The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-02 00:00:00

member that for many years after the passing of
the great Reform Act by Lord Grey there was
much agitation, arising chiefly out of differences of
opinion which prevailed respecting that measure.
Again, for several successive elections, here was
the question of free trade—the question whether or
not the Corn Laws should remain o.i the statute
book of England. On those questions you will
recollect there was a great and a wile difference of
opinion and much discussion ; but at present I am
free to say that there is no question of great political
interest or great political difficulty by which the
minds of the electors of this country are agitated ;
and this I regard as a happy sign
of thetimes. I do
not regret it. lam glad to see this comparative hill
in strong, violent party feeling. Perhaps it may be
said that the subject of Parliamentary reform is an
exception to this, but Ido not so regard it. On the
contrary, I am happy to observe, and I do so with
some surprise, how little excitement there seems to be
in any part of the country on that question. I hold
that that is a most auspicious omen, and I am one of
those who have no hesitation in declaring that, as a
citizen of this great country, as a member of the
House of Commons—ay, and even as a member of
the Government, this question of Parliamentary
reform having been mooted to the extent it has
' been, it ought now to be settled. (Cheers.) I think,
moreover, that the time when it can be best and
most advantageously settled for the interests of the
country is the time when a calm public feeling
exists upon the subject, and when it may be ap-
proached both by the electors and by those whom
they send to Parliament without that degree of
excitement which has prevailed in former years.
Gentlemen, you will not be surprised to hear from
me the expression of my conviction that whatever
party is in power, be it the present or any that may
succeed it, it is bound to settle this question as soon
as ever an opportunity presents itself for the pur-
pose, and to bring to its settlement calm considera-
tion and those just principles which are likely to
meet the views of moderate men. (Hear.) And
here I may be allowed to say that I think the Go-
vernment with which I have the honour to be
connected has a right to claim some credit for the
fact that, although a Conservative Government, and
although it does not profess what are called in a
party sense reform principles, it has addressed it-
self in a spirit of moderation and fairness to this
question, and has carried a bill upon it with more
success and to a greater extent—l mean to a more
advanced stage—than any Government that has
preceded it since the question of Parliamentary
reform has been revived. (Hear.) Two measures
upon the subject were introduced before that of the
present Government ; one by. the Government of
Lord J. Russell, the other by the Government which
succeeded his—the Government of Lord Aberdeen.
The Government of Lord Palmerston promised a bill
but never introduced it ; and what is more, never
drew or prepared it. This they were obliged to
confess after they left office. Well, that is what
was done by our predecessors. What did we do ? We
framed a bill. We introduced it, and carried it to the
stage of a second reading; and whilst I do not mean
to refer in any unfair spirit to what passed during
the discussion of that measure, I have no hesitation
in saying, if we had not been met in a factious spirit,
in a spirit that had nothing whatever to do with
reform, in a spirit that did not aim at reform, in a
spirit that aimed solely at a scramble for political
power—had we not been met in that spirit we
should have carried that bill on the second reading.
(A voice—"No, no.") I assure my hon. friend who
says "no," that I do not intend to speak in any
party spirit. lam speaking only that which I think
I may say I know to be the fact; and I assure you
that I believe as implicitly as ever I believed any-
thing in my life, and again I say I know it to be
the fact, that had that bill been met, on the motion
for its second reading, by the ordinary amendment,
that it should be read a second time that day six
months, the House of Commons would have passed
the second reading, and rejected that amendment.
(Cheers.) Why did Lord John Russell meet it in the
way he did? Why did he meet it with an amend-
ment the parliamentary propriety of which has been
seriously questioned? Why did not Lord John
Russell,instead of adopting that course, take the
straightforward course of moving the rejection of
the bill on the second reading ? I believe he took
that course because he was perfectly aware that
there would be a majority in favour of the second
reading; that he took that course, whether it was a
factious one or not may be a matter of opinion, be-
cause he thought it was the only way in which he
could obtain a majority against the bill. And how
did he obtain that majority? I can state it of my
own knowledge, by the concurrence, for party pur-
poses, of gentlemen not on ours but on the Opposi-
tion side of the house—of gentlemen who made no
secret of their approbation of the bill, of the main
principles of the bill—l speak not of its details—
and who, after the resolution had passed, announced
that it had been their intention to vote with the Go
vernment, but that they had at last been persuaded
to abstain from carrying out that intention:in con-
sequence of the party pressure which was brought
to bear upon them. I could name the individuals, if
I chose, who came to our managers, and said, " We do
not mean to vote against the bill, but what can we
do? All our leaders are for the resolution." (Laugh-
ter.) This is not the time or the place for so doing,
or I could name those gentlemen, and one in parti-
cular—a very eminent member of the Opposition—
who, after the bill was introduced, came to a distin-
guished member on our side, and said—" This is a
wise and liberal measure."- (Renewed laughter.)
Well, gentlemen, that may have been a very foolish
saying ; his words were, nevertheless, " This is a
wise and liberal measure." But when the struggle
came, when the party pressure came, these gentle.
men changed their minds, and without calmly or
wisely considering whether it was for the good of
the country, when it became a question whether A
or B should be in the councils of the Queen, the
matter assumed a new aspect in their sight, and
• they voted against us on the grounds I have just
• stated. Under these circumstances of course we felt
that we had no alternative but to appeal to the
country. (Cheers.) It is now in their hands. I think
I should not be using too strong an expression if I
said that it is a matter for universal regret that
members of the House of Commons—men of high
character, seeing a great national plan of this
kind before them, should, nevertheless, have been
so led away by party feeling and attachment to the
politics of their leaders as to be induced to abandon
all idea of discussing the measure on its merits, or
gravely entering into the question of whether or
not it might not be amended, and then as amended
become the law of the land--so led away as to give
their vote, solely looking to the momentary interests
of this or that ;political party ; but I must tell you
at the same time, as a member of the Government,
that, in a party sense, and bearing in mind that the
working of our constitutional system depends very
much on party action, I by no means regret that
things have taken the course they have. I must say
I by no means regret that there was a majority
against us. On the contrary, by that division the
Government were relieved of a great practical em-
barrassment. They were relieved from being in a
position in which no Government in this country
could long remain. From the moment we took office
we were more or less in an emlsarrassing position.
Lord Derby, as has been stated, frankly told
the Queen when her Majesty. summoned him to
her councils, that as we stood in the beginning of
1858, we could not reckon with certainty on the
support of more of than one-third of the members
of the House of Commons. Throughout the re-
mainder of the session in which that statement was
made we received from the independent Liberal sec-
tion of the members, as I may call them, a fair and
frank and very generous support; but we knew
that this could not go on, and it did not extend
very far into the present session. We were beaten
four or five times on different questions in a man-
ner extremely humiliating, extremely annoying,
and extremely injurious to the Government—in-
jurious to the Government, not in a narrow or party
sense, but injurious to the Government in the im-
portant sense of impairing their efficiency, impair-
ing their power, impairing their means of carrying
out what they thought was for the good of the
country. (Hear, hear.) I have no hesitation in
saying that I, on more than one occasion, felt that
embarrassment in the department of the Govern-
ment with which I am connected ; and in some in-
stances when there were proposals before the house
which I could not approve of, I was obliged to
pause and hesitate in order to consider, not
whether I approved of what was before the house,
but whether under the then existing state of
things I, as a Minister, had the power to oppose.
(Hear, hear.) That was not the position in which
to
which
a Government ought to remain, having regard
what is due to their own efficiency and honour and
to the people v. hose affairs they are called on to ad-
minister. Therefore it was a relief to my mind—
though the majority against us was obtained in a
manner which I thought wrong—that we were
afforded an opportunity of appealing manfully and
honestly to the country, snd leaving it to the coun-
try to decide the question as to the hands in which
the administration of the afThirs of the countryought
to be placed. (Hear, hear.) We have made that
appeal—we await the issue ; and we await it calmly
and with confidence as to the result. (Hear, and
cheers.) But reverting for a moment to this inte-
resting and important subject of reform, though I
should be only wasting your time if I ventured to
go at any length into the general merits of that
Reform Bill, I beg to tell you that we who are
responsible for ha: ing introduced it do not look
back to that bill with any feeling of regret for hav-
ing •brought it before the House of Commons.
(Hear.) I believe it found favour with a large portion
of the people of this country—(hear, hear)—and
while some portions of it were undoubtedly un-