The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-13 00:00:00

CLERKS IN THE INDIA-OFFICE.

In reply to Mr. HUNT,
Mr. STANSFELD said some alterations were contem-
plated in the position of clerks in the India-office.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

In reply to an HON. MEMBER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
matter would depend entirely upon the conclusion of the
proceedings before the election committees now sitting.
He did not say that such an act would not be introduced.
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.
On the order of the day being read, a number of mem-
bers presented more petitions in favour of the Govern-
ment Reform Bill, the most remarkable of which being
those presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,'
Mr. Bright (a very large ono, mounted on a wooden roller,
signed by 44,000 persons in Birmingham). Sir F. Crossley
also put in his quota, which amounted to a very large
bundle, and Mr. Badzley presented another from Manches-
ter (as much as he would carry) signed by 73,000 people,
and tastefully tied up with red ribbon ; also by Mr. Baines,
Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Forster, Mr. T. B. Potter, Mr. Seeley,
Mr. M'Laren, from Edinburgh, signed by 17,000; Mr.
Henderson, Mr. Holder, Mr. Cranford, Mr. J. B. Smith,
and Mr. Watkins.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I rise, Sir,
to move the second reading of the Representation of the
People Bill (cheers); and, in doing so, I propose to supply a
defect on which some have commented in the statement
with which I introduced the bill to the notice of the house.
It was thought on my part almost disrespectful to the house
—and suggestions of that kind have proceeded from persons
of weight and authority—to have laid a measure of so much
importance on the table without dealing more largely than
I did presume to deal in substantive reasons for its introduc-
tion. I will explain briefly to the house the feelings with
which that measure was introduced. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment—for I do not speak on this point of myself alone—her
Majesty's -Government were sensible of the tender nature
of the ground on which they were about to tread. (Cheers
and counter cheers.) They had first to apprehend that they
might prejudice the progress of this great question by giving
it unnecessarily, or at all events prematurely, the character
of a party conflict. They had also to apprehend that they
might do what is still more serious—that they might give
to the argument on the subject the character of a conflict
between class and class. (Cheers.) They were determined
that so far as depended upon them the discussion should not
be marked from its commencement by either the one cha-
racter or the other. I was therefore anxiously studious
—with what success I knew not—to tread my way
through the whole of that long and, I fear, wearisome
address without including in it any statement of principle,
any argument, any suggestion, any reference to class
which could in any manner excite hostility on the part of
gentlemen who sit opposite. I was not at that period
aware of any reason, and I am not now aware of any good
reason, why gentlemen who sit opposite, and who may be
disposed to take a temperate and conciliatory view of public
affairs, should not have freely concurred in the
ie
enlarge-
ment—as we think the very moderate enlargement_ofu the
franchise which we propose. (Cheers.) We had brought
forward the measure in what appeared to
I spirit of moderation. We desired that it shaotuclednborespslatcheadt
before the house in the same spirit.
when I heard the demand for reasons it not
without a touch of surprise at the
assembly never
proceeded. Had I been addressing .
n tI could have felt no
before conversant with the suiebvr)
swe
lh
vo
s had
been
e te hn e
re
er
-
men
singular that gentle
fnrootm altogetherw hich i
it
such surprise. But it was
selves supported B.:.forrnd
ue
Lien
of Reform, who had
fsallnal—eanidlisataemucaensd—reasons why the advisers
men who had themselves be6"a°,hrndu
iblo for the mtr° and this is by far the
ofh (II el
Tel
endeavoured to force piecemeal and
strongest
ecsas 0 0
Government,
partial measures all—endeavoured
Reform on a reluctant
forsooth, had troubled the mind of Parlia-
ot:wheue"tf,c°Rorluntry by the introduction of the question of
forward
I did not venture into reasoning at
mosbfeotnhuteldacncdio.
Reform.
large, I did refer to authority—l did refer to two heads of
argument which I thought sufficient for the purpose. One
was the nature of the promise which had been given, and
which had been repeated, more times than one can easily
recollect, with respect to the settlement of this question ;
and in connexion with that promise the peculiar origin of
the question—not from the free and spontaneous choice of
the Government, but out of the very bosom, the very mind
of Parliament itself. The other was a reference to the state
of things that now prevails with regard to popular enfran-
Qhi§ement irk the Ntrict pence--the onfouchigennut of the

working class—as compared with'what prevailed in 1832.
Now, with reference to the origin of the question, I wee
challenged in terms of extraordinary boldness. 1 must
therefore revert to that again; and I do so for the sake of
stating that the only fault in the explanation I gave was
that I understated the case of Parliamentary reeponsi-
vo formpoi
member Ipt ieot
dys opposition
introduced
for
drohlufSele
estvlh de,es wtt
introduction
Parliament
rthisrey
Igo
Government,
stated
et
ats
httaieebodyn
bt
mihw majorityal ay, t
a hfini
nordosnft.
spite
pntofiwrwt aieoeseriousnwtodofh aottthnh ere
omitted to state, which, at any rate, greatly strengthens the
case, was this—that the house gave that vote and expressed
that determination iu favour of the introduction of the bill
even after my noble friend then, as now, at the head of the,
Government had stated that the Government would give
their attention to the subject and in the ensuing session
submit a measure to itsconsideration. And vet, in thevery
face and teeth of that pledge given by my noble friend, the
House of Commons took on itself the responsibility
of
forcing a vote in favour of the introduction of the bill. B.at
lam told that the bill was subsequently thrown out. No
doubt ; and under what circumstances was it throws out?
The introduction of the bill was followed by the resigns_
tion of Miriisters. The attempt of the distinguished leaders
of the party opposite to form a Government, based as it
was on an intention to propose a fixed duty on corn, en-
tirely failed. In that state of circumstances the Govern-
ment came back by ordinary process and of necessity into
the hands of my noble friend ; and coming back by neces-
sity into his hands, of course it followed that the House of
Commons which accepted him as Minister should accept
also his pledge with reference to Parliamentary Reform,
and decline to proceed with the bill of my hon. friend.-But
what did happen, and was remarkable, was that, under these
circumstances, the minority were not satisfied with divid-
ing for the second reading of the bill, but tried to force it
on the Government ; and among the gentlemen who were
thus anxious to force on piecemeal Parliamentary Reform,
was my right hon. friend the member for Stroud. (Cheers.)
At a subseqnent period, inlBsB, the very same measure was
forced on the Government of Lord Derby. On that occa-
sion I voted against the bill, not because I disapproved it,
but because I did not wish to force it on a party who were
not prepared for it. Again, my right hon. friend, hot and
ungovernable in his zeal for piecemeal extension of the
franchise, endeavoured to force on the advisers of the
Crown the adoption of a measure not only confined to OA
subject of the franchise, but confined to a special bra,Ach
of the franchise. (Hear, hear,) Let us consider wh are
the persons who have made to the people of this eountry
the promises of which I venture to remind thi4 house—
pr?na ses which I think thennotttf
ihet petitionsweihpyeaa sth:voeura greetedsene,and
n; presentedgebaxrstnkwt
whichtgliti
ethtvmetuehoasfnseu-ot
imcbiaoyseynant
ssbseelivatodlinfhkre::::
lacd hta
Russell,
itirtetseyienoiii: ea,
but to lie recorded in the memory of the people as engage-
riptten (cheers),
givpeoanrftbyofLothrdatDGerobyyeandrn_
for a moment who gave those promises. They were first
sYebo.e:frd:wLrino,holhnlinstrate not to have been fo
Aberdeen, they wore afterwards
the right hon. gentleman. opposite. (Hear, hear.) Now,
what was the promise of the right hon.
Govern-
ment ? Was it an occasional slide ? Was it a slip from
ionrggaonn?thewpasartitoaf
firstthe Gfaouvletrnonmtehn.
et
the path of virtue in an unguarded moment (laugh-ter)
which led them to introduce a measure o. f
.enfranchisement ?
No, sir, they had time enough to consider their resolution.
The second reading of their bill was met, as
(afilgiClkcievhieneeentnaestr.ji
the second
reading of our bill is, Ate told, to be met, by a hostile
resolution. It was met by a resolution of which,at any
rate, I will say that it was direct and outspoken in its pur-
pose (hear, hear), and gave the country clearly to under-
stand the real motives that were in the minds of its sup-
porters. (Cheers and counter cheers.) That motion was
successful. The Parliament was dissolved. The dissolu-
tion of Parliament gave an opportunity to the Government
of Lord Derby to consider whether they had been right
or whether they had been wrong in the introduction of a
biil which refused to deal with the borough franchise, and
upon the assembling of the new Parliament the right hon.
gentleman opposite announced the deliberate view of his
Government. On the ith of June, 1859, he spoke as fol-
lows :

"We are peractly prepared to deal with that question
of the borough franchise and the introduction of the work-
ing classes by lowering the franchise in boroughs, only
acting in that direction with sincerity; because, if you in-
tend to admit the working classes to the franchise by lower-
in the suffrage in boroughs you must not keep the promise
to the ear and break it t. the sense. The lowering of the
suffrage must be done in a manner which satisfactorily and
completely effects your object, and is at the same time con-
sistent with maintaining the institutions of the country."
(Opposition cheers.) You hail with satisfaction the saving
clause of "maintaining the institutions of the country."
(Renewed cheers.) But we do not ask you to sacrifice the
institutions of the country. (Ministerial cheers.) We do
not ask you at this stage of the bill to fix the particular
standard for the lowering of the borough franchise. We
may have your own views on the subject, and we have re-
duced them to what we think are the narrow limits of
strict moderation ; but all that we ask you now is whether
you are or are not prepared to act upon the principle
enonnced by the right hon. gentleman who had said that
the Government of Lord Derby, having before it the ques-
tion whether it was to continue in the possession of power
or not, was ready to, propose the lowering of the borough
franchise. (Cheers.) Well, sir, I do not upan to omit, what
perhaps the lion. gentleman opposite may consider impor-
tant, that at a subsequent period, unless I am much mis-
taken, the right hon. gentleman retracted those words. I
rather believe, though I cannot give the exact date, that the
right hon. gentleman expressed his repentance with regard
to the promise he had given. (A laugh.) But, sir, the pro-
, mise that he gave he gave while in power—he gave it as
a Minister of the Crown. (Cheers.) He gave it on the oc-
casion of an appeal to Parliament to say who was worthy
to hold power, and who was not worthy to hold it. It was
apromise given, I admit, under political pressure, but it was
a promise on that account all the more important, and if in
the ease and leisure of opposition the right hon. gentleman
has retracted it, and it is not the first time such things hays
taken place. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition)--
_

" Ease will retract vows made in pain."
(Laughter.) But what I wish to say is this—the right hon.
gentleman had a perfect right to make the promise, and
he had a perfect right to retract it. It is not for me to
question his discretion in the one step, nor do I intend to
do so in the other. But let not the right hon. gentleman
suppose, and let not any member of his party suppose, that
the retractation of pledges once given by a Minister of the
Crown causes those pledges to be as though they had never
been made. They can never be effaced from the record of
time ; they form material facts in regard to the settlement
of this question. A constitutional Government cannot go
before the representatives of a free people to-day and say,
" I promise you this, that, and the other," and to-morrow
say to them, " I have changed my mind and retract my
promise." (Cheers.) That promise was subsequently given
by the late Lord Palmerston, who took office upon the
basis of a proposal to introduce an extension of the fran-
chise which, if not numerically wider, yet adopted nume-
rically a lower Sgure than that which we now propose ;
and I say that if that series of events does not constitute
an engagement between the governors of the country and
those who sit in this house, and between the statesmen of
this country and the people, I for one know not in what
way or under what circumstances it is possible that such
an engagement should be formed. (Hear, hear.) Sir, it is
necessary to go into the history of this question—it is ne-
cessary to lay firmly and broadly the grounds of our discus-
sion, because although I was more sanguine at a former
period, I do not conceal from myself that we may now be
upon the threshold of a long and a painful controversy.
(Hear, hear.) It is with the deepest grief that I contem-
plate the course that has been taken by that great party
which I conscientiously believe had no adverse interest in
regard to the settlement of this question, though they have
unhappily chosen to consider that they have such an in-
terest. But let us consider—and it is my justificatitonorfaeir
dwelling upon the history of the question—in what
efthis history is sometimes given. Now, in debateartiwcles may
some-
times speak with haste. In the daily p
andot be altogether
weekly press a momentary excitement
likewise quarterly press,
sometimes, I think, be written in haste,ress even in the
impossible. But, sir, we have
re entitled to look for what
and to that quarterly press
.Nvi
I refer to
had the privilege, through
the Quarterly Review, which
and respected f •
y excellent nand the
the kindness
of pilling yesterday, a
of history.
I may justly term the phi
loes:pbY
and where I find the
philosophy
of consulting
the acutest minds
ph dical. I see from this kindof •
that can be P°ll° history
what
of food is sometimes served up for the most in-
tellectualwhat sort
appetites of the higher classes. (A laugh.)
and what I
Thiel.oßseolph.iewy of history ipsutobrlyisahsedit, ilstvhiienskivedtob-yday,
m
going to quote is from a history of the Reform Bill. It is
highly complimentary to my hon, friend the member for
Birmingham as regards his weight and power, but not
quite so much as respects his moral character. (Laughter.)
The article in question is a philosophical statement of the
real causes of this Reform Bill, and, starting from 1860, it
shows.why we have not had a Reform Bill since 1860, and
why we have a Reform Bill now. These are its words :

"Just as in 1860 and 1861 the reforming zeal of the
Radicals was brought off by the sacrifice of the Paper
Duty, so, from 1861 to 1865, it was appeased by the sacri-
fice of the gallant Confederacy. But with the fall of Rich-
mond Mr. Bright's heart was set at ease concerning the
fate of the Government to which his true allegiance 13

given."
I need not say what Government is intended ; it is not the
British Government :
" And the moment Lord Palmerston was removed by
death the Government instinctively felt that the time had
again come round for buying off once more thoir insatiable
ally. This time there was nothing for it but to reproduce
a Reform Bill."
(Opposition cheers.) Thus it appears that there are gentle-
men who think that it IVS 9 the duty of this country not to
have sacrificed the "gallant Confederacy," and who think
nthleaatswurheaatdto Paper duty was a
to appease my hon. friend (Opposi-
tion cheers), although they themselves had recommended
hpetyedvsflilmtphieysacrifice of the
that measure (Alinisterial cheers)—gentlemen who search
in such hidden recesses for what they call the causes of
events, but who aro entirely oblivious
tho Throne and the
of the fact of theso
repeated and solemn engagements of
Gevern.meht of the country., although they were engage.