The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

tuencies and the favourites of the nation. (Cheers.) It can-
not be denied that whatever advantages have attended our
Parliamentary reforms, we have latterly by what we have
done narrowed the means of ingress to the House of Com-
mons. (Hear.) What chance would there be for any of the
six men I have mentioned, at the age of 21 or 22, under the

as it is in their power the progress of the Reform Bill in-
troduced by the present Ministry is a topic and a plea
which ought to have some considerable weight. It must
be remembered, however, that the resolution of the noble
member for the City has been supported by many hon.
gentlemen, including my right hon. friend the member for
Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), as being not an unusually
severe and stringent method of interference with the course
of the bill ; but, on the contrary, a singularly mild one, and
as a milder measure than a negative upon the second reading.
But when we are administering our measures of mildness,
and especially when they are almost entirely novel in their
form, it is of some importance to consider in what manner
they will be received by the patient—(laughter and cheers)
—and on this occasion the patient is so reluctant and refrac-
tory that, instead of accepting the recommendations of the
noble lord the member for Tiverton—instead of acquiescing
in the view that this is merely a gentle caveat put in on the
part of the house lest it should be overborne and suppressed
by the strength of the Government in committee—the Go-
vernment who are to receive and acquiesce in this resolu-
tion have treated it as a resolution which not only is not
milder than a negative upon the second reading, but which
stigmatises both their bill and themselves in such a manner
as to make it impossible for them to accept it. (Cheers.)
It is utterly useless to inquire whether the Government are
right or wrong in that view of the matter, but. the impor-
tant fact for us to consider is that they have announced that
if the resolution be passed their bill cannot proceed. The
question, therefore, comes to be whether, upon the whole,
we think it is for the interest of the country in connection
with the great subject of reform that the bill should go into
committee, or that it should not go into committee. If the
resolution passes, the second reading of the bill cannot be
proposed by the Government. If the resolution fails, the
second reading will be proposed, and, while I anticipate
that the resolution of my noble friend will be carried, it
appears equally clear from what has occurred, and from
what has been said by my noble friend the member for
Tiverton, that if we proceed to the question of the
second reading that proposition will be carried, and
that there will be an opportunity of dealing with the
bill in committee. I want to know, therefore, what are
the clauses of the bill itself ; and I begin by frankiy
admitting that I concur, I am sorry to say, in very
nearly everything that has been said against the bill.
(Cheers, and a laugh.) I have something to say pre-
sently upon a point which has been very little touched
upon, but I must admit that I concur in the objections to
the bill which have been raised as prominently on this (the
Ministerial) as on the other side of the house. I concur in
the objections which have been taken by the noble member
for Tiverton and by the noble member for the city. I can-
not be a party to the disfranchisement of the county free-
holders residing in boroughs. I cannot be a party to the
uniformity of the franchise. I cannot be a party to a Re-
form Bill which does not lower the suffrage in boroughs.
(Cheers.) I may go a step further, and say it appears to
me that the lowering of the suffrage in boroughs is the
main purpose of having a Reform Bill—(Opposition cheers)
—and that unless we are to have that lowering of the suf-
frage it would be better that we should not waste our time
on this subject. (Cheers.) But, while I concur entirely
in these objections, I must make a concession on the part
of the bill, in which I shall follow, though rather fully,
what was stated by my noble friend the member for Tiver-
ton. I think I understood him correctly to say in his able
speech that he approved generally of that portion of the bill
relating to the redistribution of seats. I think I did not
misunderstand him, but that he approved generally of that
portion of :the plan. (Lord Palmerston intimated his as-
sent.) I did not understand the noble member for the city
of London to object to that portion of the bill, nor did I un-
derstand that my right hon. friend near me (Sir J. Graham)
objected to it, but that feature of the measure has been very
generally passed over in silence, and I own that I think less
than justice has been done to the bill in that respect. I feel
bound in honour to say that upon the whole I cannot help
approving that portion of the bill. (Cheers.) I think that
it is an improvement upon the measure to which I was my-
self a party in 1854. This is no small or trifling matter.
(Cheers.) In point of fact, the question of the redistri-
bution of seats is full half of your whole Reform Bill.
(Cheers.) The redistribution of seats and the ar-
rangement of the franchise make up the measure. I
will endeavour to explain frankly and fearlessly the rea-
sons why I think that upon the whole this bill has been
framed wisely with respect to the re-distribution of seats.
I believe the bill we introduced in 1854 would infallibly—
to use a homely phrase—have " gone to the dogs," on ac-
count of the extent of disfranchisement it proposed. (Hear,
hear.) We may throw out this bill, and we may have
another bill brought in which proposes to disfranchise 60,
70, or 80 boroughs, but won't such a proposal be strongly
opposed by the 60, 70, or 80 members who hold seats for
those boroughs? I listened with great attention the other
night to the speech of the hon. member for Sandwich, who
has given us fair notice what course he intends to pursue.
He has told the noble lord below him that he is perfectly
willing to join with him for the purpose of destroying the
bill of the Government, but when his noble friend has suc-
ceeded to power and introduced his bill the hon. member
for Sandwich anticipates that his noble friend will again
bind him and lay him on the altar. (Laughter.)
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said the disfran-
chisement of Sandwich had never been proposed, except by
the hon. member for Birmingham.
Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The hon. gentleman
would, no doubt, be prepared to show strong reasons, not
why other boroughs should not be disfranchised, but why
Sandwich should be retained. (Laughter.) If an extensive
measure of disfranchisement was insroduced, 60, or 70, or
80 votes of the representatives of the boroughs proposed to
be disfranchised would be combined in the division; and
what would become of the Reform Bill introduced with a
magnificent scheme for the redistribution of seats ? I must
frankly own it appears to me that to proceed far in the
disfranchisement of small boroughs is a course injurious
to the efficiency of the House of Commons. You must
not consider in this matter the question only of the electors.
You must consider quite as much who are likely to be the
elected. (Hear.) And permit me to say that the time has
come when, in the examination of any scheme of reform,
it is of vital and capital importance that this matter should
be brought fully under the view of the house. Let me
point out that the Reform Bill of 1832 has not, in this
respect, been fairly and fully tried. For 27 years, it is
true, it has been in operation, and it has communicated
great vigour to the working of the legislative machine. For
the first 10 or 15 years of that period the working of the re-
formed Parliament exhibited a union of power, circum-
spection, and sagacity such as it would be difficult to find an
equal to in the history of legislative assemblies. But look
at the advantages which attended the first working of this
change in our representation. It is true we had a new elec-
toral system, but we had the old statesmen to work it.
(Hear, hear.) Read the admirable argument of Lord Macau-
lay in his " History of William lII.' upon the state of the
House of Commons at that time, before you had organised
the system under which Ministries are constituted and
maintained in this country. The House of Commons was
then an assembly of units incapable of forming into one
body and of workinc, together. Why is it that, from that
time to the present, they have become, instead of a mere
aggregate of units, an organized whole, capable of conduct-
ing the affairs of this great empire ? It has been because
of the race of statesmen who have adorned this house, who
have been reared from generation to generation under the
operation of your improved Parliamentary system, and of
that race, I rejoice to say, notwithstanding the 27 years
that have elapsed since the Reform Bill, a very consider-
able number still remain to us. (Hear, hear.) Now, how
were these men introduced into the House of Commons ?
I am sure I may entreat the patience of the house. (Hear,
hear.) I need not trouble them with wearisome citations ;
but it is really worth our while to consider how this great
provision for the exigencies of the country has been made.
We have heard in the course of this debate some apology
for small constituencies, and it never was my lot to sit for
one. At the same time small constituencies undoubtedly
tend to answer the great purpose of a representative system
in securing its diversity and completeness. (Hear, hear.)
If you have nothing but large and populous bodies to return
your members of Parliament, there, as recent experience
seems, I am sorry to say, in a great degree to prove, local
interests and local influences will upon the whole prevail—
(hear)—and you will not find it possible to introduce ade-
quately into this house the race of men by whom the Go-
vernment of the country is to be carried on. (Hear.) By
means of small boroughs, generally considered—l have no
doubt there are objections to them, but I believe those ob-
jections are gradually disappearing under the action of im-
proved laws and an improved state of public feeling(hear)—
by means of small boroughs you introduce into this house
the representatives of separate interests, who stand apart
from the great and paramount interests of the country.
(Hear, hear.) You introduce here the masters of civil wis-
dom, such as Mr. Burke above all, Sir James Mackintosh,
and many others who might be named—a class of men with
respect to whom nothing is less probable than that they
should command to any great extent the suffrages of large
and populous constituencies. (Hear, hear.) You introduce
those calm, sagacious, retired observers who are averse
from the rough contact necessary in canvassing large bodies
of electors, but who form no small part of the best sub st rata
of this house, and contribute greatly to the efficiency of your
representative system. (Hear, hear.) Many, however, have
spoken on behalf of small boroughs. I want to speak on be-
half of a certain description of small boroughs—of those
where, from kindly interest, from ancient and affectionate
recollections, from local and traditional respect, from the
memory of services received, from the admiration of great
men and great qualities, the constituencies are willing to
take upon trust the recommendation of candidates for Par-
liament from noblemen or gentlemen who may stand in im-
mediate connection with them. (Cries .1" Oh.") I do not
complain at all of that interruption. I admit that there is
something of paradox in such an argument upon such a
question, if it is to be considered as an argument upon paper
only; but practice bas proved that the real paradox lies
with those who will allow of no ingress into the house but
one. (Hear.) If that one ingress is to be the suffrages of a
large mass of voters, the consequence is a dead level
of mediocrity—(cheers)—which destroys not only the or-
liament but the force 6f this house, and which, as I think
the history of other countries will show, is ultimately fatal
to the liberties of the people. (Cheers.) Allow me in expla-
nation of my meaning to state the case of six men in one
line each,—Mr. Pelham, Lord Chatham, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt,
Mr. Canning, and Sir R. Peel. Mr. Pelham entered this
house for the borough of Seaford in 1719, at the age of 22 ;
Lord Chatham entered it in 173,5, for Old Sarum, at the age
of 26 ; Mr. Fox in 1764, for Midhurst, at the age, I think,
of 20 ; Mr. Pitt in 1781, for Appleby, at the age of 21; Mr.
Canning in 1793, for Newport, at the age of 22 ; and Sir R.
Peel in 1809, for the city of Cashel, at the age of 21. Now,
here are six men, every one of whom was a leader in this
house. I take them because the youngest is older than the
eldest of those who now sit here, and because the mention
of their names can give rise to no personal feeling. Here
are six men whom you cannot math out of the history of
the British House of Commons for the hundred years which
precede our own day. (Hear.) Every one of them was a
leader in this house, almost every one was a Prime Minister,
all of them entered Parliament for one of those boroughs
where influence of different kinds prevailed. Every one of
them might, if he had chosen, after giving proof of his
powers in this house, have sat for any of the open consti-
tuencies of the country, and many of them did so. Mr.
Pelham, after sitting for Seaford in one Parliament, repre-
sented Sussex for all the rest of his life. Lord Chatham
never, I think, represented an open constituency. Mr.
Fox, after sitting for Midhurst, became the chosen for West-
minster. Mr. Pitt went from Appleby at a very early age
to the University of Cambridge. Mr. Canning went from
Newport to Liverpool, and Sir R. Peel from Cashel to the
University of Oxford. Now, what was the case of Sir
R. Peel ? The University, on account of a conscientious
difference of opinion, refused the continuance of his services.
They would have been lost to the British Parliament—
'(Oh l)—at that moment at all events. (Hear.) But at West
bury he found an immediate refuge—for so it must be called
—and he continued to sit for a small borough for the re-
mainder of his life. Mr. Canning, in the same way, net
losing but resigning the representation of Liverpool, found
it more conducive to the public business that he should be-
come the representative of a small borough for the rest of
his days. What does this show ? It shows that small
boroughs were the nursery ground in which these men were
educated—(hear, hear)—men who not only were destined
to lead this house, to govern the country, to be the strength
of England at home and its ornament abroad, but who like-
wise, when once they had an opportunity of proving their
powers at this house, became the chosen of large coast'.

present system ? (Hear.) It is not too much to say that no
one of these mere boys could have become a member of Par-

liament if it had not been for the means of access to the
House of Commons which then existed. (Hear, hear.)

You must recollect that they were nearly all chosen when
they were about 21 or 22. What is the case now ? I fully
grant that you have an answer as far as regards a very
limited class of persons indeed. Take the heir to a duke-
dom or an earldom, or the son of a great territorial poten-
tate, and there will be ready access to Pailiament for such
men ; nor, I trust, shall we ever see any measures adopted
which will exclude them. (Hear, hear.) I rejoice to see
that by so limited a class so much ability and so much pro-
mise is shown. If you look to the young men of this day
—and, after all, it is to them we must look to carry on the
business of the country in future years—the most distin-
guished persons in this house are the men who owe their
seats here to territorial influence. (Hear. hear.) But what
would have been Mr. Canning's chance had he been de-
' pendent on that influence ? I do not know what would
have been the chances of Mr. Fox or Mr. Pitt or Sir R.

Peel at 21 or 22 if they had been dependent on territorial
influence. You cannot expect of large and populous con-
stituencies that they should return boys to Parliament ;
and yet if you want a succession of men trained to take
part in the Government of the country, you must have a
great proportion of them returned to this house while they
are boys. (Hear, hear.) The conclusion to which this
brings me is that the matter will be a more serious one if
you are prepared to part with your whole system of small
boroughs. lam not arguing this in the sense of one party
or another; far less am I arguing this in the sense adverse
to popular rights. For what, let me ask, have these men
whose names I have just mentioned been ? Have they
been the enemies of popular rights ? (Hear, hear.) Is it
not, upon the contrary, under Providence, in a great
degree to be attributed to a succession of those distin-
guished statesmen, introduced at an early age into
this house, and once made known in this house se-
curing to themselves the general favour of their
countrymen, that we enjoy our present extension of
popular liberty, and, above all, the durable form
which that liberty has assumed? (Cheers.) lam aware
that this has now become a rather antiquated subject.
(Hear, hear, from an hon. member on the Opposition side
of the house.) I thank the hon. gentleman for his concur-
rence in the sentiment to which I have given expression—
(laughter)—and let me remind him that there are many
things which are old which are nevertheless good. (Cheers
and laughter.) But, sir, we are called upon ix this discus-
sion to consider a subject which, as my noble friend the
member for London has so well stated, involves, not only
our own condition, but the condition of our children and of
our latest posterity. In dealing with it I wish to ask myself
the question how the benches of this house are to be filled ;
how all the diversities of powers and aptitudes which have
formed this great nation are to find their way within those
sacred precincts of the constitution after we shall have lost
the guiding influence and authority of that race of statesmen
who were reared under our ancient system, particularly if
we should proceed by rash and unwise legislation to cut off
from our representative system that class of constuencies
through the medium of which alone, with the exception of the
case of the eldest sons and heirs of great families, the energy
and vigour of the nation can easily be introduced into the
House of Commons at an age at which they may become
available for the public service. (Cheers.) This question
in my opinion involves a reason, and no inconsiderable
reason, for our proceeding in committee, if possible, with
the bill uhder our notice. (Hear, hear.) It seems to
me that there is really very little to be said against the adop-
tion of that course when we come to the consideration of
what the practical advantage is which my noble friend
the member for London promises to himself from the
success of his resolution. (Hear, hear.) I for one confess
I am entirely at a loss—and I shall not dwell upon this part
of the subject, because of my total ignorance with respect to
it—to understand how the position of my noble friend will
be in any way improved, or how his views will be nearer
accomplishment, if on the morning on which the division
takes place he should learn from the triumphant cheers
of his supporters the announcement that his motion has
been successful. My noble friend bolds certain opinions. He
thinks the county freeholders in boroughs ought not to be
disfranchised ; that the suffrage in boroughs ought to be
lowered, and that the bill ought not to be based upon the
principle of uniformity. Well, that being so, has he not,
let me ask, ascertained from what has occurred in the course
of this debate that he is perfectly certain to carry into effect,
if he pleases, his views upon every one of those points in
committee ? (Cheers.) The opinions of my noble friend are
embodied in his resolution, which if carried at all—and car-
ried I presume it will be—will only be carried by some small
majority. But if we go into committee on the bill, his propo-
sition with respect to the disfranchisement of the county
freeholders in boroughs will be supported by every member
on that, and by a large proportion of those who sit upon this
(the Ministerial) side of the house. (Hear, hear.) In like
manner his proposal for lowering the suffrage in boroughs
will, I imagine, receive almost unanimous support from
those hon. members who sit upon the benches behind him,
while no inconsiderable support will be extended to it by
those hon. gentlemen who sit here; so that, in point of fact,
the success of the resolution, instead of exhibiting truly
and fully the views of the House of Commons in favour of
the opinions put forth by my noble friend, will exhibit the
degree of favour in which those opinions "are entertained to
great disadvantage. (Loud cheers.) There are the very
men (pointing to Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley) who have
been the first champions—l may say the martyrs)—of those
opinions—(hear, hear)—and if I have rightly interpreted
the speech of my right hon. friend the member for the
University of Cambridge, who holds these sentiments in
conjunction with my noble friend opposite, he will feel
obliged to go into a different lobby from the noble lord
should this resolution be pressed to a division, and thus
appear to oppose him, while in reality he approves the
main propositions which he has laid down. (Cheers.)
But what is the reason assigned by my noble friend for
adopting the course which he has pursued ? He says
" I am asked why I do not, instead of proposing this reso-
lution, vote against the second reading of the Bill! My
answer is, that if I were to do so my conduct would be liable
to misinterpretation. It would be supposed, if I voted
against the Bill that I was opposed to the £lO occupation
franchise in counties." Well, but if the wish of my noble
friend was to escape unjust criticism and cavil, he has
surely not succeeded in the attainment of his object.
(Cheers and laughter.) On the contrary, he has failed ;
while I may be permitted to observe that the excuse which
he has offered, with, I have no doubt, is perfect bona fide, for
not voting against the second reading of the Bill, instead
of moving his amendment, is, I fear, exactly the description
of reason which will hereafter be assigned by those who may
make a point of perverting the example of my noble friend
to the purposes of picking a hole in a measure which may
be presented by the Government, rather than subject them-
selves to risk of being represented throughout the country
as having voted against a measure which contained some
good provisions. (Hear, hear.) Well, but what, let me
ask, is to be the result of the division which we are about to
take on this bill ? The point is one on which we know
very little; but it appears to me, I confess, that if this re-
solution had not been moved those who are favourable to
the opinions which it enunciates would be in the position
of what our neighbours at the other side of the Channel
would call " masters of the situation ;" would be in the
majority, and would, in short, be overwhelming in giving
effect in committee to the principles of which they are the
advocates. (Cheers.) Now, permit me in passing to
make a single remark on a point which is not devoid of
importance. I understood the right hon. baronet the First
Ldrd of the Admiralty to say that the Government looked
upon the principle of uniformity of suffrage as a matter
which might be dealt with in committee. The omission
on that head which occurred in the speech of the Secretary
for the Colonies was supplied by the right hon. baronet.
That being so, it seems to me that if we should not pass
this resolution we should be sure to attain the objects
which it seeks to effect. But have we an equally good
assurance upon that score if the resolution is successful ?
(Hear, hear.) If we pass the resolution it will not rest
with us to take the next step. The hon. member for Bir-
mingham indeed says something about digging a hole in
the floor of this house, burying the bill, and huddling up
this question. (A laugh) My hon friend is no doubt a
great authority upon such points, for he, I venture to say,
knows more than any one else about digging holes and
burying bills. (Cheers and laughter.) But what, let me
ask, do the words "huddling up this question" really mean?
My hon. friend spoke somewhat cautiously the other even-
ing—(" Hear, hear," and laughter)—his circumspection,
indeed, was such that it was impossible to tell what he was
aiming at. I listened to his speech, I confess, with great
pleasure, but I did not quite understand why it was that my
hon. friend was so much alarmed at the idea of this ques-
tion being " huddled up." We are not going to vote upon
it through the medium of the ballot. (Cheers and laughter.)
Such a process would, I admit, be something. like "huddling
it up." (Hear, hear.) We have now arrived at the sixth
night of this debate. This is. the eighth or ninth year in
which you have been engaged in the discussion of this sub-
ject. The speeches made upon it are reported by the yard
—I should, perhaps, be more accurate in saying by the
mile (a laugh)—and printed off by the million. We are
acting in the face of day, and in the presence of our coun-
trymen. There is no mystery about the matter. The idea
of " huddling up the question" is therefore absurd. (Hear,
hear.) There need be no alarm upon that score. The only
ground for fear in connection with the subject is that agita-
tion with respect to it might be prolonged. (Cheers.) I
cannot see, under all the circumstances of the case, that the
resolution of my noble friend is calculated to have any other
effcet than to retard its settlement. (Cheers.) If we should
go into committee we must, I concur with the right hon.
gentleman the member for Stroud in thinking, deal with
this measure irrespective of the feelings of those by whom
it was introduced. The question we have to consider is
not whether we shall then pass the bill in its pre-
sent shape. lam free to admit that so fsr as regards those
points in the bill to which exception is taken you are fully
Justified in your opposition to them. It is consideration
for the public interest and apprehension of the conse-
quences which would be likely to follow an adverse vote
on this occasion that alone would withhold me from giving
effect to that opposition in the manner which you propose.
Let me ask the noble lord the member for Tiverton what
are the views which he entertains—after what he has heard
since he addressed the house the other evening—with re-
spect to the result pf the decision at which the House of
Commons may arrive ? I put the question to him perhaps
with the more confidence because I know that by the rules
of the house he is prevented from replying to me.
(Laughter.) He has, however, got around him an ad-
mirable staff as yet exhausted, and we shall, I dare say,
learn from some member of it what it is which the noble
lord contemplates as a consequence of the success of his
resolution. The noble lord distinctly said to us the other
evening, " Give your votes for the resolution, and I will
tell you what will follow—the progress of the bill under
the auspices of the very men by whom it was framed."
The noble viscount, in short, condemned the Government
to retain their places and their bill, thus following a great
historic precedent, consecrated by many ages, in accord-
ance with which, galley slaves are chained to their oars.
Since the speech of the noble lord was delivered, however,
we have been informed, on the part of the Government,
that the bill will not be proceeded with if the resolution
should be carried. (Hear.) I deem it my duty, therefore,
to consider what we have to apprehend in the event of this
resolution being successful, not in the interest of the Go-
veroment, but of reform itself. (Hear.) With respect to
the former consideration I can only say it is of too small a
nature to be put for one moment in competition with that
more weighty one which ought to rule our decision on the
present occasion. (Hear, hear.) I cannot hesitate to
oafgmtehewiftahtethoofsea who
iasrteryofhaospinbeioenn tphuasthetdhissotewsthioant
too far. (Hear, hear.) I am of opinion,. for instance, thatthe
language which was used by my right hon. friend the
member for the University of Cambridge with reference to
Lord Malmesbury, who, he seemed to say, had constituted
England the mediator of Europe, was somewhat too warm
in its colouring—(cheers and laughter)—and was the result
rather of friendship than of the dictates of a strictly judicial
mind. (Hear, hear.) I feel convinced—while lam grateful
to Lord, Malmesbury for what he leas done as well as for

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 30, 1859.

what he has not done—that any Government which may be
formed at the present moment will be constructed with a
due sense of the heavy responsibility which it must be pre-
pared to undertake, as well with respect to the question of
reform as in connection with the subject of foreign affairs.
(Hear, hear.) Lord Mahnesbury, however, is not the only
man who must be presumed to feel a due anxiety for the
preservation of peace. That sentiment, on the contrary, has
taken possession of the country, and I trust that those who
labour in giving effect to it will feel, as I have no doubt

Lord Malinesbury- does, that if we hope to establish a dur-
able peace we must attempt to do something to mitigate
those greatevils which are the real source and fountain-head

of the present embarrassments, and which, so long as they
continue unmitigated, will inevitably produce the recurrence
of those embarrassments in an aggravated form from time to
time. It is not a question of the Government, but it is a ques-
tion of the bill and of reform. The bill is not to go forward in

the hands of the present Administration. Consider, then,
that you are to lose an engine by means of which, I must
confess it appears to me, effect might be given to the ideas
of the house respecting Parliamentary Reform. (Hear.)
What else is to happen ? is Parliament to be dissolved ?
The noble viscount (Lord Palmerston) says, '"No; I will
prevent that." But the doctrine of the noble viscount ap-
pears to me to trench upon uncertain ground—(hear, hear)
—and, if the case should arise, I am not at all sure that
prophecy would be fulfilled. Then, is there to be a resig-
nation ? The noble viscount says that is quite impossible ;
but, as one of his predictions as to the Government carrying
forward the bill has failed, I am not sure that he might not
be frustrated in this instance too. A dissolution would be
an evil, and I do not think a resignation of Ministers at this
moment—and many members in this house share that opi-
nion—would contribute to an early or an easy settlement
of this question. (Hear, hear.) There is another alterna-
tive which has not been alluded to in this debate, neither
dissolution nor resignation, but with reference to the state
of foreign affairs, or to the gravity of circumstances, we may
have a distant prospect of a dissolution, dropping this bill
now with a prospect of bringing in some other bill at some
future time. But, come what may, although I can't forecast
the future, I say the first step in determining it will not
then be with the majority of this house, but will be with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues ; but as you
have now the matter in your own hands, I hope you will
keep it there instead of subjecting yourselves to the chances
and consequences that may follow upon any resolution which
the Government, considering their own interests, may think
fit to take. I think, also, whatever resolution may be come
to by the Government, whether to resign, to dissolve, or to
drop the bill, and wait for a hostile attack, we shall have to
regret a further postponement of this question. (Hear, hear.)
I used the words " hostile attack" upon the Government,
and we have recently had reason to expect that such an
attack would be made.. objected to the compliment paid by
my right hon. friend to Lord Malmesbury, but I must say,
of all the compliments that have been paid to the Govern-
ment in the course of the debate, none can compete with
that paid them by the hon. member for Beaumaris (Mr. 0.
Stanley). (Laughter and cheers.) That hon. member pro-
duced a motion, announcing that in a certain contingency,
which he expected might occur, he would move a vote of
want of confidence in the Government. He gave that notice
in one Parliamentary sitting, and he withdrew it the next.
(Cheers.) That certainly was a very short life for a proposi-
tion of so formidable a character.
" Ostendent terns hunt tantans fata, nec ultra
Esse sinent'
The writer from whom I quote says of his hero, that his
" enemies fled when they saw his burnished armour gleam-
ing in the shade." My hon. friend (and he is the gentle-
man who has accomplished the feat) fled when he saw his
own armour. (Cheers and laughter.) I only refer to the
subject to show the state of Parliamentary confusion into
which we are likely to fall. Admitting that there is no com-
bination—and it has been in the frankest manner denied
that there is any combination among those who form the
majority upon this resolution—l think that majority can be
but a misfortune to us all according to our declared views,
except to the hon. member for Birmingham, who has told
us he does not wish this matter to be settled now. (Loud
sheers.) lam not sure that lam speaking the hon. mem-
ber's words, but I am certainly stating the inference I drew
from his speech—the metaphors of digging a hole and
.‘ huddling up" give me that impression. (Hear, hear.) I
confess for my own part I am most anxious for a settlement
of this question. The concurrence of opinions, and the
manly declarations that have been made by my noble friend
(Lord J. Russell) not long ago, by my noble friend the
member for Tiverton on Friday night, and by others as to
this question of Reform, appear to me to hold out to us a
golden opportunity which is at present within our reach,
bit of which, if we let it slip now, no man can predict the
return. (Hear, hear.) It is a misfortune to have this
question agitated from year to year. (Cheers.) After the
number of miscarriages—innocent miscarriages, no doubt,
but still miscarriages—that we have had upon this subject,
it is impossible but that the credit of Parliament must suffer
if every alternate year a promise of a Reform Bill is given,
ant in every other year of the two we find a bill introduced
and broken down. It is bad for the nation that this
home, which has so much business to transact on the part
of this country and our vast empire, should be perpe-
tually engaged in constitutional and organic discussions.
(Hear, hear.) Granted all our strength—and I believe
no assembly in the world transacts business to the ex-
tent which this house does—granted all our strength and
earnestness, such is the vastness of our concerns, the accu-
mulation of ur territories, such the diversity of the inte-
rests of the subjects of the Queen in different portions
of the globe, that we• cannot keep abreast of that mass
of business, it is continually falling into arrear. Constantly,
in one portion of the empire or another, in one department
of public business or another, we find there is such a failure
(to discharge the full duties of legislation as is most unfor-
tunate and injurious, and which would be nothing less than
disgraceful were it not that the failure does not arise from
weakness or unwillingness on the part of this house, but
because the demands of the British empire surpass and
transcend the powers of any assembly. Do what you will
the wave of public business will overtake you. If you have
a laborious session one year, you have a more laborious one
next year. We cannot afford—as a mere matter of time—to
pass year after year, to fritter away the principal part of
each session in debating the question of Parliamentary Re-
form. I say, too, over and above the loss of time, it is a
dangerous habit for the country to fall into. (Hear.) It is an
unhalthy sign in the state of the public mind, or rather it
would be an unhealthy reign, if there was a desire in the
public mind to keep open such a question. No individual
can be constantly watching the state of his own health
without injuring it ; and a disposition to be continually agi-
tating a question of organic change has not only an un-
wholesome effect upon us, withdrawing our attention from
other important matters, but it diminishes the stability of
our institutions, and tends to disqualify England few the
performance of those great duties which she has to dis-
charge both to herself and to the world. (Cheers.) I,
therefore, am not willing to be governed upon the question
before us by any other consideration than the simple one of
in which way shall I give my vote that will be most likely
to help on this great question to a settlement. I agree with
the hon. member for Birmingham that we should endeavour
to settle this question in a spirit of trust towards the people,
and we are getting all the proceedings of legislation more
and more upon that sound and satisfactory basis. lam
convinced such will be the only principles upon which this
house will act whenever it conies to deal decisively and con-
clusively with the particulars of a measure of reform, but I
entreat the hon. member not to use his influence—to what-
ever other purpose he may apply it—to procure a postpone-
ment and a prolongation of these discussions. (Cheers.) For
my own part, I can most freely say that the vote which I
shall give will not be with any regard to the Government
nor to party, and I trust I have given no offence to any one
by the remarks which I have addressed to the house. (Hear.)
I accord fully to every other,member that which I humbly
and respectfully claim for myself, after a perhaps too pro-
longed, but at the same time honest and free expression of
my sentiments, and I shall vote to negative the resolution
of my noble friend, because I am sure by that vote we shall
best discharge the great duty that is incumbent upon us as
chief among the guardians of the British constitution and
the welfare of the British dominions. (Loud cheers.)
Amidst the tumult caused by a very large number of
members leaving the house,
Mr. MONCREIFF said he agreed with almost every
.
opinion that had been urged by the right hon. gentleman,
but he totally differed from his conclusion. The best justi-
fication of the noble lord's resolution was to be found in the
fact that those portions of the bill against which it was
directed were not mere isolated details, but formed the very
foundation of it, without which the bill could not exist.
There was not a single portion of the bill which the right
hon. gentleman would not alter in committee. (Hear.) The
bill, however, was not a mere framework, not a mere sheet
of paper on which to write their views ; it had cohesion and
a principle. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the
Colonies said the people were apathetic, whilst the member
for Birmingham said there was great feeling on the subject.
In his opinion the truth lay between the two ; the people
might be apathetic, but they were not quiescent. If such
had been the opinion of the Government their conduct in
laying the bill on the table was totally indefensible. The
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when
he was in a position to give advice on this subject, instead of
receiving it, said a Government ought never to introduce
such a bill unless they were in a position to carry out their
pledge • such a question ought not to be treated with levity.
It would never do for a Government to fling on the table a
crude, undigested measure, and excuse themselves by say-
ing the people were apathetic. This question should never
be dealt with in a trembling, faltering manner. This bill
settled nothing, but unsettled everything. It was said that
if the franchise were not uniform there would always be
agitation. He had not the same dread of agitation that
many gentlemen seemed to have, believing that the healthy
working of the constitution depended partly upon agitation,
and that where the object was not reasonable m itself it was
not likely to be attained. But would agitation be avoided
by means of the proposed uniformity ? On the contrary, he
would promise the Government the most hearty opposition
to uniformity. If uniformity were enacted this year it would
have to be repealed next year. (Hear.) As regarded the
consequences of the approaching division, he did not know
that they (the Opposition) had anything to do with the
question of a change of Government. He entirely objected
to the tone which had been adopted on that subject—to the
attempt which had been made to evade the question before
the house, by insisting that before they came to a vote they
should shadow forth the political arrangements which might
arise from it. Much as the people desired Parliamentary
reform, there was another thing which they equally desired;
they wished to see the Government strong enough to carry
such measures as they believed to be required for the wel-
fare of the people ; they wished to see the responsibility of
business placed upon its proper constitutional basis; and
whatever might be the result of that debate, he was fully
persuaded that far more hazardous and more revolutionary
than any extension of the franchise among the working
classes was the existence of a Government which had not
power to carry out what it considered best for the interest
of the people, and which surrendered its own responsibility
into the hands of others. (Cheers.)
Mr. R. PALMER, who spoke from the Ministerial side,
said if he supposed that a uniform £lO franchise would be
enacted in committee he certainly should not vote for the
second reading; but as they had heard from the Secretary
to the Treasury (Sir S. Northcote), from the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and from the First Lord of the Admiralty,
that such questions would be open for reconsideration, he
should vote in favour of the second reading. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WESTHEAD said he felt it to be his duty to give
his vote for the resolution of the noble lord the member for
London. What would be the result of the vote the house
might give he knew not. He for one should greatly regret
the circumstance if it were followed by the retirement of the
present Government. The existing Ministry had brought
forward many good measures ; they had fulfilled their duties
in that house with distinguished ability; and they had in
their private transaction of affairs given a satisfaction which
was felt throughout the country. (Hear, hear.)
Major EDWARDS thought the house was under a deep
obligation to the Government for having introduced the
measure under discussion, and, although ha could not say
he entirely approved of the principle which it involved, he
nevertheless was of opinion that the good in it preponde-
rated over the evil. He should, under those circumstances,
vote in favour of the second reading of the bill, and against
the resolution of the noble lord the member for London. He
regarded the proposed enfranchisement of 300,000 or 400,000
electors as a great boon to the country, while he could not