The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-02 00:00:00

this house upon the recommendation of the Crown itself.
Three times the house had assented to the consideration of
such a question--once in 1852, once in 1856, one 3 at the end
of 1857; and, I think, after that had happened, no division
having been taken upon the subject, no amen 'ment having
been suggested, the consideration of the que , ion of reform
was a duty and a necessity on every •ne who took
a part in public life. (Hear, hear.) As I ave said, I had
no difficulty in conjecturing what I thought the principle of
the reform bill would be. My noble friend at the head of the
Government in the year 1852 and 1854, enunciated those
principles in the clearest possible manner. I will not quote
his words on any other part of the subject but on this point,
and, in order to set myself right with the house and the
country, I hope I may be permitted the use of the words
which were then used by my noble friend. (Hear, hear.)
On the 31st January, 1854, my noble friend said—
" I beg that your lordships will not lose sight of this,
that from the earliest periods of the Parliamentary history
of this country there have been two great divisions of con-
stituencies and it is upon due weight being given to each
of these two; that the whole balance of the constitution in
the House of Commons depends. They are, on the one
hand, those who represent the property—landed if you will,
but the fixed and immovable property of the country—re-
presented by the knights of the shire, elected by the free-
holders and those holding leases of
.property ; and, on the
other, the burgesses, elected by their fellow-burgesses not
representing property, but representing residence and occu-
pation of premises. That distinction is as old as the earliest
period of our history."
My noble friend went on to remark that this was the prin-
ciple recognised in the Reform Bill, and the noble lore
opposite has constantly referred to that circumstance, and
expressly drawn the distinction- My noble friend at the
head of the Government went on to say—

" Property was there [in counties] made the basis of
representation; number and residence were the basis of
representation with regard to boroughs. Ido not pretend
that this theory is carried out in all its integrity and with
all its detail. Theory it is not; it is a practical distinction,
most important to be borne in mind if you desire that the
House of Commons should be not a mere representation of
numbers, but a representation of property and numbers
combined one portion of the members representing more
directly the interests of property, the other representing more
directly and immediately the interests of residence and
numbers. Ido trust that the Government, in the measures
they are about to introduce, will not attempt to break down
this old, well-founded, and most important distinction."
These were the words of my noble friend in 1854. I recol-
lected these words when I joined the Government. At the
end of the session we had to consider how the pledge should
be redeemed of giving to this country a Reform Bill based
upon principles which Conservatives have always advocated,
and also with a view of making a permanent and satisfactory
settlement of the question. My opinions were perfectly well
known to all my colleagues throughout our discussions ; they
were known to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer early in September. They were known and re-
peated, strongly repeated, to my noble friend at the head of
the Government towards the close of September. We had ,
to discuss the matter in November and December following.
I never did give up what I believed to be essential to the
constitution of the country—namely, the distinction to
which I have adverted, and therefore to that part of the
measure I could not assent. (Cheers.) But the house is
not aware—and, without mentioning any Cabinet secret)
I may inform them—and, in my own justification, I think
I ought to inform them—that nothing was settled upon
this part of the question until after Christmas, and I was
requested to consider the subject as a whole, before I gave
my final decision upon any part of it. We were to have met
on the 10th of January to consider the question. Other
business and other causes prevented its consideration, and
it was not until the 25th of January that the question came
under deliberation for final adoption or rejection. Previous
to that I informed my right hon. friend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer of my strong convictions upon this subject.
We met, we deliberated upon it. I was in a minority, and
I felt then that I had nothing to do—but with the most
cordial desire to support her Majesty's ministers in every
way I could—l felt that I had no other alternative than to
request Lord Derby to place my resignation in the hands of
the Queen. (Cheers.) Of that letter I hold a copy in my
hand, and as it states the only reason upon which I have
retired from office, will the house permit me to read it ?
" January 27, 1859.
"My dear Lord,—I regret to say that lam about to take
the most painful step which I have ever had to take in the
whole of my life. I am going to request you to place my re-
signation in her Majesty's hands, because I find it is ut-
terly impossible forme to sanctionor countenartce the course
of policy which the government are now determined to
adopt on the important subject of parliamentary reform.
When you were so good as to ask me to join your present
administration, I told you I thought that I had better de-

cline. I then fOresawthat there were one or two questions
with reference to which I might not be able to agree with
my colleagues. On being assured, however, that if that
should happen, there would be nothing dishonourable to
you or to them in asking leave to retire, I consented again
to bear my part in the arduous task which the Queen was
pleased to invite you to undertake. Parliamentary reform
was one of those questions; and it is now quite clear that I
cannot come to an agreement with the majority of the cabinet.
The reduction of the county occupation franchise to a level
with that which exists in boroughs is utterly contrary to
every principle which the conservatives as a party have
always maintained. (Hear.) It is a complete destruction of
the main distinction which has hitherto been recognised and
wisely established between the borough and the county con-
stituencies. It is to my mind a most dangerous innovation,
by giving to temporary and fluctuating occupations a pre-
ponderating influence over property and intelligence, while
it throws large masses into the constituencies who are almost

exempt from direct taxation, and therefore interested in
forcing their representatives to fix that taxation permanently
on others. I will not dwell upon other points, for this is
enough. But I cannot help saying that the measure which
the Cabinet are prepared to recommend is one which we
should all of us have strongly opposed if either Lord Pal-
merston or Lord John Russell had ventured to bring it
forward. (Laughter and Opposition cheers.) Under all
these circumstances, I have no other alternative but to re-
peat the request with which I commenced ; and I shall,
therefore, consider myself as only holding the seals of office
until you can conveniently fill up my place.—l am ever, my
dear lord, yours sincerely,
"The Earl of Derby."

" S. H. WALPOLE.

In consequence of the observations which have been circu-
lated in the country, I think it my duty to advert to the
misunderstanding which has arisen as to the reasons why I
remained for an hour sitting on that bench after my letter
Was written, or rather why I continued upon that seat. My
noble friend at the head of the Government was pleased to
request me, in the great difficulties by which we were sur-
rounded—difficulties not merely affecting our domestic
policy, but difficulties affecting our foreign relations—my
noble friend requested me to withhold the actual announce-
ment of my resignation until Parliament had met, and be-
fore it was known that the Government had to meet Par-
liament with a divided body. (Hear, hear.) My answer
to my noble friend was immediate. I said, whatever I felt
it my duty to do, I should always wish to consult him as
to the mode in which it should be done, and if I could assist
him in any way in meeting Parliament I was willing to do
so, as one of the Administration, agreeing as I did with my
colleagues in their general policy. (Hear, hear.) I said I
would willingly do so as one of the Administration, pro-
vided I might be allowed to retire before the Reform Bill
was fully announced. It was on this understanding that I
have continued to sit on the Treasury bench for the last
three weeks. [The right hon. gentleman was so much
affected at this portion of his address that he was under the
necessity of pausing for a few moments. He then re-
sumed.] It was for that reason that I continued to sit
upon that bench for three weeks, doing, I hope, my duty to
this house and to my country, and it was not until the an-

nouncement of the Reform Bill was made that I considered

it my duty to make my resignation known. Indeed, one
of my colleagues was good enough to say to me, " You
have no right to go out until you know we have finally
adopted a measure and will not change it." (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) That reason was irresistible to my mind,
and I felt that when the appeal was made, I could only act
upon it. These are the explanations which I have to
offer. Whether they are sufficient others must judge.
But I only wish the house to bear in mind, that had I
remained I should have remained there a Secretary of
State for the Home Department, whose duty it would
have been to have given my grudging support either to
the principles or the clauses of the bill. And I ask
you, whether with my strong convictions, I could have
given it that support ? (Cheers.) It has been said, I know
that I was in favour of reducing the franchise in boroughs
to a£6 rating. How that should be known I cannot tell.
But this I do know that any information which I may have
given upon that subject was of the most private and con-
fidential character. (Hear, hear.) This I also know, that
I never proposed such a measure as that to the cabinet. And
this I further know, that I told them, and they all knew it,
that I was prepared, if they thought they could stand upon
it, to stand by the £lO franchise settled by the Reform Bill.
I will not disguise from the house—now that the dream-
stance has been published to the world—l will not disguise
from the house that I think it desirable that you should ob-
tain some resting place to which the franchise should be
lowered, and that that resting place should be adopted as a
permanent settlement of the question. Ido believe, for
reasons to which I will advert when the second reading
comes on—l do believe that the reduction of occupation to
£2O in counties would have been such resting pla Ido
co
believe that a reduction of the £lO value in boroughs
to a
their
tenants'
rst.(cH ear,
rc
hear.) I only advert to that because the circumstance £6 rating, which is equal to £8 value, would have been such
caormesetintogbeplacabele because
t ocompound that d
foris a point
a t which
n elandlords
been made known to the world. But I must deprecatee has
in
the strongest manner any intimation of private opinions
being communicated to the public as reasons for my resig-
nation when they were not so ; and I must say that if this
is the policy on which we are to act for the future, I might
be at liberty to reveal any schemes or propositions made by
any other hon. gentleman. (Hear.) Never will I take such
a course at all. Whoever may wish to damage me by mak-
ing the statement, I cannot conceive how it got into the
public papers. (Hear.) Sir, I have only two other obser-
vations to make ; one addressed to my colleagues, the other
to the house. To my colleagues I have to say with
perfect sincerity, agreeing with them in tho policy which
they have adopted, whether foreign or domestic—taking as
they do no inactive part in the social and legal reforms they
are so wisely recommending to the house—believing that
their policy, as a general policy, and independent of this
particular question, is really for the good and well-being of
the country—if my assistance as an independent member
can be of any use to them, they know, or they may know,
I believe they do know, they can command it as much as if
I remained one of their colleagues. (Cheers.) To the house
I will say I have now sat here for 12 years, I have filled