The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-05 00:00:00

by which he attained to this knowledge, for the motion of
my hon. and gallant friend indicates that his amendment
was not in concert only with the views of gentlemen sit-
ting on this side of the house. (Hear.) It is a little hard on
us, who have been standing in the nervous condition of
those who believe themselves to be contending in a matter
oh life and death, to accuse us of want of consistency and
earnestness. With regard to the speech of the hon. and
gallant member for Wells, as well as with regard to some
of those speeches which proceeded from members represent-
ing boroughs called grouped, I make no complaint at all. I
make no complaint of my lion. and gallant friend for his
reference to the advice and authority of Sir W. Hayter. No
one who ever came into relations with Sir W. Hayter can
hear otherwise than with pleasure the mention of his name.
(Laughter.) On this occasion we do not shrink from recur-
ring to the authority of Sir W. Hayter, because if he objects
to the grouping of Wells, and if he exercises his great po-
litical influence to induce the gallant representative of that
cathedral city to object to our grouping system, there is
another alternative—not one, I should suppose, more agree-
able to my hon. and gallant friend, but still one which I
am surprised, following as he does so faithfully his father's
footsteps in every point, he did not even mention. Sir W.
Hayter was the faithful and attached Secretary of the Trea-
sury in 1834; when a Reform Bill was introduced by the
government to which Sir W. Hayter belonged, and to which
I was a party, and which contained a schedule enacting,
not the grouping, but the disfranchising of Wells. (Laugh-
ter.) It is perfectly open to my hon. and gallant friend to
fulfil all his instincts of filial affection, while performing
his duty to his party and the country, to suggest the other
alternative placed on record as to Wells. (A laugh.) Ido
not think we ought to criticise too severely the votes or the
expressions of those who maybe called the grouped members.
Theirposition to the towns theyrepresent is, on an occasion
of this kind, one, I must admit, of grave and serious diffi-
culty. It reminds me of a remarkable historical speech of
Lord Brougham's in defence of Queen Caroline, in which
he speaks of the sacred duty of an advocate to his client.
According to that speech an advocate must not hesitate to
do all in his power for his client, nor regard the destruction
which it might bring upon another, but must go on in his
duty to his client reckless of the consequences—even if they
should unhappily involve his country in confusion—for his
client's protection. (Hear.) So, sir, I find no fault with
my hon. and gallant friend. if he is willing to displace
the crireernmem,—a mean waiter, perhaps—zo arrest ane
course of this great measure, and to plunge us once morein
confusion for the purpose of saving the reputation of the
ancient, venerable, and respectable city of Wells, he is at
liberty to do so. Presently I shall state the views we took
in regard to the grouping of Wells and of grouping gene-
rally. I cannot, however, but think that gentlemen who
are in his position would do well to consideronething,viz.,
that the system of grouping adopted by the Government,
even if chargeable with all the faults that have been freely
imputed to it, is atleast one that was not adopted in a spirit
of hostility to these small boroughs. It was ratherintended
to mitigate the severity of the stroke which the public good
required them to receive. It may seemharsh in many cases,
but it may be well for those concerned to consider that the
rejection of that system of grouping might result in a less
favoarable,, as well as a more favourable treatment. (Laugh-
ter.) Probably the extinction proposed is better than the
anomalous state which has been so humorously described
and which implies a continuance of life though in an en-
feebled state. I must notice a charge which has come from
the opposite side as to precipitancy in this matter. The hon.
and learned member for Belfast calculated that it had taken
the Government 12 days to prepare this bill. I made an
expression of dissent across the table, and at last the
hon. and learned gentleman enlarged the time to 24 days.
The time occupied by the Government to prepare the mea-
sure was not a short time. If I mistake not, official notice
was given for the introduction of this bill on the 23d
March, and the bill was introduced on the 7th May, a
period of 45 days--nearly four times a longer period than
that mentioned in the first instance by the hon. and learned
member for Belfast. I must say that if a Cabinet the mem-
bers of which had been previously concerned in construct-
ing two or three bills containing a system of redistribution
could not, in 45 days, prepare a bill on the subject, the
fault lies deeper than mere want of time. It will, perhaps,
narrow the grounds of controversy if I say that it is true
that the bill has been deliberately prepared and delibe-
rately laid on the table. With respect to the general charge
of anomalies I deny that the bill creates anomalies. 1 deny
that it creates a single anomaly in the true sense of the
word. Did the Reform Act create anomalies or not, by
disfranchisement and the redistribution of seats ? If you
choose to say that a man who destroys a gross anomaly,
and reproduces a milder state of things, creates an anomaly,
we are open to that charge. If we enfranchised the borough
of Frome with one member, and find the borough of Wells
close to it with two, I ask, did the Reform Act create an
anomaly by that ? Only in a contracted and secondary
sense, and far from that natural sense in which we admit
that a single anomaly is created by this bill. (Hear.) Let
me now consider the turn of the debate. And here it is ne-
cessary for me to advert to the speech delivered by my right
hon. friend the member for Caine. The general strain of the
argument of that speech does not., I think, call for any
special comment—(ph)—l mean those points of it bearing on
this bill—except the spirit of exaggeration in which they
were delivered—(oh)—because in this respect they were
distinguished fromthe speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite,
the right hon. gentlemen the members for Belfast and
Droitwich,and others. I must protest, however, against one
part of the speech of my right hon. friend, in which he
treated largely of the honour of the Government, and gave
his opinion that the Government need not be particular, for
that they were not in a position to be fastidious on that
subject. Ho spoke with marked emphasis of their having
to lie on a truckle bed. I frankly own that I think all
that portion of my right honourable friend's speech was
one piece of gross error of taste and judgmett (hear, hear,
and oh, oh), because in these matters we must not only
look at the sermon, but at the individuality of the preacher.
And I want to know what charge can be made against
the Government on this score which cannot be made
against my right hon. friend (hear, hear, and oh, oh). In
that truckle bed there may be a bedfellow. (Laughter.)
No doubt my right hon. friend thinks he can defend him-
self. We think we can defend ourselves. It is just as
well to declare a truce between us on this part of the ques-
tion. We have no objection to a charge against us if it
proceeds from a proper quarter. The right hon. gentle-
man the member for Droitwich, for instance, had on that
same evening charged us, in no unbecoming terms, with
a long slumber on this question. He was entitled to do so.
Those connected with the Government of Lord Derby are
perfectly justified in charging this Government and party
on the subject of reform. They may charge us that while
we are now acting on our convictions, yet for our conve-
nience we kept this question shut up safely. But can my
right hon. friend not see, with one hundredth part of his
acuteness, that it is better to avoid this dangerous ground,
which is equally applicable to others ? (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) I certainly was astonished at one feat which my
right hon. friend performed in that speech. A bill had
been laid on the table for a redistribution of seats, and
which purported to cut off in round numbers half a hun-
dred seats from the small boroughs and distribute them
among the great and populously-growing communities in the
country. And my right. hon. friend complained of provoca-
lon in not receiving an explanation of the principle of that
bill. He declared he could not understand it -that in the
interval between the first and second reading he had endea-
voured to puzzle out the bill, and failed to do so.
Mr. LOWE—I asked what' was the principle of the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of tb
obliged to my right hon. friende forEXCHEQUER—I am
principle was his assistance, but he
might have spared it. Thefound in the fact
of the bill—in the facts of its enactments. It did not re-
quire any discussion as to its principle.
the(Oh minister rose in his place and said, oh.) When
• We clear away 49
seatsfrom declining and secondary communities, dis-
tribute them among the great towns and new aui
communities
of the country—l say in that single sentence we explain
the principle of the bill. (Ministerial cheers.) When
my
right hon. friend distinctly said that in a week he could
not find out the meaning of that transfer from small coin_
munities to great ones, 1 thought that in that latest freak
of his fancy he was endeavouring, to emulate that portion
.of the party opposite—l do not think quite so large as was
. stated—which has been described in one of the works of
the hon. member for Westminster, and to which
au allusion
has been made in the course of this debate. (Lghter.)
My right hon. friend giveS himself such license that although
it is very delightful to listen to his speeches as intellectual
exercitations, they are not of practical avail. (Hear, hear.)
lle defended the small boroughs through thick and thin—
through, thick and thin without the smallest reservation or
re,ser,e amendment,ve— and in the very same moment he spoke in favour
o
1. 'a in which the house declares that it is
ready to consider the general subject of the redistribution of
seats. (Rear, hear.) I admit that my right hon. friend was
so far consistent with himself that on a former night he
made a speech •stall ra duction of the franchise, and he
has repeatedly told,„t
would be destructio that a reduction of the franchise
time he voted for then na of thntione constitution, yet at the same
was ready to consider the Which declared that the house
How are we to have a commauction of the franchise.
or to cheiish thesligh test chance Or°l-ind on which to meet
th those who are pleased to discuss the differences
agnitude with such a license. (Cheselsq.)uesxtions of such
lend has a honer of democracy. This housye right hon.
nlgarised. This house was to be filled with rwepasre to be
ves of seven-pounders, who were themselves to b:enta-
little
better than the seven-pounders. But only the other night
the tone of my right hon. friend changed.. He went
off
in
My right hon. friend then stated
the ,
another line of inquiry.
and overstated, the expense of elections im der the new
System, and the consequences of it upon house. my
right hon. friend said the house was to be filled with mil-
lionaires—the house-was to be a plutocracy. (Cheers.) It
is no wonder, not that my right hon. friend contradicts us,
as he has Cright liberty
te do, but that he assumes theLeof
contradicting
But my right hon. friend rtth
his
s
not seem likely to make his speeches at harmony with
votes, or even to make his speeches at harmony with one
another. (Laughter.) I must say there is a certain advan-
tage in one respect in the speeches of my right hon. friend.
I hear the speeches of the hon. and learned member for
Belfast, whom I have been accustomed to look upon as ofie
of the most able, and not the least keen, partisans in this
house, but I hear the hon. and learned member, and others