The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-20 00:00:00

of, diminishing relatively the representation of these.classes
by increasing that of the occupying classes.
Mr. BENTINOK remarked that, although the pretence
for the bill was that its object was to extend the county
franchise, its practical effect would be to inundate the rural
districts with an urban constituency, and import into those
districts the corrupt practices of certain boroughs.
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, there are two things which
Ido not mean to do. The first is to oppose the motion of
my hon. friend for leave to bring in his bill ; and the second
is to argue the subject of which that bill treats. (A laugh,
and " Hear, hear.") I will not oppose the introduction of
the la, because, in the first place, that would be discour-
teous to my hen. friend ; and in the next place becau-e it
would expose me to the imputation of a change of opinion
upon the general question, which I cannot admit. ([leer,
hear.) I will not entei into a discussion of the subject to
which the bill relates for the same reason as that which led .
her Majesty's Government to decline proposing a measure
of reform in the present session ; that is to say, because I
think it would not be expedient to renew those discussions
which occupied so much of the time of the house last year.
(Hear.) I shall therefore not be able to vote with the hon.
member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith), because the immediate
Effect of carrying the amendment would be to negative the
motion of my hon. friend for leave to bring in the bill, and
because to adopt that amendment would be to anticipate the
discussion which eroperly belongs to the committee on the
bill, and which ought to be reserved for the expression of
the opinion of the house when we reach that stage. My
hon. friend the member for Norwich lamented that he be-
longed to a small remnant of the Liberal pal ty—(a laugh)
—and appeared to be inspired with a profound grief by that
idea. I would endeavour to console my hcn. friend on that.
point by pointing out to him what I think proper reflection
would lead him to see—that so far from being the deserted
remnant of the Liberal party, he and those who agree with
him are rather the centre of a very large Liberal party,
and that all sides of the house have come round, more
or less, to the principles which we used to call Liberal,
and which we could not have expected to see supported
so unanimously in former periods. (Hear, hear.) When
we observe both parties alternately bringing in a bill,
the principle of which was to enlarge the constitu-
encies of the country, and compare that with the period,
which we all recollect, when the Government said there
should be no reform at all, when we remember the great
number of Liberal measures which have been carriel'-`en'''
the common aseent of all parties in the house, we must see
that my hon. friend and his supporters, instead of lament.
beg that they have been deserted, ought rather to con-
gratulate themselves on the great progress they have
made in bringing round to their opinions almost all parties
in this house. (Hear, hear.) I must say I regret that
my hon. friend has made this motion, and that my hon.
friend the member for Leeds has announced another
motion of the same sort during the present session of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I regret it, as I have said,
because I deem it inexpedient to revive the question of
Reform in this session. My hon. friends, perhaps, thought
it necessary to propose these motions for the purpose of
showing that they had not changed their mind, and of
recording their continued adherence to those opinions and
sentiments which they expressed on former occasions,
but that was surely unnecessary, because nobody could
suspect either of my two hon. friends or those who agree
with them of changing their views on this question. (Hear.)
But if they expect that these questions shall be fully dis-
cussed in the house and brought to a final and suecessfnlissue
I think that the experience of the last session of Parliament
has in some degree been thrown away upon them. They ,
are proposing to us piecemeal the very measure which was
discussed as an entirety in the last session—(hear, hear)—
minus, indeed, a proposal for the transfer of seats, but I
have no doubt that that omissionnvill soon be supplied—(a
laugh)—and that some independent member will propose to
bring on the third portion of the Government bill of last
year. Now, the Government bill of last year failed, as it
appears to me, from two causes —first, a cause connected
with time, and, secondly, a cause connected with substance.
The Government felt it to be their duty, a duty arising out
of former opinions and pledges given, to propose at the
earliest moment a measure for extending the suffrage. They
redeemed that pledge, and it remained for the house to
determine whether the bill should be accepted or not. But
that house had been very recently elected ; it was impossi-
ble that members should net have fresh in their recollec-
tion all the inconveniences of a general election. (A laugh.)
It was not likely that their constituents should not also
remember all that disturbance e.f private mercantile and. •
other transactions which necessarily accompanies an elec-
tion; and therefore it was not to be supposed that tither
the members of this house or their constituents should for
its own sake wish for a recurrence of a general election;,
and yet it was obvious that a measure of that comprehen-
sive character, if carried, must at a very short subsequent
period render necessary an appeal to the country. Ido not
mean to say that that feeling would have been paramount,
and would have prevented the house from accepting a mea-
sure which was in itself agreeable to their opinions ; but it.
was manifest, from the lengthened discussions which took
place last year, that the particular measure was not alto-
gether to the taste of the majority of this house. (Op-
position cheers.) Some thought it went too far,
and others contended that it did not go far enough;
but whether it was too great or too small, it was •
quite evident that that measure was not destined to meet
the acceptance of the house in the course
of the session. Well, now, is the time much altered ? A
very few mouths have elapsed since that bill was with-
drawn, and I should not think it is reasonable to believe
that the objection in point of time can have very mush
altered in the interval. Does the objection to the substance
vary ? Why, my loon. friends have taken care that that.
objection shall not vary, because, as far as their two pro-
posals go, they introduce the identical details which this
house was last year not prepared to accept. We have seen
in a public document which we have all read this morning,,
a remark which I think is not wholly inapplicable to this
subject—viz., that there is a time for action, and there, is
a time for waiting. Now, with great deference to my hon.
friend, I would venture to say that with regard to the
question of an organic change in' the representation of
the people, I think that the present session is a time for
waiting rather than a time for action. That was the opi-
nion which the Government entertained, and I am sorry
that it has not been shared by my honourable friends..
However, they have thought it right to bring in their mea-
sures, and I am not going to oppose the introduction of
either of them. At the same time, as the Government have
not thoughtit their duty to ask the hcuse in this session to
undertake the question of reform, and as, while I differ from
the hon. member for Norwich (Mr. Warner) and do not,
think that a plan for altering the working of the constitu-
tion of the country ought to be referred to a select com-
mittee upstairs, I am of opinion that great and important
measures of this kind ought rather to originate with the re-
sponsible Government—(cheers)—than be thrown loose by
individual members to take their chance. I certainly regret
that my hon. friends should have taken upon themselves a
duty which I think properly belongs to the Ministers of
the Crown. That being the case, although I would not
even if I might succeed, ask the house to be guilty of
the discourtesy of refusing permission to bring in these
bills, still I must say that my hon, friend must
not expect those facilities which the Government
is often asked to afford to members who have
charge of bills. (Laughter.) "Do not," it is said,
" throw us on to Wednesdays. Time is passing; difficulties
arise. You have only the estimates in hand, you have only
the Bankruptcy Bill—only measures of public importance;
give us a day." lam constrained to say that I shall object
to make such concessions to these bills, and therefore my
hon. friends, having brought in their measures—as I trune,
they will be allowed to do—must take neon themselves aIX
the responsibility of their further progress, and must hol
her Majesty's Government free to deal with them, as fir
as we may feel it our duty to mix ourselves up with therse
exactly as we may from time to time see fit. The only thing
as to which I can pronounce a decided intention is that
ewe
cannot afford any assistance to my hon. friends in further-
in g the progress of their measures by giving up Government
days. (Hear.)
d after the tempo_ Mr. DISRAELI—Under the circumstances under which
this bill is introduced to our notice, pia
lord,
especially
rate and very sensible remarks of thetofuthe Government, I
with respect to the future ctilon:h!ine
troduction of this bill,
am not prepared to oppose
asked by one who is so well en-
more especially as leav-eth
ibon. member for Surrey ; nor
titled to courtesy
and not that hon. gentleman fallen into
nature of the measure which I intro-
when he claimed me as d supporter
duced into this house,
as hgoruelaelt
principle of his bill. The hon. gentleman was one of
of thewho would not allow the Reform Bill of
lerhraovreasritsoenth"he
the Liberal party,
Lord Derby's Government to be read a second time, and I
have no doubt that it is in consequence of his precipitate
action upon that occasion that he is so ill acquainted with
the details of that measure. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
The bill which I introduced did not adopt the principle of
the hon. gentleman. It certainly proposed a £lO occupa-
tion as a qualification for the suffrage in comities, but the
primary qualification was an occupation of land of that
annual value ; a suffrage very different from that pro-
poeed by the hon. gentleman, and one which, had I been
permitted to go into committee upon that bill, I should
have been able to show would have produced con-
sequences quite different from those which nee'
hon. friend the member for 'West Norfolk anticipates will
flow from the bill of the hon. gentleman. That bill also
embraced as a secondary suffrage a £lO occupation of
houses, but the primary suffrage was derived from a •.£lO
occupation of land. But was that all ? Besides these occu-
pation franchises there were, I think, ten other very im-
portant county franchises created by that bill, of all of
which the tendency would have been—l do not use the
epithet in a party, but in a political and social sense—of a
highly conservative nature. There was introduced into,
the counties that lodger franchise to which I attributed
very great importance ; there was also a framehise arising
from the possession of funded and personal )property,and
a variety of county franchises founded upoe e intelligere
and education, Therefore the hon. gentler man
is
Iv
3 has
B°long
ot
all justified in stating that gentlemen on idxiis olde on; the
house have adopted the principle which
and with so much honour to his cons icpacteuneiL
rat 44
advo-
cated, the discussion of which has, however, ,
valuable public time, and the adoption of, which would to