The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 5, 1859.

Guards, and there was every probability of the
city being taken.

Letters from Mexico state that city to be quiet.
Business at Chili stagnant, and crops would be
entirely lost owing to the disturbances.

The Peruvian naval forces blockading Guayaquil
had seized, before the Island of Puna, the Spanish
barque Maria Julia, from Central America, with a
valuable cargo of indigo.
The blockade of the ports of Ecuador continued.

SHOCKING RAILWAY ACCIDENT IN
CANADA.

The Toronto Globe, of March 21, gives the fol-
lowing account of a shocking railway accident in
Canada :—At half-past two on Saturday morning
an accident occurred on the line of the Great
Western Railroad, about a mile west of Dundas,
which, we regret to say, was attended by fatal
consequences to seven persons and the infliction of
severe wounds and injuries on several others, from
the effects of which it is hardly hoped that all can
possibly recover. Such a night has rarely been
known before. From about seven o'clock on Friday
evening the rain continued to pour down in tor-
rents, and without intermission, till towards two
o'clock, when it commenced snowing. The conse-
quence was, that the watercourses of ordinary times
were unequal to the conveyance and proper dis-
charge of the continuous flood which everywhere
flowed, as if the floodgates of heaven had been
unloosed.

At the point where this sad casualty occurred,
the track crosses a deep ravine, which had been
filled in so that it was thought that a solid
embankment had been made, which nothing could
disturb. The bottom, however, is of that peculiar
formation composed of the debris from the hill side
close by, and the soil of which the embankment is
composed is clean sand and fine gravel. It would
seem that the water had collected in the hollow be-
tween the hill side and the railroad embankment,
from whence it had, we should suppose, made its way
through the bottom of the embankment. When once
the water had thus made a passage way, the loose
sand soon yielded before the flood, and a yawning
chasm, of about 100 yards in length and from 40 to
50 feet deep, was soon made, the earth being carried
out bodily down the declivity below.
When the night express arrived at this point it
was fearfully dark, and no sign was afforded of the
awfully dangerous pit-fall to which the train
hurried on its way. In an instant the engine and
tender leaped into the hole, closely followed by the
baggage car, an emigrant car, two first-class pas-
senger cars, and a sleeping car. A fearful crash
was the inevitable result, and to look upon the
wreck, one can only wonder how any person in
either of the passenger cars escaped. Enveloped in
darkness, the snow falling fast, and the wind blow-
in6 furiously, in an instant men, women, and
children were buried in the ruins of the train, the
engine being underneath all, roaring terribly from
its steam pipes. Singularly enough, however, the
baggage man escaped, as did also the whole of the
passengers in the first passenger car. It does not
appear that there were any passengers in the emi-
grant car. The second first-class passenger car,
however, was a complete wreck, and it was to those
who occupied it that the fearful havoc of life and
limb occurred.

The sleeping car, as already has been said, did
not go down into the hole, but such was its posi-
tion, poised on the brink, the forward part dipping
downwards, and the hind part nigh off the track,
that the passengers who had taken refuge in it
soon had to leave it, fearing that it would run down
the embankment. When they left this last shelter
they could do no better than take out the cushions
and bedding, with which they made such a resting
place as kept the women and children off the wet
ground, and by using the blankets and bed-clothes
the men managed to protect them from the worst
of the storm. A messenger was despatched for aid,
but before he could get to Hamilton and send on
help, some four hours had been spent under expo-
sure to the pitiless storm. As soon as possible,
however, the railroad officials despatched a loco-
motive with such accommodation for the sufferers
as could be hastily procured.
Five persons tilled who are recognised, viz.,
Alexander Braid, late locomotive superintendent
Great Western Railway ; Morgan, engineer ; King,
fireman ; Milne, brakesman ; J. Boyer, Ohio ; and
two others unknown. Several are injured ; among
them :—J. H. Smith, Green Oak, Michigan ; Hiram
Cook, of the firm of H. and D. M. Cook, Hamilton,
recovery doubtful ; Henry Bost, Buffalo ; J. H.
Smith, Brighton, Livingston county, Michigan,
sixth and seventh ribs broken on the left side,
several bruises on other parts of the body—re-
covery doubtful. Rev. Thomas Fawcett, Indian
missionary, from Brantford ; three ribs, shoulder-
blade, and hip-bone broken ; ht a very low and
dangerous condition. Jonas Boyer—,badly cut on
forehead and leg; wife also injured.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The Loun CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock, at which time the house presented a
very animated appearance. The galleries were
very fully attended by ladies, and the space
before the throne was very much crowded. The only mem-
ber of the Government who did not occupy his usual seat
was the Earl of Donoughmore, who sat on one of the back
ecclesiastical benches.

Earl POWIS presented a petition from Welchpoo:
against legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
The Earl of BANDON presented a petition praying that
the Recreation Bill might be extended to Ireland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
The Earl of DERBY rose amid the profoundest silence,
and said—My lords, the magnitude of the interests involved
in the statement which it will be my duty to submit to your
lordships will, I am sure, be a sufficient justification for my
interposing between this house and the ordinary business of
the day: And if, with a view to place myself in order, and
to enable others, if they so think fit, to follow me, I make
the formal motion, that this house do now adjourn. I trust
your lordships will believe that I make that motion merely
as a matter of form, and not with the slightest desire to in-
terfere with the progress of business after I shall have con-
cluded my present statement. My lords, in explaining to
your lordships the advice which, in common with my col-
leagues, I felt it my duty humbly to tender to her Majesty,
and the course which, with her Majesty's gracious sanction
we propose to adopt, it is unnecessary for me, I am sure, to

recall to your recollection the circumstances which have
rendered any such announcement requisite. It must be fresh
in the memory of all your lordships that on Thursday night
last the House of Commons, after a debate of seven nights,
and in one of the fullest houses ever known, by a consider-
able majority sanctioned an amendment which had been
moved by the noble lord the member for the city of London
upon a proposition of her Majesty's Government for the se-
cond reading of the bill which they had introduced with re.
gard to the representation of the people in Parliament. My
lords, it is only due to the House of Commons to say that,
in a now considerable Parliamentary experience extending
over 37 years, I have never heard or known of any debate
which was conducted with such an amount of unflagging
interest from the commencement to the end, with a greater
degree of ability, and above all—.in a case which might na-
turally excite strong political and personal feelings—with
so little asperity or acerbity either on the one side or the
other. I think, my lords, that in point of ability, in point
of tone and temper, that debate was highly creditable to
both sides of the house, and may fairly challenge compari-
son not only with those debates which we have heard of as
taking place in those days when it is said there were
political giants, but undoubtedly also in those more recent

times of which many of your lordships, with myself, have
had experience, and during which, too, there have occurred
exciting debates in which we have borne our respective
parts. My lords, I shall reserve for a future part of the
statement I have now to make any observations upon the
nature and character of the amendment to which I have re-
ferred. I would only say at present that, in the unanimous
judgment of my colleagues and myself, the result and effect
of that amendment left us enly two possible alternatives be-
tween which to choose—namely, either the immediate ten-
der of our resignation of the offices we have the honour to
hold, or, on the other hand, an appeal to the judgment and
opinion of the country. My lords, I know that many of
our political friends and some of our political opponents have
suggested that there is another course which might be
taken, and without discredit to ourselves—that we might
take the course of ignoring altogether the decision which
the House of Commons have pronounced, of simply drop-
ping the bill which we have introduced, and of proceeding
—without taking any notice of the vote which has been
passed—with the ordinary business of the session. My lords,
in my judgment such a course would neither be respectful
to the House of Commons, nor consistent with our Parlia-
mentary and constitutional duty. (Cheers.) It was im-
possible for us to conceal from ourselves that the vote taken
was substantially a vote of want of confidence in the Go-
vernment—(renewed cheers)—for the House of Commons
would not permit them even to discuss the measure which
they had introduced. And if, under such circumstances,
we had taken no notice of that vote, I think we should have
been justly charged with a contemptuous indifference to the
opinion of that house, and should have provoked and
brought down upon ourselves heavy and well-merited cen-
sure. My lords, there was, as I have said, but one of two
courses for us to pursue—either respectfully to bow to the
opinion of the House of Commons, or, on the other hand, to
appeal from the judgment of that house to the only higher
constitutional power in the country, viz., the constituencies
of whom they profess to be the, representatives. (Cheers.)
Another course was suggested to her Majesty's Government,
from no friendly quarter and in no friendly tone ; that sug-
gestion was so incompatible with the feelings and character
of her Majesty's Government that it was impossible for a
single moment to entertain it, and the bare supposition that
her Majesty's Government could agree to it approached as
near as possible to a personal insult. (Hear.) But before I
proceed to state to your lordships, the course we have re-
solved to adopt, and the reasons, for taking it, I must beg
your lordships to look back to, the circumstances under
which her Majesty's present Government accepted the re-
sponsibility of office, and even to carry your memory still
further back, and bear with me while I take a brief and
rapid retrospect of a few years, and the various changes and
fluctuations they have produced in our Parliamentary con-
tests. I have heard it said that the days of Parliamentary
Government have come to an end. If by this is meant that
the days are gone by when the House of Commons was
divided into two distinct parties,—within each of which the
leaders exercised an undisputed and uncontrolled power
over their followers, commanding their votes and exercising
a species of Parliamentary discipline,—then, I admit, those
days are gone, and are not likely to return. Nor do I think,
though there was a great convenience to the public in this
sharp separation of parties, that the change has been, on
the whole, prejudicial. But, my lords, if it is meant that
henceforth no Government can hope for support, not on
individual questions on which exceptions may occur, but
that no Government will hereafter be able to obtain a
permanent majority in the House of Commons strong
' enough to prevent it being overborne by other conflicting
parties, not themselves bound by any common tie, each
having its own leaders and its own projects,—if the House
of Commons is to be divided into a number of little parties,
none capable of exercising a permanent influence on the
affairs of the country, but each able to thwart the mea-
sures and impede the business of the Ministry that has been
formed,—if, in that sense, Government by party is at an
end, then I warn your lordships that the system of Go-
vernment by Parliament itself will have a very heavy shock
to encounter. (Hear, hear.) If we look back on the his-
tory of the last few years, at least since the lamented death
of the late Sir It. Peel, such has been almost the normal
condition of the House of Commons. My lords, I should
be most ungrateful if I applied the observations I now
make to the great Conservative party which has for many
years supported me; I should be most ungrateful if I did
not recognise with the deepest emotion of thankfulness the
cordial, the warm, the unwavering support I have for
many years received from that important party. (Hear,
hear.) It has given me a cordial and generous support—a
support founded in Borne degree on personal regard—(hear,
hear)--but, I hope, still more in a concurrence of political
opinion, and a belief that I have exercised power to the best
of my judgment, and of such faculties as I possessed, for the
welfare of the country. But if I look at those who sit on
the other side of the House of Commons I see—and see it
with regret, because it stands in the way of all public busi-
ness—l see " confusion worse confounded." I see a num-
ber of parties incapable of concurring together in support
of a Government, yet most dangerous when accidental cir-
cumstances bring them together to oppose it. I see, and I
lament to see it, a large portion of the House of Commons
enlisted under separate leaders and following different
guides, prevented by mutual differences and mutual jea-
lousies from acting together for the good of the country. If
we look back on the last few years we shall see that Parlia-
ment itself has been the theatre of constant and unceasing
rivalry between the two noble lords who have alternately
been the leaders of the so-called Liberal party. (Hear,
hear.) I wish to speak of the noble lord the member
for the city of London (John Russell) with all the re-
spect I unfeignedly feel for his many valuable qualities,
nor am I slow to recognise the services he has conferred
on his country. Nor can I have the slightest doubt of
the sincerity of his zeal in bringing forward the question
of Parliamentary reform ; of that question he has been the
consistent and unflinching advocate ; to that question the
noble lord is constitutionally attached, but attached less
with the affection of 'a parent, anxious for the prosperity
and advancement of his offspring, than with the jealous
affection of a lover, ready to sacrifice anything to obtain
the beloved object, but ready also to die rather than that
object should receive any attention, or owe either happiness
or advancement to any other person. (Cheers and
laughter.) The noble lord of whom I have spoken has
many high and distinguished qualities, but there is com-
bined with them a restless disposition, an insatiable craving
always to be doing something, and a determination that
whatever is done shall be done by himself, or not at all.
His indomitable perseverance in the discharge of business
—which had hardly found sufficient scope in the perform-
ance of official duties--is accompanied with a degree of rest-
leseness under which he cannot be satisfied for a moment
unless he is seeking to do some injury to the cause of those
who are acting against him. The noble lord has had the
singular fortune of having overthrown more successive Go-
vernments than any other statesman—(hear, hear)—and
not only Governments to which he was opposed—he has
more than once been the means of overthrowing the Go-
vernment of which he was a member. (Hear.) I am not
going back as far as 1834, when I was a colleague of the
noble lord, and when an imprudent statement made by him
in the House of Commons led to the disclosure of certain
dissensions in the Cabinet of Earl Grey, and induced me
to drop an expression in reference to the noble lord's con-
duct that afterwards became almost proverbial. That was
in 1831; in 1835 Sir Robert Peel succeeded to power; at
the same time a question had been opened most important
to the welfare and peace of Ireland ; it was the extinction
of tithes, and substituting for them a rent charge. The
Government of Sir Robert Peel gave notice of the intro-
duction of a bill on that subject early in the winter of

-1834. But it did not suit the noble lord the member for
the City of London that the question should be in any
hands but his own. He adopted a course at that time un-
precedented, but which has furnished a sufficient prece-
dent for motions of the same description. The noble
lord introduced, to prevent the discussion of the measure, a
resolution, to the effect that no settlement of the tithe
question in Ireland could he satisfactory or fihal that did
not apply the surplus revenue of the Church to the object of
public education. That resolution answered its purpose ; the
Government of Sir R. Peel properly and justly assumed that
the vote of the House of Commons on that resolution was
equal to a vote of want of confidence. It resigned office ;
and what was ithe consequence ? It was that the settle-
tient of a great and important question was for a consider-
able time postponed, to the serious injury of Ireland; and
when a settlement took place, under a Government of which
the noble lord himself was a member, that very provision,
deemed indispensable to a satisfactory settlement, was
omitted, and merged in oblivion. (Hear, hear.) But the•
period at which the noble lord particularly distinguished
himself was when Sir Robert Peel quitted office in 1846. I
need not remind your lordships of the circumstances of that
eventful year. Sir Robert Peel had broken up the Con-
, servative party, and excited its resentment by the adoption
of the measure sanctioning the repeal of the corn laWs.
It is unnecessary to go into the discussion of that question.
The course Sir Robert Peel took was warmly praised and
applauded by the Liberal party; but that applause and that
praise did not prevent the noblelord from taking the opportu •
nity, on the very day on which the bill was read a third time
in your lordships' house, of moving a resolution against the
course of Sir R. Peel, who was again compelled to resign
office. Looking back to the conduct of the Conservative
party on that occasion, I am compelled to say that, in my
opinion, it savoured something more of resentment, and not
of unnatural resentment, than of justifiable opposition to the
Government. I do not think they were justified, whatever
their feelings might be, to join in a vote which deprived the
Government of the power of maintaining tranquillity in
Ireland in the manner which the Government deemed in-
dispensable to the public service. In consequence of that
vote Sir Robert Peel resigned office, and the noble lord the'
member for the city of London succeeded to the head of the
administration, adopting the principles and the measures
of the Minister whom he had succeeded. My lords, that
Minister with signal generosity extended the shield of his
protection over hie previous opponents during the four years
that followed his resignation. By the aid of that portion of
the Conservative party which adhered to Sir Robert Peel
that Government was maintained in power to the close of
the year 1850. Sir Robert Peel died, as your lordships are
aware, in the year 1850, and at the commencement of 1861,
by no attack from others, but from their own intrinsic'
weakness, the Government of the noble lord the member for
the city of London was reduced to such an extremity that
they felt themselves compelled to tender their resignation
to her Majesty. That was owing, singularly enough, to a
vote on which the Government opposed, or pretended to
oppose, a motion brought forward by Mr. Locke King for
the reduction of the county franchise to £lO, and in oppo-
sition to which they succeeded in bringing by all their,
efforts the large number of 48 persons to oppose a majority
of 100. The Government having upon that occasion, as
I have stated, fallen to the ground, it was necessary
for her Majesty to construct another. I see at the
table a noble marquis, to whom I believe upon that occasion
her Majesty appealed for advice. I see a noble earl on the
other side 'whose advice and assistance her Majesty also
requested, and her Majesty at the same time did me the
honour of making to me a proposal to undertake the re-
sponsibility of forming a Government. None of those noble
lords, nor I myself, were in a position to undertake so
serious a responsibility as the formation of a Government in
the tben existing state of parties, and accordingly the Go-
vernment of 1851, without change or modification, was
again placed upon its legs. The Government then con-
tinued until the commencement of 1852,- but in the interval
there • had arisen dissensions in the Cabinet, upon what
ground I, of course, cannot pretend to say, bet ween-the
noble lord- the member for the city of London and the
noble viscount the member for Tiverton, and the
result of those differences of opinion was that in the
month of Decemter the noble viscount quitted the
office which he held in the GoVernment of the- noble
lord. [A noble lord—" Was turned out of the office.") But
if the noble viscount at that time quitted office, or, as has
been suggested behind me, was turned out of office, it was
not long before retaliation followed, for in February, 1852, ,
upon the motion of the noble viscount, the whole of his
previous colleagues were placed in a minority, and they
were compelled again to resign office., My lords, upon that
occasion I was again appealed to by her Majesty, and, look-
ing at the serious nature of the difficulties which her
Majesty had to encounter in forming a Government, I con-
sented very reluctantly to accept the responsibility that was
cast upon me. I need not say that that Adininistration*te:,
not if very long duration. It commenced in the month' of"
February, and terminated in the month of December.
When that Government was overthrown, the noble earl
whom I see opposite was called upon by her Majesty to
form :an Administration upon a basis up to that time
strange to the constitution of this country. I recollect that
the noble earl upon that occasion expressed his opinion that
the country was so entirely sick and disgusted with the
differences and struggles of parties that ho could safely con-
struct an Administration composed of members of all differ-
ences of opinion, and of all gradations of opinion ; and that
such an Administration [would carry, on satisfactorily the
government of the country. That Administration contained
among its members men of all shades of opinion—even from
those who, like the noble earl opposite, were at that time
the advocates of the doctrines of Liberalism to those who
were Radicals of the deepest dye. (Laughter, and,
no.") If that expression is supposed to be offensive; it at:
all events cannot be denied that of that Administration the
late Sir W. Molesworth was a member. (" Hear, hear," and
a laugh.) Nor can
.it be denied that he belonged to what
was then called the extreme Radical party. Well, my lords,
the noble lord the member for the city of London
cepted the office of Foreign Secretary, but shortly after-
wards the noble lord, finding, I suppose, that the duties of
tuiat office were incompatible with the labours attaching to
the leadership of the House of Commons, resigned that
office, and, I think, for the space of a year, or a year and
a-half, or something more, he remained in the Cabinet with-
out office and, I believe, without salary. At that time, to
use an expression of the noble earl opposite, we were just
beginning to drift into that war which led to such calamities,
but, at the same time, to such glory, to those who were
engaged in it. The uttention of Parliament was altogether
directed from the commencement of that war—and I am
quite sure the noble lord opposite will admit that it was di-
rected without any hostile feeling, or without any manifes-
tation of a desire to embarrass the Government—to the pro-
secution of that war, and to the promotion of the interests
of the country in which we live. But in the month of
June, 1854, the noble lord again changed his office. He
then accepted the office of President of the Council. Your
lordships will not have forgotten that towards the close of
the year 1854 there was a threat of a motion to directly im-
peach the conduct of her Majesty's Government with regard
to the war, and of a measure to inflict upon them the
strongest condemnation. That measure did not originate
from their Conservative opponents. It originated in the
heart of the Liberal ranks. With no little dissatisfaction,
I think, to the Government, and to the astonishment of the
public, a few days before that motion was brought under
discussion in the House of Commons the noble lord the
member for the city of London said it was impossible for
him to defend the proceedings or the measures of his col-
leagues, and, retiring before the storm which had been ex-
cited, he left them to fight their own battle with their own
weapons. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) That step of the
. noble lord and the motion subsequently brought forward by
Mr. Roebuck for the appointment of a committee of inquiry
into the conduct of the Government in that respect led to
the resignation of the Government of the noble lord. That
was in 1855. Again her Majesty did me the honour of
asking me whether I would then undertake to conduct the
business .of the country. I thought upon that occa-
sion that with the co-operation of some noble
lords and of some right honourable gentlemen, I might
be enabled to discharge that task, however imper-
fectly. That co-operation was refused me, and I have no
right to complain that it was so. Greatly, as I think, to his
credit, the noble viscount the member for Tiverton with
signal courage accepted the arduous task imposed upon him.
He undertook the Administration of the Government at a
most critical period. Within a very short time after the noble
viscount accepted office—l think within a very few weeks
—there was another change of Government. He was left
by three, I think, of his most distinguished colleagues, who
could not agree with him in the propriety of permitting an
inquiry to go on into the conduct of the war, and upon their
retirement the noble viscount again called upon the noble
lord the member for the city of London to undertake the
duties of the Colonial Department. While the noble lord
held the seals of that department he undertook also a mission
in a diplomatic capacity to Vienna. My lords, the noble lord
was not very successful in his diplomatic career. (Laughter.)
So considerable was the dissatisfaction which that career pro-
duced in the minds of his colleagues upon his return that I
believe there is no doubt the noble lord was requested to re-
sign office. His resignation again caused considerable in-
convenience to the Cabinet. The noble lord, I think, since
that period has never been a member of any Government.
But far be it from me to say that he is less active. (Laughter.)
In the year 1857 the noble lord took a prominent part in the
House 'of Commons, a part which I cannot by any means con-
demn,becaused I took a similar partin your lordships' house in
bringing forward in terms of condemnation the proceedings
upon the coast of China. That, as your lordships know,
led to another Ministerial crisis. It led to a dissolution of
Parliament, and to the calling of a new Parliament--to the
signal success of the noble viscount the member for Tiver-
ton. Now, my lords, that Parliament—which is this Parlia-
ment—was summoned under considerable excitement. It was
summoned, in consequence of an appeal to the passions and
sympathies of the country in favour of the noble viscount
individually as one who upheld the insulted honour of the
country against combinations and cabals, and I know not
what else. He claimed the support of all those, whatever
their political opinions might be, who desired to main-
tain the honour and dignity of the flag of England. (Hear,
hear.) The noble viscount enjoyed another signal advan-
tage in calling that Parliament together, and I well reccl-
lect saying at the time that, although there might be suc-
cess attending that election, that success was insecure, and
that majority was a majority not to be depended upon, be-
cause it consisted of persons who supported the noble
viscount from the most opposite causes, some believing him
to be the soundest and stanchest of Conservatives, and
others believing, and naturally so, as he had accepted the
leadership of the Liberal party, that he alone was the head
of the Liberal party. My lords, it is not too much to say
that the Parliament of 1857 set up the noble viscount as a
political idol. He returned to Parliament with an over-
whelming majority; but, as I said before, a majority
founded upon no principles, and the continuance of which
consequently was not to be calculated upon. Accordingly
not a year elapsed from the time that Parliament was as-
sembled before it broke the idol which it had set up, and
again amen.- the principal executioners was hisnoble friend
the member for the City of London. (Cheers and a laugh.)
I am coming now to the close of this long statement, for
Which I have to apologise to your lordships, but I wish to

show you' what is most seriously important, and what may
well call for reflection on the part of all those who love the
British constitution, what is infinitely more important than
the success of this or that particular measure—infinitely
more important than the overthrow or the rise of this
or that Ministry—l want to point out the danger to our
Parliamentary system arising from these constant changes
and fluctuations year by year— not a single year passing
without its Ministerial crisis, hardly a year passing with-
out a Ministerial abandonment of office. (Cheers.) My
lords, I solemnly declare, if that system is to be persevered
in—if that system is permitted by the people of England
to be continued, there is an end to all hope of the stability
of Governments ; there is an end to all chance of govern-
ment upon a system—there is serious injury done to
the pohtical influence of Parliament at home, and
there is a serious depreciation of the weight and influence
of England in the affairs of Europe. (Cheers.) When in
1858 her Majesty graciously called upon me to undertake
the duties of the office which I have now the honour to
hold, as I have already stated to your lordships on a former
occasion, I placed before her Majesty unreservedly our posi-
tion in the House of Commons ; I pointed out to her Ma-
jesty that at that time I could reckon upon the support of
little more than one-third of the House of Commons, and
consequently, that if there were a combination of the re-
mainder of the house against me and thote,whe acted with
me we should be left in a permanent minority varying from
120 to 150. I requested—l may say I urged upon her Ma-
jesty to reconsider the command which. she had placed upon'
me, and I ventured to solicit that her Majesty would con-
sider whether, among the other leaders of the house, and
among the various parties in the house, there were not some
to be found who could conduct the affairs of the country
with a greater certainty of being able to command the con-
fidence of the House of Commons than I could for a single
moment pretend to. Her Majesty graciously took the time
for which I had asked to consider, and on the following day
—and not until the following day—her Majesty informed
me, upon full consideration, that it was her wish and de-
sire that I should undertake the responsibilities of the office
which I now hold. So urged, my lords, and seeing the
difficulty in which the Crown was placed, and the incon-
venience to which Parliament was exposed by these fre •
quent changes, I felt it to be my duty not to shrink from
the responsibility or the labours which her Majesty sought
to impose on me. (Hear, hear.) I undertook office know-
ing that I was in a minority in the House of Commons ;
I undertook it in the firm desire faithfully and dili-
gently to discharge those duties which were placed on
my shoulders ; I undertook it in the hope that by a steady
adherence to business, by attending to the interests of the
country by seeking not to embitter but rather to conciliate
party differences, by endeavouring to maintain the honour
of the country abroad and to promote its prosperity at
home, I might so far conciliate an adverse majority of
the House of Commons that they would allow me without
obstruction to carry on the business of the country until, at
all events, it could be made clear that there was some one
large, definite party able to carry out their own policy, ready
to replace me, and likely to enjoy the confidence of the two
Houses of Parliament, as well as of the country. I hope I
may say that during the 12 months in which I and my col-
leagues have held office we have not neglected the duties be-
longing to our respective positions. (Hear, hear.) I hope
that we have hot neglected the interests of this country at
home ; I am sure that we have laboured to maintain and
uphold its honour abroad. (Cheers.) And I firmly believe
at this moment—l have no wish to speak boastfully of our-
selves, or disparagingly of others—but I do firmly believe
that if the peace of Europe is yet to be maintained, it will
have been owing to the unceasing efforts and untiring vigi-
lance of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, and to the attitude which, under his guidance and
at his suggestion, Parliament and the country have assumed
with regardto thepoliticalobjects now in question. (Cheers.)
I should be unjust, however, to the noble lords who sit
opposite—and more especially unjust to the noble earl lately
at the head of the Foreign-office—if I did not admit that
with regard to all foreign business, and, indeed, with regard
to the transactions of all business generally, we have met
from them nothing but courtesy and fair play. (Hear, hear.)
The noble earl especially has been studiously anxious in re-
lation to the foreign department, the difficulties of which he
well knows, not to embarrass her Majesty's Government by
the interposition of any untimely questions or the introduc-
tion of any unseemly discussions. (Hear, hear.) I may
also say that, after one attempt made very shortly after the
Goverament succeeded to office, and which—though at one
time it had a most formidable appearance, considering the
hosts that were mustered against us, yet before the wish of
the country and the power and force of reason melted away
like a snowball in the sun, so that they not only did not
bring their threatened resolution of condemnation to a
vote, but begged to be permitted to withdraw it. After
that event we had no reason to complain of the interference
of the House of Commons with the management of the
affairs of the country. (Hear, hear.) There were, however,
remaining from our predecessors two or three qtrestions of
very considerable difficulty, which had baffled the skill and
power of preceding Governments, and which were left to us
as a species of damnosa hceriditas, with which, if we should
find ourselves able, it would be our duty to grapple. Of
those questions, perhaps the most important—certainly the
one which had been the most frequently before the public,
and which had been assumed to be the favourite project of
the Governments which had preceded us—was the question
of Parliamentary Reform. It was not only the noble lord
the member for London, who in the discharge of his duty
had thought it necessary from time to time to bring that
question under the notice of Parliament, but two successive
Governments—that of the noble earl opposite, and of the
noble viscount the member for Tiverton—had pledged them-
selves and had pledged their Sovereign, by the speech from
the throne, to introduce a measure of Parliamentary Reform.
Nay, more, my lords, the noble lord the member for the
City of London had upon two occasions—in 1852 and in
1854—embodied his propositions and his scheme in two dif-
ferent bills, and your lordships, I am sure, will all recollect
that very pathetic scene when, almost with ears in his eyes,
the noble lord, in 1854, was compelled, under the pressure
of the foreign war, to abandon his favourite project of re-
form. Now I say, in passing, that though the war in 1854
formed a very convenient apology for not proceeding with
the measure which a member of the Government was very
anxious to undertake, it has been whispered—it was whis-
pered at the time, and it has been repeated with somewhat
more confidence since, and I believe I may say that it is
,hardly a secret, that there was another and more formidable
obstacle to proceeding with that measure of Parliamentary
reform, and that between the noble lord and the noble
viscount there was on the subject of that measure so in-
superable a difference of opinion that, although the noble
viscount consented to remain a member of the Government
till the bill was read a second time, it was well known that
there were provisions in that bill to which ho had signified
his intention never to assent, and that if that measure had
been proceeded with in 1854 it would have broken up the
Government of the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) Again, in
1857, engagements were taken by the Minister of the day
in the name of the Sovereign that that measure of Parlia-
mentary reform should be dealt with in the ensuing session.
I cannot but say that in giving those pledges I think that
the Governments of both those noble lords exercised their
power very imprudently and unwisely. I think that it is
not consistent with the respect due to the Sovereign—
that it is not consistent with the respect due to Parliament,
that measures should be announced in the speech from the
throne with regard to which I will not only say that no bill
had been prepared, but with regard to which 1 will 2urther
say that no progress had beeen made towards the formation
of a bill, and that I believe no serious intention existed of
ever bringing one forward. (Hear, hear.) In succeeding,
therefore, to the inheritance of that long-deferred legacy I
conskered it my duty to undertake,—not indeed the intro-
duction of a measure, but in concurrence with my colleagues
carefully and deliberately to consider the whole question,
and to ascertain whether it might be possible, consistently
with our political opinions and principles, and which yet
should have a chance of obtaining the sanction and assent
of Parliament. I was encouraged to believe that we might,
in bringing forward such a measure, look for a fair amount
of countenance and support, because while it was in pro-
gress we were assured frolic time to time how desirable it
was that no further delay should loccur in the settlement
of the question. (Hear.) We were constantly told how im-
portant it was that we should not go too far, that our measure
could not be too moderate, that it could not be too small, that
it could not be too far removed from those dangerous doc-.
trines and extensive principles of reform which were advo-
cated by persons who, though they belonged to the Liberal
party, yet had no sympathy with the great Whig leaders.
We undertook the question, and we prepared a bill, and
as soon as the Liberal party were free from the responsibi-
lity of carrying a measure there was no end to the anxiety
and the pressure that not a single day should be lost in sub-
mitting a measure to Parliament. (Laughter.) But what
took place in the meantime ? The member for the City of
London had made no secret—he had spoken openly, and
before numbers, of his confidence, that whenever the Con-
servative party should bring forward a Reform Bill that
would be the moment for the Liberal party to overthrow
them, whatever might be the character of the measure.
(Hear, hear.) Disthaguished members of the previous Go-
vernment made speeohes, in which they said that any Go-
vernment which undertook to bring in a Reform Bill would
incur a serious responsibility; that it must be prepared to
satisfy the country that any reform was wanted ; and, more-
over, a right hon. baronet, a leading member of the last
Administration, intimated his opinion that the Government
were iu a dilemma with regard to the measure of reform,
from which they would find it impossible to extricate them-
selves ; because, either they must propose to reduce the
county. franchise to £lO, or else they would find themselves
in a minority in the House of Commons, which would never
be satisfied with a smaller reduction. But, since we have
brought forward a bill reducing the county franchise to £lO
we have been told by the very same gentleman that if we
had been contented witha £2O franchise we should have had
no difficulty in passing our bill ; and we have heard that
language fromthese who were members of the Governments
which had upon two successive occasions proposed a £lO
franchise, and who had themselves supported Mr. Locke
King's motion. The noble lord the member for the City in
particular had given as his reason for supporting that mo-
tion, that he saw no reason why the inhabitant of a county
should not vote on as low a franchise as the inhabitant of a
town, and on that ground he voted for the bill to reduce the
county franchise to the same level as the borough franchise.
And now we are told that the signal defect in our bill, that
which shows our recklessness and blindness, is the bringing
down of the county franchise to the same amount as the
borough franchise, and refusing to lower the borough fran-
chise below the comity franchise. This is not the proper occa-
sion to vindicate the provisions of our bill; if it were, I
should be prepared to discuss them calmly and deliberately,
and to offer such grounds for their adoption as, though they
might not persuade your lordships to adopt them, would at
least show that they were net proposed without due consi-
deration. (Hear, hear.) What I wish, however, to im-
press upon your lordships is, that in that bill we dealt with
the question in such a manner as largely to add to the num-
bers of the constituent body of the country, to give the
suffrage to a much larger number of persons than had ever
previously enjoyed it, and to a larger number than would
have been entitled to it under either of the bills introduced
by the noble lord the member for the city. In drawing !IP
our bill we had the advantage of the great experience of the
noble lord,,and we had the double advantage of being
fortified b his authority, whatever course we might have
adopted in the provisions of our bill, for there was n
were not diametrically opposed to each ot .
single poink on which the two bills ofholc
hi,,2,Be(!ladhueolgBic,i
The bill of 1852 proposed a £2O countilralio
of 1854 proposed a £lO franchise;
ythare,litirreu.
with
;prtohpoe
billsed
principle of
a £5 borough franchise, with one
of 1854 proposed a £6 rating franchise, wlth 2} years' resi-
dence and payment of rates during the whole of that
period. The bill of 1852 proceeded upon the
not disfranchising a single borough; the bill of 1854 dis-
franchised 63 boroughs. (Laughter.) The bill of 1852
enfranchised two new towns ; the bill of 1854 did not
enfranchise new constituencies except to a limited ex-
tent, but distributed among constituencies already repre-
sented additional members, of whom 47 were allotted to
counties, I think, and 16 or 17 to boroughs. Therefore we
might have fortified ourselves by the example of the noble
t lord, whether we had adopted the principle of disfran-
chising or. not disfranchising, whether we had grouped
boroughs or.not, whether we had lowered the franchise in
counties to £2O or £lO, or whether we had adopted the £5
or £6 franchise in boroughs with the period of residences
mentioned We were not ashamed of availing ourselves of
the noble lord's great experience and knowledge,- We care-

fully considered the separate provisions of his two bills, and,
where we found valuable provisions, no fear of being ac •
cased of plagiarism deterred us from making: use of them.
In taking that course we certainly had a right to calculate
on a fair and impartial consideration of the measure which
'e laid before Parliament. (Hear.) In the Speech from the
Throne her Majesty bespoke for that measure, and in their
answers to that Speech both houses undertook to give to it,
that calm and impartial consideration which was propor-
tionate to the magnitude of the interests involved. But I
think I may appeal to your lordships whether in the House
of Commons the course pursued was consistent with that
fair requirement or with the assurance given by. Parlia-
ment. (Loud cheers.) I would not have complained, nor
would my colleagues have complained, if, after the bill
had been introduced in a speech of singular clearness and
ability by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and if after at the request of hon. members
opposite the desired period for consideration of its details
had been allowed, those opposed to the Government had
taken objection to the principle of the bill, and had re-
jected it upon the second reading as unworthy of their
acceptance, or even if they had sought to modify, its
details in committee. For myself and my colleagues, I may
say that, in introducing that measure, we did not seek to
gratify this or that party—(hear, hear)—we did not seek to
serve party or political interests—(hear)—we did not sea to
excite in its favour that factious enthusiasm which it might
have raised had we made it a one-sided party measure—
(hear, hear)—but we sought to lay such a measure before
Parliament as might command the reasonable approbation
of moderateand thinking men, and might be accepted as the
solution of a very important and difficult question. (Hear,
hear.) Had that bill been permitted to take the usual Par-
liamentary course, had it been allowed to go into committee,
we should have been prepared to vindicate there its provi-
sions; but if on any of them the decision of the house had
been adverse to our views, we should have considered our-
selves perfectly at liberty to consider calmly whether that
decision was so much at variance with the principle of the
bill as to make it inadmissible, and if we had found that the
alteration made did not seriously interfere with the prin-
ciple of the bill, no amount of false pride would have deterred ,
us from accepting it. (Hear, hear.) But that was not the
course pursued. (Hear, hear.) It was felt that this was ajust,
fair, and on the whole a reasonable measure. (Cheers.) It
was felt with alarm, by those who thought they had the
monopoly ofreform in their hands, that this was a measure
which would commend itself in the main to the deliberate
consideration of the country—(hear, hear)—and they deter-
mined—and I cannot but complain of that determmation,
and the mode in which it was carried out--(hear)—that a de-
liberate consideration it should not receive, and that the dis-
cussion of it should be anticipated by a resolution which was
not unprecedented, because the noble lord the member
for the city of London had himself furnished a precedent for
it. A very high authority in your lordships' house, and a
very high authority elsewhere, derived from a long experi-
ence of public business, have expressed themselves in
terms of very great doubt as to whether that motion was
admissible or not. The highest authority in the other house
ruled it otherwise, and of course I havenothing to complain
of on that point; but, to the least of it, the motion was
one calculated to prevent the House of Commons, Parlia-
ment, and the country, from judging fairly and fully of the
merits of the measure. (Hear, hear.) I can conceive no
course more dangerous, more prejudicial to the conduct of
affairs in Parliament than, when a measure of this import-
ance is proposed, to seek to pass by anticipation a sweeping
censure upon portions of it which it was perfectly sompe-
tent to discuss subsequently in committee, and thereby to
prejudice the house, and prevent its opinion being known.
to the country. lithis measure had gone on—even sup-
pose it had never passed—we should have had an expression
of opinion from the house on its various provisions ; we
should have known the mind of Parliament, and we should
have been able to compare it with the opinions of the pea•
ple out of doors. But we stand in this position now—after
seven nights' debate, not on the bill, but on the amend-
ment of the noble lord, we are left in entire ignorance as to
what those who oppose the bill would substitute in place of
it. It is not to be believed that it was proposed undesignedly
or without purpose, and for the purpose it was a very wise
resolution, because it evaded a fairdiscussion and introduced
prejudice against, the provisions of the bill. (Cheers.) It
was with no slight touch of irony. that the noble lord the
member for Tiverton, if I am rightly informed, told his
noble friend the member for the city of London, who com-
municated to him his intended resolution, thatit was an ex-
cellent resolution, and admirably adaptedfor the purpose for
which it was intended. But what, was that purpose ? The
purpose was, and it was all but avowed, to destroy the bill,
and to destroy the Government who introduced the bill, be-
fore they had the power of explaining, debating, or dis-
cussing the measure. It was a wise resolution, and veq•
well adapted for the purpose for which it was intended.
(Hear, hear.) In that indefinite amendment the Government
had no means of judging, and no intimation was thrown
out, of the extent to which it was wished the borough
franchise should be reduced. Wisely and very cautiously
was it so framed, because the very moment that any
substantive proposition had been made for the substitution
of some other sum for the £lO borough franchise, that
moment all the slumbering discord prevailing threugh tAe
whole bulk of what is called the. Liberal party would have
been brought to light, and would have shown that, although
agreed on the condemnation of the Government scheme,
there was no possible variety of opinion not represented by
some section, and that, with regard to the substitution of
any specific proposition for that of the Government if called
upon to do it, it was absolutely impossible they could suc-
ceed in carrying it out or veiling the hollowness, the discord,
or the want of coherence between those who upon the whole
were invited and induced to accede to a vague and indefinite
resolution. (Cheers.) I say that the course pursued was
not in accordance with the pledge given to the Crown in the
Address; it was not consistent with usual Parliamentary
practice ; it was not consistent with true patriotism, or a
sincere desire to settle a question which it was known had
produced, and must produce by postponement, consider-
able excitement and greater difficulty in the way of its
settlement. (Hear, hear.) An opportunity was presented
1 to Parliament honourably and creditably to settle this
great question. They have preferred the interests of party
to the interests of the country (cheers), and without for a
single moment calculating how the Government could be
replaced, some with a purpose, some unwittingly, some
through ignorance, consented to a resolution, the certain
effect of which was the overthrow of the Government and
the destruction of the bill. (Hoar, hear.) With regard to
the borough franchise, the noble lord the member for Lon-
don was asked what amount he proposed, and he said cava-
lierly that he was not called on to say. But I think, with
due deference to that noble lord, the question was most ma-
terial to the consideration of the resolution, because had the
question been between £lO and £B—l say, for example, had
the question been between £lO and £B—it might not have
been very difficult to come to an agreement. It was also
very desirable to know whether the opinion of the House of
Commons, which was averse to £lO, was equally averse to
£B, to £6, to £5, to households uffrage, to manhocd suffrage,
or whether, in point of fact, any scale was regarded as one
upon which a decision could be formed and a measure in-
troduced upon an intelligible principle to secure the assent.
of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But even with
regard to the effect of the measure there was a difference of
opinion among those who supported the amendment. Some
of them declared, like the noble lord the member for the
City, that they were anxious to defeat altogether a noxious
and dangerous measure. It might have occurred to the
noble lord that if it were so noxious and dangerous a mea-
sure, there was a fair and legitimate opportunity of defeat-
ing it upon the second reading. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord shrank from that ordeal, because he believed that if it
were permitted to go to that stage it would be infallibly
carried, and the measure left for fair consideration in com-
mittee. (Hear.) Others said they voted for the amend-
ment because they concurred in the principle which it enun-
ciated, but they did not intend to vote against the second
reading. They intended first to vote for the resolution, and
then to vote for the second reading of the bill. It was in
vain that my right hon. colleagues over and over again as-
sured those gentlemen that they grossly deceived them-
selves if they imagined for a single moment that it was pos-
sible for their expectations to be realised—that the amend-
ment proposed by the noble lord would be accepted by the
Government, as it was intended by the noble lord, as fatal
to the measure, and fatal to the existence of the Govern-
ment. However, among those who entertained a different
opinion, or professed a different opinion—and it is at once a
sample of the perfect unanimity and good understanding
among the leaders in the Liberal camp—among those who
professed most solemnly no intention to destroy the bill, and,
on the contrary, desired to see it carried with amendments--
among those who entirely differed as to many objections of
the noble lord the member for the City of London, one who
prominently put forward that doctrine was the noble vis-
count lately at the head of the Government, and now by
courtesy, and nominally, I believe, leader of the Opposition
in the House of Commons. (Cheers.) But in noticing the
observations of that noble viscount I must refer to that to
which I alluded in an earlier portion of this address—l
must refer to that advice which he considered consistent
with his position to offer, and consistent with our honour to
listen to—namely, that we should be permitted neither to
retire, nor to dissolve, nor to withdraw the bill, but that we
should be condemned to keep our places and in those places
to do the bidding—(derisive cheers)—my lords, the noble
viscount's expression was "to do our bidding." I should
like to know to whose bidding it was intended we should
defer. Was it the bidding of the noble viscount, who prefers
a £2O to a £lO franchise, and has only very lately, as he
ingeniously confessed, become a convert to a reduction
below £lO in the borough franchise? Or was it the bidding
of the noble lord the member for the city of London ? Or
was it the bidding of the right hon. baronet the member for
Carlisle, who with the noble lord concerted and concocted
this precious amendment—(cheers)—and who intimated
that in his opinion the proper franchise to introduce, and
beyond which it was not safe to sanction, was the borough
municipal franchise, with no very great or decided aversion
to the introduction, if need be, of voting by ballot ? (Hear,
hear.) I think I may refer to the noble earl who sits oppo-
site whether the reduction of the Parliamentary franchise
to that of the municipal franchise would be a great im-
provement on the present system, judging by the evidence
appointmentwhich i
s givenofd awyh
which
dayho before
the
moved.
Fseolrecnit eyomawnmittepea,rtehe
, I
am perfectly satisfied that the introduction of the muni.
cipal franchise would throw the whole representation of
these boroughs into the hands of numbers and classes
tahnadt
least qnalified by intelligence and education to exercise
was it that we
judgment and safe.ty. (Hear, hear,
cheers.) But,
with
were to follow ? According to
But, my lords, whose bidding
the noble viscount, whose
slaves were we to be? Were we to be the servants
of the noble viscount, or the servants of the noble
lord, or the servants of the right hon. baronet the member
for the city of Carlisle, or the servants of the hon. member
—l;think now, hon. member for Birmingham ? (Cheers.)
e our bidding I" If that motley and heterogeneous assem-
bly which calls itself in the House of tOMMOIIS thq Liberal
party had been asked to tell us what " our biddetg* was,
probably not 25 men would have agreed as to tile:injunc-
tions to lay on the submissive and humble slaves, her Ma-
jesty's Ministers. (Cheers.) But it is hardly necessary to
say to any one, that as long as we have the honour to serve
her Majesty in the responsible situation of Ministers of the
Crown we will do no one's bidding except the bidding of
our Sovereign and the bidding of our own consciences and
our own honour. (Loud cheers,) " You shall not retire
from office," says the noble viscount ; and does the noble
viscount intend to prevent our resignation ; if we think fit
to tender it and her Majesty think fit to accept it ? -(Hear.)
He may mean—and I do not dispute the fact—" You can-
not resign office, because if you do it is impossible to find a
Minister to succeed you. (Cheers.) I look round and see I
have no chance. (Laughter.) I look at my noble friend, and
not only hashe no chance, but his accession is the last thing
which would enter into my wishes or hopes. (Cheers and
laughter.) I look to the hon. member for Birmingham, and
I know the Crown will not accept him, Parliament will
not accept him, the country will havenone of him. (Cheers.)
He has tried the country, and the country has rejected his
wild and extravagant proposals as entirely unworthy to be
taken into consideration.' (Cheers.) I offer an apology, to
the noble viscount if I have misunderstood his expression
that we cannot resign by supposing he meant.
we were not
to be permitted to resign, instead of that we did e
) The noble
should be speedily reinstated. (Hear, bear.
viscount went on, and in the heat of arguniel?i, in the heat
of debate, I presume, used an
I
expression which certainly
should not have expected from one who has had a long
4equnintance with the catizti
tutioual Luettely of the c0Up....4