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

last year. My own opinion is that he ought to have refused—
(hear, hear, and a laugh)—but having accepted it he was
bound to have introduced a bill for amending the represen-
tation. So far I agree with the right hon. gentleman, but if
it is competent to any person or any party to introduce such
a bill, surely it is competent to any person or to any party
who considered the bill mischievous to oppose it to the
utmost of their power. The right which the right hon. gen-
tleman claims for himself surely he will not refuse to us.
I have taken the course I did because the bill appeared to
me a noxious and a mischievous one. I have taken a course
which I believe to be most Parliamentary and most con-
venient for the house, because if we had gone into com-
mittee on the bill, found fault with the most material parts,
and had gone on rejecting clause after clause, and inserting
new clause after new clause, we should have had the question
raised every hour whether the Government ought not to
throw up the bill, and whether the last vote or the vote
before the last was not destructive to the measure. Sir,
the right hon. gentleman has told me that by proposing this
resolution I have, according to his judgment, prevented him
from declaring that the peace of Europe was secured. I beg
the house to recollect that the right hon. gentleman, in bring-
ing forward this measure, stated it was a measure so im-
portant as to be far superior in importance to any
question of peace or war—that war had a limited duration,
whilst a reform bill would influence the destinies of the
country for many generations. After this the right hon.
gentleman thinks it right to cast a censure upon me be-
cause when he moved the second reading, I have opposed
it. If he be correct in his opinion, that any opposition to
this bill will be dangerous to the peace of Europe, I say in
that case the responsibility rests with the Government, not
with me. They had no right to propose a bill of such vast
consequenence and press it to a second reading if any op-
position to it would be dangerous to the peace of Europe.
(Hear, hear.) They have no right to say, This is a bill
which affects future generations and alters the entire con-
stitution of the country, placing the representation on a new
basis, yet you must pass it with only the slightest altera-
tion. You must pass it almost as it is, or you will disturb
the general peace of Europe. I believe nothing of the kind.
Sir, I do not believe our vote or our treatment of the bill
will have any influence on the settlement of European peace.
(Hear.) Now, sir, I will proceed to the question with re-
gard to the manner in which the Government have received
the late vote. Sir, I admit there are two points in the re-
solution which might induce the Government to think that
it was intended to be a vote of censure ; but, on the other
hand, we must consider what are the interests involved, and
what are the reasons which induced the Government to bring
forward a measure of reform. On one point Ido not agree
with my hon. friend the member for Birmingham. Ido not
consider it desirable that this great question should be sub-
mitted to the decision of the constituent body before it is finally
settled. I think it was of great importance that this house
should endeavour to settle this question in thepresent session
—(hear)—and in the late debate there was so much agreement
with regard to the general principles of any measure that
would be likely to pass, that it would have been in the
power of the Government, if they had introduced a reason-
able measure, to obtain the support of the house. (Hear.)
Considering the state of public business, considering the
state of affairs abroad, considering the danger that with re-
gard to this question itself parties may become more and
more wide asunder, I think it was the duty of the Govern-
ment to exhaust every means of getting this question
settled before they resorted to the measure of dissolution.
(Hear, hear.) Dissolution is of course a perfectly constitu-
tional proceeding. There can be no question on constitu-
tional grounds with regard to their advice to her Majesty
to dissolve this Parliament and summon another. Whether
it was a wise course is undoubtedly a separate question, and
one upon which the new Parliameut will probably have to
decide. Now, sir, I was much taunted during the late de-
bate upon the vagueness with which I spoke of any future
measure of reform which I should be disposed to support.
Sir, I was vague advisedly. (Ministerial cheers.) I knew
perfectly well that if I sketched out a measure which I
thought would be adopted by this house, debaters on the
other side would fasten on what they conceived to be its
defects, and would in that way endeavour to conceal the
radical faults of their own measure. (Hear, hear.) I re-
joice that the measure of the Government has disappeared.
My belief is that in the first instance it must have tended
to the creation of boroughs as close as the nomination
boroughs which were disfranchised under Schedule A in
the Reform Bill of 1832. I believe that its second conse-
quence would have been muchgreater innovations than any
Conservative party would have liked to see. (Hear, hear.)
Sir, my notions of a reform bill are far more humble.
have no objection to tell the house what those notions are.
(Hear.) In the first place, I do not propose any new basis of
representation. I should preserve the representation of the
House of Commons in counties, cities, and boroughs, as it has
been from the earliest times down to the present day. I
should propose a £lO franchise in counties. (Hear.) I think
the argument of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that the Government could hardly have pro-
posed a higher franchise without the risk of being thwarted
by a majority of this house, was a sound argument, and I
think the Government acted wisely in proposing a franchise
of that amount. Those franchises which have been called
" fancy franchises" were included in the bill of 1854 ; and
though they may require some revision and amendment, I
am inclined to think those franchises would introduce a largo
number of persons who are well qualified to vote. With re-
gard to the franchise for boroughs, I am of opinion, not-
withstanding all that was said on the other side in debate,
that it would be useful, that it would be safe, and even that
it is absolutely necessary in order to make the representa-
tion safe, to introduce another class of voters in boroughs ;
and that I would do by reducing the present yearly value
of £lO to £6. (Cheers.) I think there is great advantage
in not having the parliamentary franchise the same as the
municipal franchise. In introducing the Municipal Re-
form Bill I stated it to be the opinion of the government of
that day that it was desirable to keep the two franchises
distinct. -I am of that opinion still ; and the reports which
I have heard from various parts of the country with regard
to the municipal franchise have not led me to the conclusion
that it would be desirable to introduce that franchise for the
election of members of parliament. (Cheers.) But I believe
—contrary to the opinions which were expresseed in such
strong terms from the Treasury bench—that it is desirable
to introduce a large portion—a large body, I should say—
of the working classes into a constituent body for the election
of members of parliament. (Cheers.) I believe they are
sufficiently instructed to make a good choice. A great po-
litical writer has remarked that there is a vast difference
between a judgment with respect to political measures and
a judgment with respect to the men who are fit to be en-
trusted with political power. I believe that is a perfectly
true observation, and I do think that the addition of large
numbers of the working classes would form a better and
sounder basis of representation in this than we now pos-
sess. [An HON. MEMBER—" The freemen ?"] lam
glad that the hon. gentleman has mentioned the freemen,
because I am certainly of opinion that as matters at present
stand it would not be wise to interfere at all with them.
(Ministerial laughter.) In 1832 we settled the privileges of
the freemen as they now stand ; we did so after much debate
in this house, and still more debate in the other house ; and
I do not think it would be wise to make any change in that
respect, although I proposed to do so in 1854. (Hear.) Now,
sir, there is another question which I think should be made
the subject of a separate bill ; I refer to the question of die-
franchisement and the redistribution of seats. (Hear.) That
is a question which is encompassed with the greatest diffi-
culty. There is not merely the question of disfranchisement
to be disposed of in the first instance, but the subject of re-
distribution raises questions with respect to counties and
towns of the utmost difficulty in the solution. (Hear.) My
opinion is that if about 26 seats were taken from the smallest
of those boroughs which have two members and given to
large boroughs which have no member—if the 26 seats,
with the four vacant ones, making 30 in all, were given to
such places as Birkenhead and Staleybridge, such an
arrangement would be a very great advantage, and would
last for many years. Of course it would be presumptuous
to say that it would last for ever. My opinion is, however,
that such a measure as I have indicated for the reform of
the representation would settle the question for many years
to come. I do not wish to use any vagueness on the subject,
but I think such a measure would be infinitely better than
the late measure of the Government, that it would produce
much less disturbance in the representation, and that it
would have the effect of returning a House of Commons
more fully qualified to carry on the business of the country.
(Cheers.) Sir, the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues
have chosen otherwise ; they have chosen to make declara-
tions in this house of the strongest nature against any fur-
ther lowering of the franchise, against any further admis-
sion of the working classes. "No, no," from the Minis-
terial benches, followed by Opposition cheers.) I have
heard it over and over again. (Hear, hear.) From the
Secretary of State for the Colonies, and other right
hon. gentlemen, I heard over and over again, the state-
ment, that with the exception of the franchises which
they proposed in their bill, they were opposed to any ad-
mission of the working classes, and that they were opposed
to the lowering of the £lO franchise. I believe that declara-
tion to be ono which, if it were supported by the new Parlia-
ment, would be exceedingly dangerous. I believe that its
tendency is to make a most useful and industrious class of
men hostile to those who are above them in station. They
would no doubt consider themselves excluded by an arbitrary
and invidious line, and I am sure Parliament would not be
able to maintain that line permanently. There is one question
more which my noble friend the member for Tiverton
touched upon, and to which I wish to advert ; I refer to the
question whether, when this Parliament is dissolved, a new
Parliament will be immediately summoned. Whena dissolu-
tion was announced in 1841, Sir R. Peel asked for a pledge
that no time should be lost in summoning anew Parliament,
but that it should convened as soon as possible. I suppose
it is the intention of Lord Derby and his colleagues to pur-
sue a similar course ; it would be quite unconstituional if
they did not pursue that course, if they refrained from meet-
ing the new Parliament as soon as possible. They have,
as Ministers of the Crown, taken great responsibilities upon
themselves, and I think it is the duty of the House of Com -
mons to aid them as far as possible by furnishing such sup-
plies as may be required. [The noble lord being about to
resume his seat, there were loud cries from the Ministerial
side of the house of "The Ballot."] On that subject I can
only say, that if the present Ministry introduce a new Re-
form Bill, and that bill contains a clause for establishing
vote by ballot, I shall consider it my duty to oppose that
clause. (Cheers.)
A desultory discussion followed, in which several mem-
bers re-opened the question of the late bill.
Mr. W. PATTEN and other members urged the Go-
vernment to declare the precise time when Parliament
should be dissolved.