that speech Mr. Lowe, referring to the zeal
nhe went e e
first li es ,o n that
reformto
s‘ ‘
a
of the Conservatives for reform, said it reminded him of a
saying of Sheridan, on seeing a Highlander in a large pair
ito,hff
thre
cbyciple
:Ilitih,vahe etrt, si
wasnwere
accordance
r eaa l
dwyayt
os
wevniottt enthusiastic." e
fhsoiea sr :dr
icsn.
fran-
chising boroughs which, in violation of the constitution,
had fallen into the hands of a single patron, whoappointed
the 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 all reform.
Was there ever a Highlander who made his appearance in
ee big a pair of breeches? (Laughter.) But, after all, this
question of the redistribution of scats was eminently one
for committee, and ho 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 ono 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, and he weuld
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
he 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. Ho 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. Grenfell, Lord R.
Montagu, Mr. Pim (who returned to the support of the
Government), mr. Walrond, Mr. Wyld, Mr. Mitford, Mr.
Denby 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
itt the present year. He urged that it was desirable that
the house should not appear to be strangling reform.
He enumerated most of the leaders of the Opposition as by
no moans confessed opponents of reform, and expressed an
opinion that Mr. Lowe was the only statesman who had
distinctly;pronounced against an extension of the franchise.
Eulogising the abilities and eloquence of Mr. Lowe, he
expressed a belief that those abilities were grievously mis-
employed—and he designated the principles of the right
hon. gentleman as mere materialism and detestable, and he
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. Ho
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
practices in certain boroughs might report ; when seats
might be found for places it was desirable to enfranchise.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEE, who was
received with cheers upon rising, said—The right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Dublin complained, I think, 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 house, hasbeen 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 enter '...ained 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,
tlll next year; and then, a few minutes afterwards, for not
having introduced it, if at all, at the veil commencement
of the present session. Well, sir, if he finds fault with
the measure as crude and immature—(Lc 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 ho have said if it had been introduced
in the first week of February ? (Hoar, 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 indicate the desire of her Majesty's Government to meet
the feeling of different parties in the house, and to do all

that lies in their power to conciliate different sections of it.

prosecute
f(oHr e anro,
th eaadrh.)64 We haveo
ob:eonr
icensured
of
fosrt
ogni v itnog
the question of the franchise without mixing with
upway andit
any other question. We made two concessions, and two
very important concessions. Suspbiciodns were entertained
introdcewdertehemabdilel
.Wfhreannchwi complaintsese a
faosrttohoeuerxitneutetsnionosf
the
that we did not introduce the measure for the redistribu-
tion of seats. We did not altogether willingly assent to
that proposition, though we 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; gsrhesosu;ldbe
and besides that we saw the difficulty in which
placed b
House of Commons on the
hear.) I think we took sqetuehemes it
ni
question to break with the
n prudent o f
course,reform.
certainly that which was conciliatory-. (Ilea; hear.)
The right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition did
not assent to the course that we took, but the result of the
first determined efforts against the bill was that we were able
to surmount the opposition of those who withstood its pro-.
Chester (Earl Grosvenor) was negatived. Then the
gross, and the motion of the noble earl
embertheditmepdoosbityieonefiotror-
toAagain IVB conceded—(hear,
demand that the bills should be united, but the great dan-
ger w it
hteh
attempt e majo-
rity
t
a strict account to render tothoef
hear.) We felt that, in a controversy
ge r ofof all
the was that itotf of
Commons. coming
litheeveenotnseeftssfioloawtaeds
ojuurst
cchouenmacrse)ts—eu.acnedsea 0 a
r,
w 10
bbsueZdaehave
settle this question: (Cheers and laughter.) I
country for the success or non-success
If there be
soy gentleman who, by laughter, dissents
this sort,
pro-
position, that may indicate the serious from that
we have arrived, and therefore the juncture at which
people should open their eyes to therepresentatives of the
question. As to the discoura • full importance of the
the bills had been united a discouraging circumstance that after
deter-
mined to improve the bill formajority of the house
by coupling with it the settlement of the franchise
question of corruptproviai"a relating to the difficult
to the authority of practices, I would refer on that ques-
tion Earl of Derby) woin
noble peer in the other house (the
trusted their
the members of the
Upper House, said he
u lordshipstfo would never
consent to couple together two
rent from each other—the one for the questions essentiallyentio .of dib'ffrei-
bery, and the other affecting the constituencies themselves.
(Cheers and counter cheers.) A concession was made in
reply to Lord Derby's earnest appeal. (Laughter from the
Opposition.) In response to our efforts at conciliation we
have had to meet this motion, with respect to which we
are told that there is no reality in it, though there are
some behind us who support it, while there is a compact
phalanx in front of us. This seems to supply indications
of concert. (Hear, hear.) There seemed to be a variance
between the motion as originally proposed, and as brought
forward by the honourable and gallant member (Captain
fluter), and when 1, in conjunction with some friends
near me, took twee() of the difference, the •
right hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) by the course he followed,
indicated his being privy to the views of those by whom he
was opposed. (Mr. Disraeli made a motion of dissent.) Then
tio risht hon. golazzan t4e44 tp have a 4cilliii4 facAlti