The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-07 00:00:00

-~_-~f

NEwSPA PER
-rtz.
„
TEE PRIME NINIS'T.E4 Is.)Z
ItEISSZLL.' 1
The following letter, set in prominent eap
the morning papers :
" Sir,—Lord Russell observed last night in the House
of Lords that I ' boasted at Edinburgh that, while during
seven years I opposed a reduction of the borough fran-
chise, I had been all that time educating my party, with
the view of bringing about a much greater reduction
of the franchise than that which my opponents had pro.
posed.'

"As a general rule, I never notice znisrepresenta-
ton of what I may have said ; but as this charge
against me was made in an august assembly, and by
a late First Minister of the Crown, I will not refrain
from observing that the charge has no foundation. Nothing
of the kind was said by me at Edinburgh.
" I said there that the Tory party, after the failure of their
bill of 1859, had been educated for seven years on the sub-
ject of Parliamentary Reform, and during that interval
'had arrived at five conclusions, which, with their authority,
I had at various times announced, viz. :
" 1. That the measure should be complete.
" 2. That the representation of no place should be en.
tirely abrogated.
" 3. That there must be a real Boundary Commission.
" 4. That the county representation should be consider-
ably increased.

" 5. That the borough franchise should be established
on the principal of rating.
_ _

" And that theso five points were accomplished in the
Act of 18G7.

" This is what I said at Edinburgh ; and it is true. —I am,
sir, your obedient servant, " D. DIsnAELL
" Downing-street, March 6."

The following are the exact words of that portion of
the,speech delivered by Mr. Disraeli at Edinburgh, which
forms the subject in dispute between Earl Russell and
the Premier. The extract is taken from the authorised
edition of the speech, published in pamphlet form by
William Blackwood and Sons :—" In 1859 you know
what occurred. We were expelled from power by a reso-
lution of Lord John Russell that no settlement of the
question of Parliamentary Reform would be satisfactory
which did not involve the lowering of the borough fran-
chise. We resisted that. We believed that it was a

policy which ought not to be sanctioned by the House
of Commons unless it was definitely brought forward,
and feeling confident that there was no mere degrada-
tion of the borough franchise that could bring
any satisfactory settlement, we recommend her Ma.
jesty dissolve Parliament upon that issue. We

appealed to the country. The country did not give us a
majority ; and therefore both Parliament and the country
were henceforth pledged to a lowering of the franchise in
boroughs. Well, now, what happened in the memorable
seven years which elapsed from 1859 to 1866, when Lord
Derby was again called to power, and when he did me
the honour again to ask me to attempt to lead the House
of Commons ? Now, observe, my lords and gentlemen,
that from the year 1860, when Lord Palmerston, in
consequence of the pledge into which he bad been
entrapped by the conduct of Lord John Russell--
because Lord Palmerston, in consequence of his engage•
ment to Lord Derby, was entirely opposed to the motion
of Lord John Russell, and it was with great difficulty
that in 1859 he agreed to support it—see, I say, what has
occurred in Parliament on the subject of Reform in these
seven years. They commenced with the measure of Lord
Palmerston in 1860. That failed. They concluded with
the measure of Lord John Russell in 1866, which also
failed ; and in the interval there were all these separate
motions of Mr. Locke King and of Mr. Baines of which
We have heard. Therefore, during these years—from 1860
to 1866—the question of Parliamentary Reform was con-
stantly before the public mind and the examination of
Parliament. During that period of seven years, with
the advice—l may say under the instruction of my col-

leagues in public life, after constant communication
with them—during these seven years, I endeavoured con-
tinuously to lay down the principles upon which, in our
opinion, a measure of Parliamentary Reform ought to
be founded. Now, mark this—because these are things
which you may not have heard of in another speech which
was made in this city of Edinburgh. We had to prepare
She mind of the country—to educate, if it be not arrogant
to use such a phrase—to educate our party on this subject
of Reform. It is a large party, and its attention can
only be obtained to the consideration of a great question
by the pressure which is secured by frequent discussion:
Now, what were the points which, not only with the
concurrence of Lord Derby and my colleagues, some of
whom are in this room—what were the points that, during
the course of these seven years, I tried to impress upon
the conscience and conviction of the country ? They were
these. First of all, and by far the most important, that
a measure of Parliamentary Reform, whenever it was
adopted, should be a complete and comprehensive one ;
that all the branches of the subject should be dealt with ;
that we would not be seduced, as was the habit of the
Radical party after the failure of Lord Palmerston's com-
prehensive measure in 1860, into dealing with the question
in detail. And for this simple reason, that if you deal
with it in detail you may indeed establish a democratic
constitution. Take Mr. Baines's question of the reduction
of the borough franchise, which we have been accused of
inc insistency in having opposed. Had Mr. Baines carried
a very large reduction in the borough franchise without
any reference to other portions of the subject, what wouli
have happened ? You would have had the next week,
Without any effective opposition—for it was a part of the
subject on which the opinion of the House of Commons was
matured—a great reduction in the county franchise.
Well, when you had got these two things they would have
rested, and in due time there would have been a dissolu-
tion of Parliament ; and the county members would have
been returned by the borough population that dwelt with-
out the parliamentary boundaries of the Act of 1832.
Well, that was the first great point which it was my duty
always to impress upon Parliament ; that we could listen
to no measure that was not complete. We contended that
all the portions of Parliamentary Reform should be treated
together, because we knew that in treating them all to-
gether depended that political equilibrium which has
hitherto prevailed in this country. That was the first con-
dition. What was the second ? During these seven years
I had to vindicate the principles upon which disfranchise-
ment and enfranchisement should take place. I said for the
party with which I acted : We cannot sanction any pro-
posal for grouping boroughs ; we contend that the repre-
sentation of no place shall be entirely abrogated, and that
if you want to increase representation, you must look to a
certain class of boroughs, and appeal to their patriotism—
which appeal will no doubt be successful if recommended
by a Ministry—to spare you one of their members. These
were the principles upon which for seven years we insisted
that disfranchisement and enfranchisement should take
place. What was the'third condition? I said, no settle.
ment of this question of Parliamentary Reform can be
satisfactory unless you have a real and bond fide boundary
commission—not a boundary commission that merely
settles the boundaries of new boroughs, but that examines
the boundaries of all existing parliamentary boroughs,
and takes care that people who are bond fide
borough occupiers shall not under your sweeping
measures of Reform become suddenly county electors,
and so change the whole character of the constituencies.
What was the fourth point during these seven weary
but not unprofitable years, I trust, that we insisted
on on the part of our friends ? The fourth point was
this- that justice should at last be done to the majority
of the English nation who live in counties, and
that was to be done, not merely by giving representa-
tion to the towns that had sprung into importance
since Lord Grey's Act in 1832—not merely by the issue of
a boundary commission of the effective character I have
sketched, but by adding a considerable number directly
to their representatives. Now, what was the fifth point
that we insisted upon, and which we supported by our
vote ; and through which vote, though at the time we
had no anticipation of it, we became the responsible
Ministers of the Crown ? We insisted that the borough
franchise should be established upon the principle of
rating. Now, these are the five points that during seven
weary and toilsome years I have, with the entire concur-
rence of those who share your entire confidence, endea-
voured in the House of Commons to impress upon the con•
science and the conviction of Parliament."

At Bathurst, in New South Wales, according
to a Sydney paper, a flock of 1,000 sheep sought shelter
under an immense tree during a storm. The tree was
struck by lightning, and 171 of the sheep were killed.
ACCIDENT TO LORD LEIGH.—While out with the
North Warwickshire hounds on Friday Lord Leigh was
thrown from his horse, and narrowly escaped being
seriously injured. The accident occurred at a village near
Leamington, immediately before the conclusion of a very
spirited run. In jumping a low fence his lordship's horse
stumbled and fell, throwing his rider with great force to
the ground. After the fall Lord Leigh remounted, and
continued in the hunt up to the " death," when he availed
himself of the offer of Dr. Busby, of Leamington, who
drove him to Stoneleigh Abbey in his carriage.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. —A bulletin issued
on Friday by Dr. Sloman, the medical attendant of the
Bishop of Winchester, states that his lordship passed a
very trying night, and is still in a very precarious condi-
tion. Scarcely any hopes are entertained of his recovery.
The following announcement has been made to the inhabi-
tants of Farnham by the Archdeacon of Surrey, rector,
and extensively circulated by means of posters :--" While
our beloved bishop continues to be in danger the church
will be open three times a day—at 11 a.m., 3 p.m., and
8 p.m. -- for prayers. (Signed) 3. S. UTTEFIT(iN, Rector.
March 6, WO," A large ;umber of InviouTs atteuded the
services.