The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-14 00:00:00

Tfri- SIIN,

called a bill to amend the representation of the people, it
was therefore a bill "that would effect that object. With-
out going at present into the merits of the bill, there was
one prevision in it alone which induced me to think it was
the duty of any House of Parliament to reject the bill—
namely, that which enabled landowners to act with regard
to small boroughs as they acted in the last century, and of
which there are many examples in our parliamentary his-
tory. By that provision a landlord in Northumberland or
Cumberland could get a large or small property in a borough
—say in Cornwall—and insert in the list of voters for that
borough, 100, 200, or 300 of the servants of his tenants in
Northumberland and Cumberland, and send their votes by
the post, thereby swamping the votes of the inhabitants of
the borough. I think that proposition alone was in itself
so monstrous that it quite justified the house in rejecting
the bill ; and I cannot but think that such a provision, if
passed by Parliament, would not only not have been in ac-
cordance with the constitution, but that it would have
totally destroyed all the benefits obtained by the Reform Act.
Those who have read the parliamentary history of this
country know that two or three centuries ago the persons
who voted in those boroughs were small voters, who gave
their votes according to their local interests; but when a
seat in Parliament became an object of desire, the great
landowners of the country went to the different boroughs,
bought freeholds in them, and established by thatmeans such
influence in them that these boroughs became what were
called nomination boroughs. Those nomination boroughs
were destroyed by the Reform Act; but by the bill intro-
duced into this house by the late Government the power of
converting boroughs into nomination boroughs would have
been restored. This, I think, was a sufficient reason for net
adopting that bill. I will say, further, with regard to the
general question, that I do not think this is the time for in-
troducing a general measure. I said so on the first day of
the session, and I believe that what has passed in the interim
shows that the country does not wish that in the present
year a large and comprehensive measure should be intro-
duced, but such a measure as that of my hon. friend, I
think, might be agreed to with advantage.
Mr. DISRAELI—The noble lord commenced his obser-
vations by some of those historical recollections in which he
so frequently indulges. The noble lord tells us that he
remembers the great demand there was for the repeal of
the corn laws ana, rur the relief of the Roman Catholics in
olden days, how the neglect of those demands on the part
of Parliament led to a prolonged and dangerous agitation
for years, and that he, warned by those agitations, re-opened
in 1851 the question of Parliamentary reform. But the
noble lord forgets that there is no parallel between the in •
stance of the repeal of the penal laws against the Roman
Catholics and the repeal of the corn laws and this question
of Parliamentary reform. There is a fallacy in all the ob-
servations of the noble lord which are based on these illus-
trations, because the noble lord forgets that there was a
settlement of the reform question in 1832, and that there
had not been a settlement with regard to the penal laws
against the Catholics, nor with regard to the corn laws. They
were great grievances which had been neglected, and in con-
sequence of that neglect there was extensive public disaffec-
tion, which 1-d to that state of affairs which the noble lord
justly laments. But there is no analogy between these
questions and the question of Parliamentary reform, be-
cause there was a settlement of the question of Parliamen-
tary Reform in 1832, for which the noble lord is in a great
degree responsible, and therefore the question which the
noble lord had to consider in 1851, when he re-opened the
parliamentary discussion on the subject, was whether the
settlement of 1832 had been an adequate and sufficient set-
tlement of the question, and whether the circumstances
which existed in 1851 justified him as Prime Minister in coun-
selling her Majesty to recommend a change in the law affect-
ing the representation of the people. But there is no doubt on
this point, that the noble lord is responsible, as the states-
man in modern times who has thought it his duty to bring
forward this question of Parliamentary Reform again before
the consideration of the Legislature ; and ourvindication for
the course that we took in bringing forward our measure
is founded upon the preceding conduct of those Ministers
who went before us. It is not merely that we found that
the question had been recommended three times from the
throne; but the house was in this situation, that you were
having a reform bill carried in detail. You had different
measures on different subjects at different dates brought
forward. You had all the inconveniences incident to the
discussion of a great constitutional question, discussions on
various interests of the country, giving a prominent impor-
tance to some particular interest to the injury of others,
without that ample information and due thought which
could alone enable us to deal with such questions. I main-
tain the soundness of that principle which has been acknow-
ledged by the noble lord to-day, that you cannot deal with
such a subject as the representation of the people except in
a complete and comprehensive manner. The noble lord him-
self admits that there was justice in the observations that
were made to that effect ; but, said the noble lord with great
inconsistency, although I think that sentiment perfectly just,
I make an exception in the case of the county franchise.
Now why admit that exception with regard to the county
franchise ? Is the county franchise that portion of the fran-
chise where we find the largest number demanding the
suffrage? Is it in the counties where you find persons most
eager to claim the possession of the franchise ? Is the
county constituency, in point of numbers, inferior to the
borough constituency ? Is it not a notorious fact that that
constituency, represented by 150 members, is infinitely
more numerous than the constituency which is represented
by more than 300 borough members ? Then I want to know
if the noble lord admits the justice of the principle that
we ought to deal in a comprehensive manner with the
subject of reform, on what ground the noble lord can justify
the exception in this case. Now the noble lord has assented
at last that it was necessary that he should in some degree
indicate the reasons for the course which he took with re•
bard to the measure brought forward by the late Govern-
ment. The house will observe that I who introduced that
measure, and I speak on behalf of my colleagues, never com-
plained of the decision of the house with respect to that
measure or any other measure that we brought forward.
We, I hope with due self-respect, bowed to the decision of
the house. But when intentional misrepresentations are put
forward by our successors in order to qualify or excuse their
conduct, I think the house will say that I do not arrogate
too much to myself if I allude to the subject. This morn-
ing the noble lord has, in a spirit of curious revelation, ex-
plained to us the cause of the conduct which a couple of
years ago astonished, and I think in some degree annoyed,'
the country. We now know why the noble lord thought it
his duty to oppose the measure of the late Government.
Taking up the measure which included hundreds of details,
the noble lord has held up one of them, and has said, "This
is the reason—because faggot votes can by this machinery be
created in a borough by a nobleman residing in a distant
county, this is the reason why I felt it my duty to oppose
the measure." Well, but if that were the noble lord's
chief reason, why did he not mention it in the resolution—
(cheers)—which he asked the house to approve ? Why has
he •shown this extreme reticence ? Is it that in taking a
course which certainly astonished Parliament at the time,
the noble lord did not think himself justified in stating to
the house the reason that really actuated him ? Why, it is
too late in the ("fry to invent this shadow to perplex public
opinion. The issue which was taken on the measure
which I brought forward on the question of parliamentary
reform was this or it was nothing—will you or will you
not lower, the borough franchise ? That was the broad
issue upon which the opinion of the hoase was taken, and
by virtue of that opinion, and in order to carry it into
effect, the present government was formed. We appealed
to the people, and the people decided against us. I think
it has been pretty well settled by the conduct of the go-
vernment, the conduct'of this house, and the opinion of
the public generally, that we read accurately and soundly
public opinion on the subject, that we tested accurately
and wisely the sentiment of the nation. I have given
the government credit for the course they have taken,
but what I do protest against and cannot pass over
in silence is that the noble lord, on second thoughts,
should, after nearly two years, in consequence of
a general expression of disapprobation of his own
supporters that the bill of Lord Derby was not allowed a
second reading—l do protest that the noble lord should on
second thoughts come forward with this finical reason,
which no one aver heard of before, founded on an obscure
detail of a bill full of details, to vindicate a policy which
at that time -almost outraged public opinion, which we at
least can look at without mortification, but which the noble
lord can hardly regard as a subject of congratulation, unless
he be framed differently from ' other men. Now, sir, with
regard to this bill before us, I object to dealing with
this question of the, extension of the suffrage except in a
complete and Comprehensive manner. I deny that we can
consider the duo and legitimate incidents of, the county
franchise unless we take into consideration' at the same time
the' borough franchise and all that affects the representation
of the people in parliament. That would be with me a
sufficient reason for not entering into the' discussion of this
Measure, but I will not say, as others have said, that if a
large measure was brought before us, and this was a portion
of it that I should approve of it. I entirely disapprove of this
measure. I would state without the slightest equivocation
that it is not in any degree, either in its form or in its spirit,
the measure that we proposed with regard to the county
franchise. I pointed' out the other night, hastily, from a
rapid recollection, some of the principle features of differ •
ence. But there have been subjects referred to in this de-
bate of prominent importance connected with the extension
of the franchise in the counties, to which I did not then
advert. I reminded the house, the other day, when we were
tolleswdtfarrharpdna:cabhtcyheisetehmiietnelai measure we brought forward with regard to
tort
hon.
str -membert counties s wlaoisf
oiodrceenu Basttpi identical
awyr,irt
ehy:rtihst (n)
furgto.hhneit
ing
lend, and that it was only in the second place arising from
houses, and that our measure introduced into the county
franchise a personal, franchise founded on intelligence,
and franchises of ether kinds, but that the mode by
which the bona fide and virtual representation of
the landed interest was - secured was not merely
confined to the invention of -franchises. Why, we 'have
been reminded to-day that in that bill there was a provision
that. the possessor of a freehold, should vote in the locality
where his freehold was situate--that is to say, we proposed
that while a £lO occupier should vote for the county, we
ealso took care that the urban, influence should not be over-
whelming, and we did this by a provision. that the possessor
of land in towns should vote in the locality with which he