The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-27 00:00:00

distinction, it may truly be said that at such a

moment it is not easy for any incoming administra-
tion to step at once into the exact conditions of rela-
tions with Governments and Ministers abroad which

was enjoyed by their predecessors, and the amount
of that difficulty, whatever it may be, is in itself a
public disadvantage. Her Majesty upon these
grounds thought fit to postpone the acceptance of
our resignation as the house has been informed,
until she had had the opportunity of personal con-
ference with my noble friend at the head of the

Government. This day I accompanied my noble
friend to Windsor, and the opportunity was given

to him of tendering those explanations which ap-
peared to us to warrant the course we have pursued,
and of laying before her Majesty the full circum-
stances of the case. Upon receiving these explana-
tions the tender which had been postponed was
accepted, and we now, by her Majesty's gracious
command, only retain the seals of our offices until
the time when our successors shall have been ap-
pointed. Having stated this much, I think it is due
from the Government to the house, that they should
not confine themselves to the dry recital of the
results arrived at in the communication with her
Majesty, but that in endeavouring to avoid con-
tested and controverted grounds, I should make
some explanations to the house of a nature to show
that in the step we have taken, we have not acted
unadvisedly or without deliberation. Sir, after the
division which took place upon Monday, and during
the interval which has since occurred, the alternative
which the Government appeared to have principally
mediate and legiti-
bmeaftoeresutbhieemet
oas f e tohnes
dme
roastti
oi
nm
in the present state
of the country, was whether it was their duty
at once to resign their offices, or whether, on
the other hand, they ought to accept the vote
which had been arrived at on the motion of
my noble friend the member for Galway (Lord
Dunkellin), and to endeavour if they could to
adapt that vote and the operation of it to the frame-
work of their measure and the attainment of its
essential object. Now, sir, let me state briefly the
views which we took of the nature and effect of that
vote. We did carefully examine it, in order to see
whether it was in our power to effect such an
adaptation as I have described. At the close of the
debate of last Tuesday, the words which I ventured
to use on the part of the Government did not
amount to an absolute statement that if the vote
was carried against us we should feel it impossible
to conduct the Government of the country, but
they did express the difficulty in which we found

ourselves with respect to the possible conse-
quences of such a vote, and I was obliged to say
that we could enter into no engagements in the event
of an adverse division, but must be free to take

such a course as the public interests should ap-

pear to us to require. N ow, sir, when we came to
examine the effect of the motion, and to consider
whether it was possible for us to adopt it, we were
struck with these difficulties. In the first place,
the inequality of its operation in the different
boroughs ; in the 2nd place, the inequalities of its
operation in the same boroughs ; and in the third
place, the almost insurmountable difficulties of
choosing any formal figure of enfranchisement re-
lative to rating which would express faithfully and
exactly, and without material deviation on one side
or the other, the scale of enfranchisement which we
had contemplated and submitted to the house, and
which we thought ourselves, not by any pedantic
view of the case, but by considerations for the public
interest, bound to adhere to. We found this to be
the case as to the operation of a £6 rating franchise,
becaus-e that was the sum indicated :by the noble
mover of the amendment. With regard to the in-
equalities in different boroughs, the figures which
I now give can be tested by any gentleman for
himself, for he has no more to do than refer to the
blue-book which has been laid upon the table of the
house. We had stated to the house a plan by
which a certain number of male occupiers
would be enfranchised by an occupation fran-
chise of £7 is boroughs. We asked ourselves
in the case of each borough, what amount of rat-
ing franchise
.would give the same numbers as would
have been given by the occupation franchise which
we proposed. We found these were the results. In
1G boroughs a number at least equal to what we
proposed would have been enfranchised by taking a
rateable franchise on the basis of £6. 1n39 boroughs
we should have required to take not merely those
above a £6 rating, but those of £6 and upwards.
In 112 boroughs we must have taken £5 and up-
wards ; in 21 boroughs £4 and upwaros ; and in
five boroughs we should have been obliged to take
those even under £4, to have the number of elec-
tors equal to what would have been given by our
£7 occupation franchise. (Cheers from the Minis-
terial side.) I mention this as being the simple re-
sult
of the sum. It is not for me to judge what
weight they may have on the minds of others ; but
on ours it had considerable. We then considered a
matter on which I need not dwell, because it was
dealt with in the debate, but which we felt acutely,
viz., the difficulties in which we should be involved
from establishment of different rates of franchise in
the same boroughs, owing to the great and frequent
differences of rating which prevailed in different
parts of the same town where those parts happened
to belong to different people. Lastly, we had to
consider if we proposed a £.6 rating franchise, it in-
volved on the whole a diminution of the franchise,
which in our view was inadmissible. (Cheers from
the Ministerial side.) If, on the other hand, we
proposed a £5 franchise, we should have been ex-
posed to the taunts and objections of which I do
not stop to estimate the value, but which undoubt-
edly would have led to the statement that we had
departed materially from the original framework
and standard of our bill. These difficulties led us
to the conclusion that the vote given on the motion
of the noble lord the member for Galway went very
much to break up the framework of the measure.
But that was not the whole, nor nearly the
whole, of our difficulty. We had to consider our
position as a whole. We had to consider the
previous history of the bill. (Cheers from
the Ministerial side.) And undoubtedly, in
our particular case, the issue was additionally grave
and anxious, because of the pledge we had given in
various forms, and of which we have been reminded
from time to time in the course of the debate—our
pledge, viz., to stand or fall by our measure. (Cheers.)
Now, these pledges, if they seemed to some to have
been conveyed in rhetorical or inflated formp, were
nevertheless advisedly and deliberately given. (Re-
newed cheers.) In my opinion we pledged, and in
the opinion of the Cabinet the pledge to stand or
fall by a particular measure is apledge which should
rarely be given. It is thelast weapon in the armoury
of the Government. It should not be lightly taken
down from the wall, and if it is taken downit should
not be replaced until it has served the purposes for
which it was intended. (Cheersfrom the Ministerial
side.) That pledge was given by us under the deepest
convictions, whether erroneous or not, of public
duty. We looked back over fifteen years, and we
considered what was the history of this question.
We did not forget its inconvenient and itsmischiev-
ous operation during many of those years upon the
character of public men, upon the character of par-
ties, and, permit me to say more, upon the charac-
ter of Parliament as a representative institution.
(Renewed cheers from the Ministerial side.) We
felt that the stake was a stake of the highest order;
that the responsibility was great, and that it was
our duty to use every effort in our power to avoid
offence and conciliate support, and to unite instead
of distracting the minds of men. (Renewed cheers
from the Ministerial side.) We thought, however,
at the same time, that it was our duty firmly and
resolutely to adhere to whatever plan we might
adopt, and that there is no such thing as firm and
resolute progress with subjects of importance and
magnitude like that except by attaching the life of
the Administration to the life of the measures they
propose. (Renewed Ministerial cheers.) Such,
therefore, was the course we took, advisedly and
deliberately—not for our own sakes, but for the
sake of far higher and deeper interests involv-
ing that which is the first condition of good govern-
ment in this or any other country, viz., the confi-
dence of the public in those by whom they are
ruled. (Renewed cheers from the Ministerial side.)
Along with that anxiety to pursue such a course,
we also, as I have said, evinced a most earnest and