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. BENTINCK 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 horoughs.
Lord PALMERSTON— i‘r, there are two things which
Ido not mean to do. The first is to oppose the motion. of
ray hon. friend for leaVe to bring in his bill; and the second
is to argue the subject of which that bill treats. r,(fl laugh,
and " Hear, hear.") I will.not oppose the introduction of
the bill, because, in the first place, that would be discour-
teous to my hon. friend ; and in the next place hecatke it
would expose Me to the imputation of a change of opinion •
upon the general questidn, which I cannot admit. (lies4r
hear.) I will not enter into a discussion of the subject to
which the bill relates for the so/We reason as that whichled
her Majesty's Government to decline proposing a me4urie
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 properly belongs to the committee ou 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 patty—(a laugh)
—and appeared to be inspired with a profound grief by that.
idea. I would endeavour to console my hon. 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 desertt.d
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 I've used to call Liberal,
and which we could not have expected to see supported
so unanimously in former periods. (Hear, hear.) When.
..-e
.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 meaaures which have been carried by
the common assent of all parties in the house, we must see
that my hen. friend and his supporters, instead of lament-
ing 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 chapging 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 successful issue
I think that the.experience of the last session of Parliament
has in some degree been thrown away upon them. They
ate 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 omission will soon be supplied—(a
hiugh)—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 sub,tanCe.
The Government felt it to be their duty, a duty arising out
_ _ _

of former opinions and pleeges 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 i,f private mercantile and
other transactions which necessarily accompanies an elec-
tion ; and therefore it was not to be supposed that either
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 housp 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 much
altered in the interval. Does the objection to the substance
vary P Why, my hon. 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 410 oppose the introduction of
either of them. At the same time, as the Government have
not thoughtit their duty to ask the house 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 trust
they will be allowed to do—must take upon themselves all
the responsibility of their further piogress, and must hold

her Majesty's Government free to deal with them, as far
as we may feel it our duty to mix ourselves up with them,
exactly as we may from time to time see fit. The only thing
as to which I can pronounce a decided intention is that we
cannot afford any assistance to my hon. friends in further-
ing the progress of their measures by giving up Government
days. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Under the circunes:
after the
this bill is introduced to our notice,
sad
le lord, especially
tempe-
rate and very sensible remarks of then aces under which
aninc
troeofnduthoetioGnoovfernthisinenbt,illl,
with respect to the future con
am not prepared to oppose thee 4
by one who is so well
wore especially as leave is ask
en-
titled to courtesy as
t that hon. gent eman fallen into
had the bon. member for Surrey; nor
should I have risen
ducal into this house,b.ll.
a great error as to theh nature
hofetheleamimeeadsumreewashiachsulppinotrrtner-'
The hon. gentleman was one of
of the principle of his
the. Liberal party, who would not allow the Reform Bill of
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 counties, but the
prary qualification was an occupation of land of that
affitual value ; a suffrage very different from that pro-
pocod 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 my
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 IA
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 vo'ry im-
portant county franchises created by that bill, 'of all of
which the tendency would have been—l do nof use the
epithet in a party, but in a political and social s ease—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 franchise arising
from the possession of funded and personal property, and-
a variety of county franchises founded upon intelligence
and education. Therefore the hon. gentleman is
alli justified in stating that gentlemen on this side 0 th
• le which Ir has so long
hope have adopted the principle
'stoney
and with so much honour to his car
iedeb
advo-
cated, the discussion of which has,howe7 nfot e
which would be
%valuable public time, and the adoption