The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-01 00:00:00

that which I believe'to be within our power—a better Go-
vernment for the people of this country. (@heers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was
received with loud cheers from the Ministerial benches,
said,—After seven nights' debate, conducted with a vigour
and variety which have sustained the rep tation of this
house, it is now my duty to examine how t r that measure
which five weeks ago I had the honour to :ntroduce, on the
part of the Government, has been affecte 1 y this discussion,
and to indicate the course which her Majesty's Govern-
ment think it their duty to recommend the house to
adopt with respect to it. It is some ten years, or
nearly so, since the Prime Minister of this country, then
leader of this house, and occupying the very seat which
I now fill, himself one of the principal promoters and pro-
jectors of the Reform Bill of 1832, announced the delibe-
rate opinion of himself and of his Cabinet that that
famous settlement was in their judgment no longer satis-
factory and sufficient. From that period to the present, by
successive Ministries formed from different parties, the
same opinion has been held, the same advice has been
given to Parliament. The Crown bes been pledged, Par-
liament has been pledged, the Ministry has been pledged
to attempt to amend the representation of the people ; but
this is the first occasion en which a bill with that object has
been offered to that house for a second reading—and how
am I met under these circumstances ? (Cheers.) Now, sir,
what is this bill which I have introduced ? It is founded on
three great principles. We have had so much discussion
about principles and about details that the house will permit
me to remind them what these three great principles are.
The first principle is that the constituent body of this
country shall be increased by the introduction into it of a
large number of persons and a vast variety of the popula-
lation who shall in future possess the suffrage. Under this
bill, and in pursuance of this principle, I believe, that a=
great an addition would be made to the constituent body as
, was made by the Reform Act of 1832. (Hear.) By the
Reform Act of 1832, 400,000 persons were added to the
constituency. By the bill which I introduced to the house
five weeks ago I believe that a number, certainly not less
than that, will be added to the electoral. body. The
second principle on which this bill is founded is that those
larger communities whose wealth, population, and distinc-
tive industry and character have been developed since the
passing of the Act of 1832 should be summoned to direct
representation in this house. (Hear, hear.) The third
great principle is that this bill maintains generally the pre-
sent borough system, on the ground that no efficient substitute
has yet been offered for it, and on the ground that it is the
only means by which you can obtain an adequate represen-
tation of the various interests and classes of the country,
and that all the proposed changes would only lead to the
pre-eminence of a numerical majority of the population.
(Hear, hear.) Now, sir, these are the three great principles
upon which this bill is founded. All the rest, however
important—all the rest is matter of detail, which ought to
be, and can only be sufficiently discussed in committee.
(Cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman who has just
addressed the house has put to me a question to which he
has called upon me frankly to reply. I will reply frankly.
I say that every proposition in this bill irrespective of the
three great principles upon which it is founded is a matter
of detail—(hear)—that the committee is the proper place
for the discussion of those propositions, and that to their
discussion in committee I and the rest of the Government
will give a candid consideration—(hear)—but whether the
point be a great one or a small one, whatever view the hon.
and learned gentleman may take of it, I decline to pledge
myself before that discussion takes place, and to say that I
will defer to any determination at which the committee may
arrive. (Cheers.) That appears to me to be a demand
which is both unreasonable and unparliamentary. (Hear.)
Now, sir, I have reminded the house what are the three
great principles upon which this bill is founded, and I may
be permitted to say that I believe a majority, and a large
majority, of this house is in favour of those three princi-
ples. (Hear, hear.) If that be the case, I should not have
been surprised to receive a very fierce opposition upon the
second reading; that at least I might, perhaps, have antici-
pated and successfully encountered. With the conviction
that I have that a majority in this house is in favour of the
principle upon which the bill is founded, I might have an-
ticipated, and had a right to count upon the success of the
second reading. But we are not permitted to bring the ques-
tion to that issue. (Hear.) With the majority of this house
in favour of the principle upon which the bill is founded—
, (cries of "No !no !" and cheers)—with the majority of
this house, in my belief, in favour of the three prin-
ciples which I have just mentioned—(renewed cries of
" No, no !" and cheers)—this measure is not to be tried upon
its principles, but a resolution is thrust into your hands,
sir, which asks the house to commit itself upon two points
which are, after all, points of detail—(No, no, and cheers)
—which are unquestionably, points of detail, as I will show
—(no, no)—andwhich ought to be considered in committee.
(Hear, hear.) What are the two objections to which the
amendment of the noble lord refers ? I will touch first upon
the one which is, certainly, of least importance, what the
noble lord calls the disfranchisement of freeholders. I can-
not admit that any freeholder is disfranchised by this bill.
On the contrary, I think I might with equal justice say
that it provides for the enfranchisement of freeholders, but
for the sake of discussion, I will take the noble lord's state-
ment. Is this the first bill to amend the representation of
the people in which there has been a measure of disfran-
chisement ? The noble lord has had great experience in Re-
form Bills, will he mention to me any bill with which he
was ever connected in which there have not been largemea-
SUr es of disfranchisement ? (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, by the
bill of 1831-2 the whole constituent body of the cities and
boroughs of England, amounting in number to nearly
100,000 persons, was partially or completely disfranchised.
The noble lord was not on that occasion content with pro-
posing the disfranchisement of whole constituencies of the
counties and cities of England ; he, to a great extent, dis-
franchised the freeholders in counties. The freeholder who
lived in one of the great towns which were then first sum-
moned to Parliament, found that he was, to use the lan-
guage of the noble lord, disfranchised as an elector for the
c ounty, and became only a voter as an occupant for the bo-
rough in which he resided. (Hear, hear.) I received to-day
a letter which is germane to the point now under discussion.
The noble lord and some who have followed him, like the
member for the city of Oxford, in solemn accents warned
the house of the unconstitutional character of the provision
which would allow a freeholder to vote in a borough. My
correspondent of this morning lives in Bristol, which is
both a city and a county in itself, like several other
great towns in England. The freeholders of Bristol
vote for the city by virtue, I believe, of nearly the oldest
statute on our books, a statute passed some 500 years ago.
But the gentleman who wrote to me, who is a freeholder,
and who votes for the city, is not a freeholder by virtue of
that ancient statute. It so happened that when the Reform
Bill was passed in 1832 the boundaries of Bristol were greatly
enlarged, and many county freeholders were brought into
the liberties of the city. My friend and correspondent is one,
and he was, therefore, according to the noble lord's inter-
pretation, and through the noble lord's agency, disfran-
chised as a county freeholder, and became a mere elector for
the city of Bristol. But lam bound in fairness to tell the
noble lord that my correspondent is particularly pleased
with that arrangement. (Hear, hear.) He assures me that
there is nothing more popular in Bristol, and that thosefree-
holders who were nobodies in a large county now find them-
selves of great influence in the city. (Cheers.) The infor-
mation which has reached us from many parts of the coun-
try is quite in accordance with the statements of that gen-
tleman. (Hear.) Will the noble lord deny that in all the
bills of 1831 and 1832, disfranchisement, as he calls it, was
proposed on a very large Scale ? But what would the noble
lord then have thought if, when he had brought forward a
measure dealing with the great principle to which I have
adverted, and with the great interests which were then con-
cerned, the Opposition of that day had proposed a resolu-
tion, that the disfranchisement of the freeholders in coun-
ties was so unconstitutional a proposition that the house
could not consider the question of improving the represen

tation of the people ? (Cheers.) What has been the conduct

of the noble lord upon subsequent occasions ? Has not the
noble lord himself proposed to disfranchise altogether the
existing freemen of the country to the number, I believe,
of nearly 50,000, and has he not brought forward a measure
in order to secure, as he alleged, tho representation of
minorities, which would have deprived most of the
county electors of their third votes ? (Hear, hear.)
Some might have considered these proposals, some did
consider them, very objectionable arrangements,
that they were looked upon as details ; nobody met the noble

lord with a resolution such as he has now thrust into your
hands, carrying away the attention of the house from the
great interests concerned, and the great principles involved,
and asking the house, by way of censure upon the general
scheme, to commit itself upon mere points of detail. (Cheers.)
Let me now touch upon that portion of the resolution which,
though the more important one we have elicited in debate,
formed no part of the original instrument when it was first
concocted in order to embarrass the Government. (Hear.)
But before I can discuss the important subject of the amount
of the borough franchise, or vindicate the course which
Government has taken, it is absolutely necessary that I
should touch for a moment on the question of the county
franchise. There has been, no doubt, in the course of this
prolonged debate frequent expressions of opinion, and from
persons of great authority, in favour of a county franchise
fixed at the amount of about £2O. I believe I am fairly
stating the case when I say that there is no question be-
tween £5O and any other sum, but that the question for dis-
cussion is between an occupation franchise for counties of
£2O, or one of £lO ; and I admit that there have been fre-
quent declarations of opinion by persons who ought to exer-
cise, from their experience and their ability, great influence
in this house in favour of a £2O occupation franchise for
counties. But let us for a moment consider what the house
has already done upon that subject. In 1851 the noble lord
was Prime Minister. An hon. gentleman, a member for a
county, had for some time previously brought the considera-
tion of the county franchise before the house. It was then
commencing to be a parliamentary question of considerable
importance. In 1851 that gentleman brought forward a mo-
tion for introducing a bill which would have reduced the oc-
cupation franchise in counties to the amount of £lO. The
noble lord at the head of his Government resisted that motion.
The motion was carried by no inconsiderable majority, and
the noble lord resigned in consequence. It is very true that
from circumstances not anticipated the noble lord in the

same year again returned to power, but the noble lord,
when he returned to power, having acknowledged that it

was in consequence of that adverse majority on the subject
of the county franchise that he had resigned office, an-
nounced that he and his colleagues had resolved to take the
whole question of the representation of the people into con.
sideration, and that they would even introduce to the house
a general and comprehensive measure. Upon that under-
taking, and that undertaking alone, the followers of the
noble lord no longer pressed the question on which they
had already obtained a majority. In 1852 the noble lord, in
fulfilment of his pledge, after taking a whole year to con-
sider the question with his colleagues, introduced a com-
prehensive measure of Parliamentory reform. Every point
had been considered, and of course among them the county
franchise; but the noble lord upon that occasion still re-
sisted the policy which had been indicated by the motion of
the hon. member for East Surrey, and proposed a £2O oc-
cupation franchise. That measure of the noble lord ob-
tained no favour when it was introduced, and shortly after
its introduction thenoble lord's Government again broke up.
The house will thus observe that in 1851 the noble lord's
Government was destroyed by an adverse vote in 1852,
although he proposed to reduce the franchise to £2O, his re-
constructed Administration did not exist for more than a
fortnight after the introduction of his measure. (Hear,
hear.) In 1853 another Government was formed. The
country was tired of Whig Governments ; the country was
tired of Governments that did not possess the confidence of
this house. No one could see how a working majority could
be obtained, and after the defeat of the noble lord's Govern-
ment, and after the defeat of Lord Derby's Government, it
was resolved that means should be taken by which we
should have a Government that not only by the com-
manding talents of its members, but by the ge-
neral confidence of the house, should conduct the
affairs of the country with an administrative ability
not hitherto experienced, and that should settle all great
public questions by the exercise of those qualities which
statesmen of the highest class could alone possess. That
Cabinet counted among its members some most distinguished
men. There were members of the Administration of Lord
Grey, who had been companions in the construction of the
original Reform Act. There were the favourite and' most
famous pupils of the late Sir Robert Peel. There were
others also greatly distinguished, and there was unques-
tionably a combination of ability which seldom has been
brought together in one council chamber. So great was the
confidence of the country, and so great was the confidence
of an admiring Parliament in this coalition Cabinet, that
although, at the moment of their accession to office, they
announced that their attention would be given to the sub-
ject of Parliamentary Reform, with the hope and intention
of settling the question, I will not say finally and for ever,
but in a manner which would satisfy the present, and per-
haps a succeeding generation, they were accorded a period
of time not less than 12 months, in order that they might
not be hurried in their deliberations, and that they should
offer to the house the matured results of their wisdom, their
experience, and their abilities. Well, what did they do ?
These distinguished men having devoted their energies, in-
tellect, and time to this question did, in due season, bring
forward a comprehensive measure, they proposed a very
considerable redistribution of seats, they disfranchised some
constituencies, they proposed a reduction of the franchise
in the borough constituencies ; and what was the result at
whieh they arrived with respect to the county constituen-
cies ? After deliberating for a year, this Cabinet, composed
of eminent men, and presided over by a statesman of
European reputation, but Tory education, recommended
Parliament to establish in the counties a £lO occupation
franchise. (Hear, hear.) And who were the men who,
in 1854, recommended this £lO occupation franchise ?
Among them were many of the most distinguished members
of this house. Among them was, of course, the noble lord
the member for the city of London. He was the organ
of the Government by which the measure was intro-
duced. There was the right hon. baronet the member for
Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), the noble lord the member for
Tiverton (Lord Palmerston)—(hear, hear)—the right hon.
member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), and the right hon.
member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). And
what do you suppose was the influence under which these
distinguished men acted ? Are we to suppose they thought
lightly on this important subject? Can you believe they
would have given assent to the proposition unless they had
maturely weighed and deeply investigated the question,
with that sense of responsibility which men in such a posi-
tion must feel ? We know now, it is no secret, and I may
refer to it, that there was great discord, that there were
great dissensions in that Cabinet on the question of Reform;
that Cabinet was also unfortunate upon it, for they lost a
colleague, but, more fortunate than we, that colleague re-
turned to them. (Hear, hear.). The noble lord the member
for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) quitted the Cabinet because
it proposed a £lO qualification; but if so, he must have
returned to it and been convincing by its arguments. He
quitted the Cabinet, but why did not his colleagues follow
him if they shared his opinions ? (Cheers.) And it is
from the lips of those right hon. gentlemen we now hear
that the solution of all these difficulties, that the sound and
proper scheme—the proposition that would be acceptable to
the house would be a £2O qualification for the counties I
Surely, when, after such deliberation in such a responsible
position, they gave their adhesion and approbation to
a £lO franchise, they must have felt how far the question
had advanced, how far public opinion sanctioned the pro-
position which before that had only been the proposition
of a private member, supported only by the sympathy
of his own followers in the House of Commons. (Hear,
hear.) And now we are told that the counsel given by our
late colleagues are those which would have been acceptable
to the present house. I feel much esteem for the talents
and the eloquence of our former colleagues ; but I
fear I might have spoken at much length, without pro-
' clueing the effect they have done under the present cir-
cumstances—(hear, hear, and laughter)—if I, and the
other members of the Derby Cabinet, had proposed and
supported a £2O franchise. But I must, on this occasion,
pursue the history of this subject, for it is very instructive.
The measure containing this proposal of a £2O franchise
was withdrawn by the Aberdeen Cabinet on account of the
war then impending, and which shortly afterwards broke
out. That war diverted and distracted all men's minds
from the consideration of the subject. There was a change
of Government and a new Prime Minister; when peace re-
turned, all the joys of peace accompanied it, the £lO occu-
pation franchise in counties was again a Parliamentary
question. It has been said that when the Government of
1851 was upset by that very motion, that it was not a fair
expression of the opinion of the House of Commons; that
the division was taken at an unexpected hour ; that
the Ministry was surprised. There can be no doubt, had
this' really been the case, the noble lord, who knows the
House of Commons as well as any man, would not have
thought it his duty to resign ; but he knew very well that
on this subject the opinion of his party was determined,
and that it was impossible to resist the question. But that
was not the position of the noble lord (Palmerston) when he
was himself the First Minister. (Hear, hear.) Then came
out what was always suspected, that the noble lord, though
he had given his adhesion to the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen,
had really, in heart and spirit, a horror of the £lO franchise.
(Hear, hear.) When he was I irst Minister the question
again menaced ; all the energies and resources of the Go-
vernment were employed to defeat the demand, and the noble
lord knew well that from our side of the house he would
again receive a hearty support. (Cheers.) I must remind
the house that in the interval there had been a dissolution
of Parliament on the Chinese business, that had conside-
rably reduced the Conservative ranks; but the noble lord
knew well we should support him, and we did support him.
(Cheers.) Every effort was made and in the division there were
including pairs, from 230 to 240 gentlemen sitting on these
benches who supported the Government that night. The Go-
vernment triumphed ; the motion of the hon. member for East
Surrey (Mr. L. King) was defeated in a full house, by a
majority of 13. (Cheers.) And when next morning., I re-
vised the division-list, for my own instruction, I found
that the aid which the noble lord, with all his efforts and
energy, had brought to the struggle, might have been
determined by the figures that denoted the majority I
(Lend cheers.) There is one incident more in this eventful
history. The time, came, last year, when we sat on these
benches ; the hon. member for East Surrey again brought
forward his bill. On the measure being proposed, I moved
the previous question, on the ground that the Cabinet of
Lord Derby had resolved to consider the whole question.
But the same courtesy was not accorded to me, that, under
similar circumstances—(loud cheers)—had been accorded to
the noble lord. (Cheers.) I evaded a division then, and,
on the second reading of the bill, it being a period of the
evening favourable to the assembly of hon. members, every
effort was made to resist the motion. The hon. gentleman
near me looked on that occasion with great anxiety to the
noble lord the member for Tiverton. They had an idea
that with his aid we should have been saved ; the noble
lord gave no encouragement to that idea, and many of my
friends upbraided him for his refusal. I did not sanction
those reproaches. The division was called, and the motion
was carried by a large majority; the noble lord himself
voted for it ; but I was informed, on the highest authority
—and it was not told me as a secret—that had the noble
lord supported us he would have been followed into the
lobby only by four members of his party. I mention these
facts to show how utterly, impracticable it would have been
to propose a £2O franchise to this Parliament. And when I
hear it asked, night after night, why we have not proposed
that franchise, which could not be proposed by Lord Aber-
deen's Cabinet, I am obliged to show the house how totally
impracticable is the proposition, quite irrespective of its
policv. What would have been our position had we pro-
posed a £2O franchise for the counties ? Why, the struggle
that is taking place now would have taken place on that
very point, and I think with much greater advantage to
the noble lord, because he would have been the champion
of the House of Commons, whose deliberate and recorded
opinion would have been outraged by the proposition, and
no doubt the noble lord would have carried his views
aga'nst the Government. (Cheers.) And what would have
been our position if we had followed the noblelord's advice,
so contrary to his former policy, and even smiled on with
demureness by the hon. member for Birmingham ? (Hear,
and laughter.) Why, our position would have been this,—
if we had proposed a £2O franchise for' counties, and a£6
franchise for boroughs, that we should have commenced our
labours in committee with a £lO franchise for counties and
a£6 franchise for boroughs. (Hear, hear.) This leads me
to the very question of the borough franchise. That the
£2O franchise for counties would have been an impolitic
proposition is what I will in a short time maintain, buthav-
ing brought the consideration of the house to what would
have been the case had we followed the advice so liberally
offered us by those who never practised it themselves—
(cheers)—having shown what would have been our situation
in proposing to Parliament a £2O franchise for counties and
a £6 franchise for boroughs, I must now inquire whether
we could, with our view of what we considered our duty,
have made a proposition of that character. Let us consider
the question of the borough franchise ; I will not call it the
reduction of the borough franchise, but this extension of the
borough franchise recommended by the noble lord. On this
subject we have had the opinions of several very eminent
statesmen in this debate, professing different schools of
politics. There was my right hon. friend the member for
the University of Cambridge. He is in favour of a £2O
franchise for counties, and would like at the same time
a £lO franchise for boroughs, but feels that something
must be done, and then murmurs that he would have
no objection to consider the question of a £6
rating franchise. Then we come to the noble lord the mem-
ber ;for Tiverton. He expressed his affection for a £2O
county franchise, and does not conceal his complete respect
for a £lO franchise for boroughs, but he says that the noble
lord the member for London got him in a corner—(a laugh)
—and showed him the resolution, and he liked the resolu-
tion, and expressed his readiness to act with the noble lord
the member for London upon a resolution which he could
support. I quite agree with the noble lord the member for
Tiverton, as far as the resolution is concerned, for the noble
lord, by entering into this combination, made no' engage-
ment which, as far as the borough franchise is concerned,
will at all embarrass him. (Hear, hear.) lam quite aware
myself of all the tricks an management with which you
can deal with the borough franchise. You can appear to
be doing a very great act and yet manage to keep out of
the franchise the very class for whom so many people ex-
press so much sympathy. (Cheers.) I have got all the
plans in my pigeon-holes, and could avail myself of them
with perfect impunity. An £8 rating franchise, which some
fancy, would disfranchise half the constituency ; a £7 rat-
ing franchise is better than a £lO value, and even a £6 rat-
ing franchise, well doctored, would do your business.
(Cheers and laughter.) And the noble lord is not pledged
even to any of these by the :resolution which he supports.
(Cheers.) A simple alteration,of what are called our' fancy