Sir, I could have wished, and once I almost believed, that it was
not necessary for me to take part in this debate. I look on this
discussion as the natural epilogue of the Parliament of 1859; we
remember the prologue. I consider this to be a controversy between
the educated section of the Liberal party and that section of the
Liberal party, according to their companions and colleagues, not
entitled to an epithet so euphuistic and complimentary. But after
the speech of the minister, I hardly think it would become me,
representing the opinions of the gentlemen with whom I am acting on
this side of the house, entirely to be silent. We have a measure
before us to-night which is to increase the franchise in boroughs.
Without reference to any other circumstances I object to that measure.
I object to it because an increase of the franchise in boroughs is a
proposal to redistribute political power in the country. I do not
think political power in the country ought to be treated partially;
from the very nature of things it is impossible, if there is to be a
redistribution of political power, that you can only regard the
suffrage as it affects one section of the constituent body.
Whatever the proposition of the honorable gentleman, whether
abstractedly it may be expedient or not, this is quite clear, that
it must be considered not only in relation to the particular persons
with whom it will deal, but to other persons with whom it does not
deal, though it would affect them. And therefore it has always been
quite clear that if you deal with the subject popularly called
Parliamentary Reform, you must deal with it comprehensively. The
arrangements you may make with reference to one part of the
community may not be objectionable in themselves, but may be
extremely objectionable if you consider them with reference to other
parts. Consequently it has been held--and the more we consider the
subject the more true and just appears to be the conclusion--that
if you deal with the matter you must deal with it comprehensively.
You must not only consider borough constituencies, you must consider
county constituencies: and when persons rise up and urge their
claims to be introduced into the constituent body, even if you think
there is a plausible claim substantiated on their part, you are
bound in policy and justice to consider also the claims of other
bodies not in possession of the franchise, but whose right to
consideration may be equally great. And so clear is it when you
come to the distribution of power that you must consider the subject
in all its bearings, that even honorable gentlemen who have taken
part in this debate have not been able to avoid the question of what
they call the redistribution of seats--a very important part of
the distribution of power. It is easy for the honorable member for
Liskeard, for example, to rise and say, in supporting this measure
for the increase of the borough franchise, that it is impossible any
longer to conceal the anomalies of our system in regard to the
distribution of seats. "Is it not monstrous," he asks, "that Calne,
with 173 voters, should return a member, while Glasgow returns only
two, with a constituency of 20,000?" Well, it may be equally
monstrous that Liskeard should return one member, and that
Birkenhead should only make a similar return. The distribution of
seats, as any one must know who has ever considered the subject
deeply and with a sense of responsibility towards the country, is
one of the most profound and difficult questions that can be brought
before the house. It is all very well to treat it in an easy,
offhand manner; but how are you to reconcile the case of North
Cheshire, of North Durham, of West Kent, and many other counties,
where you find four or six great towns, with a population, perhaps,
of 100,000, returning six members to this house, while the rest of
the population of the county, though equal in amount, returns only
two members? How are you to meet the case of the representation of
South Lancashire in reference to its boroughs? Why, those are more
anomalous than the case of Calne.
Then there is the question of Scotland. With a population hardly
equal to that of the metropolis, and with wealth greatly inferior--
probably not more than two-thirds of the amount--Scotland yet
possesses forty-eight members, while the metropolis has only twenty.
Do you Reformers mean to say that you are prepared to disfranchise
Scotland; or that you are going to develop the representation of the
metropolis in proportion to its population and property; and so
allow a country like England, so devoted to local government and so
influenced by local feeling, to be governed by London? And,
therefore, when those speeches are made which gain a cheer for the
moment, and are supposed to be so unanswerable as arguments in favor
of parliamentary change, I would recommend the house to recollect
that this, as a question, is one of the most difficult and one of
the deepest that can possibly engage the attention of the country.
The fact is this--in the representation of this country you do not
depend on population or on property merely, or on both conjoined;
you have to see that there is something besides population and
property--you have to take care that the country itself is
represented. That is one reason why I am opposed to the second
reading of the bill. There is another objection which I have to
this bill brought forward by the honorable member for Leeds, and
that is, that it is brought forward by the member for Leeds. I do
not consider this a subject which ought to be intrusted to the care
and guidance of any independent member of this house. If there be
one subject more than another that deserves the consideration and
demands the responsibility of the government, it certainly is the
reconstruction of our parliamentary system; and it is the government
or the political party candidates for power, who recommend a policy,
and who will not shrink from the responsibility of carrying that
policy into effect if the opportunity be afforded to them, who alone
are qualified to deal with a question of this importance. But, sir,
I shall be told, as we have been told in a previous portion of the
adjourned debate, that the two great parties of the State cannot be
trusted to deal with this question, because they have both trifled
with it. That is a charge which has been made repeatedly during
this discussion and on previous occasions, and certainly a graver
one could not be made in this house. I am not prepared to admit
that even our opponents have trifled with this question. We have
had a very animated account by the right honorable gentleman who has
just addressed us as to what may be called the Story of the Reform
Measures. It was animated, but it was not accurate. Mine will be
accurate, though I fear it will not be animated. I am not prepared
to believe that English statesmen, though they be opposed to me in
politics, and may sit on opposite benches, could ever have intended
to trifle with this question. I think that possibly they may have
made great mistakes in the course which they took; they may have
miscalculated, they may have been misled; but I do not believe that
any men in this country, occupying the posts, the eminent posts, of
those who have recommended any reconstruction of our parliamentary
system in modern days, could have advised a course which they
disapproved. They may have thought it perilous, they may have
thought it difficult, but though they may have been misled I am
convinced they must have felt that it was necessary. Let me say a
word in favor of one with whom I have had no political connection,
and to whom I have been placed in constant opposition in this house
when he was an honored member of it--I mean Lord Russell. I
cannot at all agree with the lively narrative of the right honorable
gentleman, according to which Parliamentary Reform was but the
creature of Lord John Russell, whose cabinet, controlled by him with
the vigor of a Richelieu, at all times disapproved his course; still
less can I acknowledge that merely to amuse himself, or in a moment
of difficulty to excite some popular sympathy, Lord John Russell was
a statesman always with Reform in his pocket, ready to produce it
and make a display. How different from that astute and sagacious
statesman now at the head of her Majesty's government, whom I almost
hoped to have seen in his place this evening. I am sure it would
have given the house great pleasure to have seen him here, and the
house itself would have assumed a more good-humored appearance. I
certainly did hope that the noble lord would have been enabled to be
in his place and prepared to support his policy. According to the
animated but not quite accurate account of the right honorable
gentleman who has just sat down, all that Lord Derby did was to
sanction the humor and caprice of Lord John Russell. It is true
that Lord John Russell when prime minister recommended that her
Majesty in the speech from the throne should call the attention of
Parliament to the expediency of noticing the condition of our
representative system; but Lord John Russell unfortunately shortly
afterwards retired from his eminent position.
He was succeeded by one of the most considerable statesmen of our
days, a statesman not connected with the political school of Lord
John Russell, who was called to power not only with assistance of
Lord John Russell and the leading members of the Whig party, but
supported by the whole class of eminent statesmen who had been
educated in the same school and under the same distinguished master.
This eminent statesman, however, is entirely forgotten. The right
honorable gentleman overlooks the fact that Lord Aberdeen, when
prime minister, and when all the principal places in his cabinet
were filled with the disciples of Sir Robert Peel, did think it his
duty to recommend the same counsel to her Majesty. But this is an
important, and not the only important, item in the history of the
Reform Bill which has been ignored by the right honorable gentleman.
The time, however, came when Lord Aberdeen gave place to another
statesman, who has been complimented on his sagacity in evading the
subject, as if such a course would be a subject for congratulation.
Let me vindicate the policy of Lord Palmerston in his absence. He
did not evade the question. Lord Palmerston followed the example of
Lord John Russell. He followed the example also of Lord Aberdeen,
and recommended her Majesty to notice the subject in the speech from
the throne. What becomes, then, of the lively narrative of the
right honorable gentleman, and what becomes of the inference and
conclusions which he drew from it? Not only is his account
inaccurate, but it is injurious, as I take it, to the course of
sound policy and the honor of public men. Well, now you have three
prime ministers bringing forward the question of Parliamentary
Reform; you have Lord John Russell, Lord Aberdeen, and you have even
that statesman who, according to the account of the right honorable
gentleman, was so eminent for his sagacity in evading the subject
altogether. Now, let me ask the house to consider the position of
Lord Derby when he was called to power, a position which you cannot
rightly understand if you accept as correct the fallacious
statements of the right honorable gentleman. I will give the house
an account of this subject, the accuracy of which I believe neither
side will impugn. It may not possibly be without interest, and will
not, I am sure, be without significance. Lord Derby was sent for by
her Majesty--an unwilling candidate for office, for let me remind
the house that at that moment there was an adverse majority of 140
in the House of Commons, and I therefore do not think that Lord
Derby was open to any imputation in hesitating to accept political
responsibility under such circumstances. Lord Derby laid these
considerations before her Majesty. I speak, of course, with
reserve. I say nothing now which I have not said before on the
discussion of political subjects in this house. But when a
government comes in on Reform and remains in power six years without
passing any measure of the kind, it is possible that these
circumstances, too, may be lost sight of. Lord Derby advised her
Majesty not to form a government under his influence, because there
existed so large a majority against him in the House of Commons, and
because this question of Reform was placed in such a position that
it was impossible to deal with it as he should wish. But it should
be remembered that Lord Derby was a member of the famous Cabinet
which carried the Reform Bill in 1832. Lord Derby, as Lord Stanley,
was in the House of Commons one of the most efficient promoters of
the measure. Lord Derby believed that the bill had tended to effect
the purpose for which it was designed, and although no man superior
to prejudices could fail to see that some who were entitled to the
exercise of the franchise were still debarred from the privilege,
yet he could not also fail to perceive the danger which would arise
from our tampering with the franchise. On these grounds Lord Derby
declined the honor which her Majesty desired to confer upon him, but
the appeal was repeated. Under these circumstances it would have
been impossible for any English statesman longer to hesitate; but I
am bound to say that there was no other contract or understanding
further than that which prevails among men, however different their
politics, who love their country and wish to maintain its greatness.
I am bound to add that there was an understanding at the time
existing among men of weight on both sides of the house that the
position in which the Reform question was placed was one
embarrassing to the crown and not creditable to the house, and that
any minister trying his best to deal with it under these
circumstances would receive the candid consideration of the house.
It was thought, moreover, that a time might possibly arrive when
both parties would unite in endeavoring to bring about a solution
which would tend to the advantage and benefit of the country. And
yet, says the right honorable gentleman, it was only in 1860 that
the portentous truth flashed across the mind of the country--only
in 1860, after so many ministers had been dealing with the question
for so many years. All I can say is that this was the question, and
the only question, which engaged the attention of Lord Derby's
cabinet. The question was whether they could secure the franchise
for a certain portion of the working classes, who by their industry,
their intelligence, and their integrity, showed that they were
worthy of such a possession, without at the same time overwhelming
the rest of the constituency by the numbers of those whom they
admitted. That, sir, was the only question which occupied the
attention of the government of Lord Derby and yet the right
honorable gentleman says that it was in 1860 that the attention of
the public was first called to the subject, when, in fact, the
question of Parliamentary Reform had been before them for ten years,
and on a greater scale than that embraced by the measure under
consideration this evening.
I need not remind the house of the reception which Lord Derby's Bill
encountered. It is neither my disposition, nor, I am sure, that of
any of my colleagues, to complain of the votes of this house on that
occasion. Political life must be taken as you find it, and as far as
I am concerned not a word shall escape me on the subject. But from
the speeches made the first night, and from the speech made by the
right honorable gentleman this evening, I believe I am right in
vindicating the conduct pursued by the party with which I act. I
believe that the measure which we brought forward was the only one
which has tended to meet the difficulties which beset this question.
Totally irrespective of other modes of dealing with the question,
there were two franchises especially proposed on this occasion, which,
in my mind, would have done much towards solving the difficulty. The
first was the franchise founded upon personal property, and the second
the franchise founded upon partial occupation. Those two franchises,
irrespective of other modes by which we attempted to meet the want and
the difficulty--these two franchises, had they been brought into
committee of this house, would, in my opinion, have been so shaped and
adapted that they would have effected those objects which the majority
of the house desire. We endeavored in that bill to make proposals
which were in the genius of the English constitution. We did not
consider the constitution a mere phrase. We knew that the
constitution of this country is a monarchy tempered by co-ordinate
estates of the realm. We knew that the House of Commons is an estate
of the realm; we knew that the estates of the realm form a political
body, invested with political power for the government of the country
and for the public good; yet we thought that it was a body founded
upon privilege and not upon right. It is, therefore, in the noblest
and properest sense of the word, an aristocratic body, and from that
characteristic the Reform Bill of 1832 did not derogate; and if at
this moment we could contrive, as we did in 1859, to add considerably
to the number of the constituent body, we should not change that
characteristic, but it would still remain founded upon an aristocratic
principle. Well, now the Secretary of State [Sir G. Grey] has
addressed us to-night in a very remarkable speech. He also takes up
the history of Reform, and before I touch upon some of the features of
that speech it is my duty to refer to the statements which he made
with regard to the policy which the government of Lord Derby was
prepared to assume after the general election. By a total
misrepresentation of the character of the amendment proposed by Lord
John Russell, which threw the government of 1858 into a minority, and
by quoting a passage from a very long speech of mine in 1859, the
right honorable gentleman most dexterously conveyed these two
propositions to the house--first, that Lord John Russell had proposed
an amendment to our Reform Bill, by which the house declared that no
bill could be satisfactory by which the working classes were not
admitted to the franchise--one of our main objects being that the
working classes should in a great measure be admitted to the
franchise; and, secondly, that after the election I was prepared, as
the organ of the government, to give up all the schemes for those
franchises founded upon personal property, partial occupation, and
other grounds, and to substitute a bill lowering the borough
qualification. That conveyed to the house a totally inaccurate idea
of the amendment of Lord John Russell. There was not a single word in
that amendment about the working classes. There was not a single
phrase upon which that issue was raised, nor could it have been
raised, because our bill, whether it could have effected the object or
not, was a bill which proposed greatly to enfranchise the working
classes. And as regards the statement I made, it simply was this.
The election was over--we were still menaced, but we, still acting
according to our sense of duty, recommended in the royal speech that
the question of a reform of Parliament should be dealt with; because I
must be allowed to remind the house that whatever may have been our
errors, we proposed a bill which we intended to carry. And having
once taken up the question as a matter of duty, no doubt greatly
influenced by what we considered the unhappy mistakes of our
predecessors, and the difficult position in which they had placed
Parliament and the country, we determined not to leave the question
until it had been settled. But although still menaced, we felt it to
be our duty to recommend to her Majesty to introduce the question of
reform when the Parliament of 1859 met; and how were we, except in
that spirit of compromise which is the principal characteristic of our
political system, how could we introduce a Reform Bill after that
election, without in some degree considering the possibility of
lowering the borough franchise? But it was not a franchise of 6
pounds, but it was an arrangement that was to be taken with the rest
of the bill, and if it had been met in the same spirit we might have
retained our places. But, says the right honorable gentleman,
pursuing his history of the Reform question, when the government of
Lord Derby retired from office "we came in, and we were perfectly
sincere in our intentions to carry a Reform Bill; but we experienced
such opposition, and never was there such opposition. There was the
right honorable gentleman," meaning myself, "he absolutely allowed our
bill to be read a second time."
That tremendous reckless opposition to the right honorable
gentleman, which allowed the bill to be read a second time, seems to
have laid the government prostrate. If he had succeeded in throwing
out the bill, the right honorable gentleman and his friends would
have been relieved from great embarrassment. But the bill having
been read a second time, the government were quite overcome, and it
appears they never have recovered from the paralysis up to this
time. The right honorable gentleman was good enough to say that the
proposition of his government was rather coldly received upon his
side of the house, but he said "nobody spoke against it." Nobody
spoke against the bill on this side, but I remember some most
remarkable speeches from the right honorable gentleman's friends.
There was the great city of Edinburgh, represented by acute
eloquence of which we never weary, and which again upon the present
occasion we have heard; there was the great city of Bristol,
represented on that occasion among the opponents, and many other
constituencies of equal importance. But the most remarkable speech,
which "killed cock robin" was absolutely delivered by one who might
be described as almost a member of the government--the chairman of
ways and means [Mr. Massey], who, I believe, spoke from immediately
behind the prime minister. Did the government express any
disapprobation of such conduct? They have promoted him to a great
post, and have sent him to India with an income of fabulous amount.
And now they are astonished they cannot carry a Reform Bill. If
they removed all those among their supporters who oppose such bills
by preferring them to posts of great confidence and great lucre, how
can they suppose that they will ever carry one? Looking at the
policy of the government, I am not at all astonished at the speech
which the right honorable gentleman, the Secretary of State, has
made this evening. Of which speech I may observe, that although it
was remarkable for many things, yet there were two conclusions at
which the right honorable gentleman arrived. First, the repudiation
of the rights of man, and, next, the repudiation of the 6 pounds
franchise. The first is a great relief, and, remembering what the
feeling of the house was only a year ago, when, by the dangerous but
fascinating eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we were
led to believe that the days of Tom Paine had returned, and that
Rousseau was to be rivaled by a new social contract, it must be a
great relief to every respectable man here to find that not only are
we not to have the rights of man, but we are not even to have the
1862 franchise. It is a matter, I think, of great congratulation,
and I am ready to give credit to the Secretary of State for the
honesty with which he has expressed himself, and I only wish we had
had the same frankness, the same honesty we always have, arising
from a clear view of his subject, in the first year of the
Parliament as we have had in the last. I will follow the example of
the right honorable gentleman and his friends. I have not changed
my opinions upon the subject of what is called Parliamentary Reform.
All that has occurred, all that I have observed, all the results of
my reflections, lead me to this more and more--that the principle
upon which the constituencies of this country should be increased is
one not of radical, but I may say of lateral reform--the extension
of the franchise, not its degradation. And although I do not wish
in any way to deny that we were in the most difficult position when
the Parliament of 1859 met, being anxious to assist the crown and
the Parliament by proposing some moderate measure which men on both
sides might support, we did, to a certain extent, agree to some
modification of the 10 pounds franchise--to what extent no one knows; but
I may say that it would have been one which would not at all have
affected the character of the franchise, such as I and my colleagues
wished to maintain. Yet I confess that my opinion is opposed, as it
originally was, to any course of the kind. I think that it would
fail in its object, that it would not secure the introduction of
that particular class which we all desire to introduce, but that it
would introduce many others who are totally unworthy of the
suffrage. But I think it is possible to increase the electoral body
of the country by the introduction of voters upon principles in
unison with the principles of the constitution, so that the suffrage
should remain a privilege, and not a right--a privilege to be
gained by virtue, by intelligence, by industry, by integrity, and to
be exercised for the common good of the country. I think if you
quit that ground--if you once admit that every man has a right to
vote whom you cannot prove to be disqualified--you would change
the character of the constitution, and you would change it in a
manner which will tend to lower the importance of this country.
Between the scheme we brought forward and the measure brought
forward by the honorable member for Leeds, and the inevitable
conclusion which its principal supporters acknowledge it must lead
to, it is a question between an aristocratic government in the
proper sense of the term--that is, a government by the best men of
all classes--and a democracy. I doubt very much whether a
democracy is a government that would suit this country; and it is
just as well that the house, when coming to a vote on this question,
should really consider if that be the real issue, between retaining
the present constitution--not the present constitutional body, but
between the present constitution and a democracy.
It is just as well for the house to recollect that what is at issue
is of some price. You must remember, not to use the word profanely,
that we are dealing really with a peculiar people. There is no
country at the present moment that exists under the circumstances
and under the same conditions as the people of this realm. You
have, for example, an ancient, powerful, richly-endowed Church, and
perfect religious liberty. You have unbroken order and complete
freedom. You have estates as large as the Romans; you have a
commercial system of enterprise such as Carthage and Venice united
never equaled. And you must remember that this peculiar country
with these strong contrasts is governed not by force; it is not
governed by standing armies--it is governed by a most singular
series of traditionary influences, which generation after generation
cherishes and preserves because they know that they embalm customs
and represent the law. And, with this, what have you done? You
have created the greatest empire that ever existed in modern times
You have amassed a capital of fabulous amount. You have devised and
sustained a system of credit still more marvelous and above all, you
have established and maintained a scheme, so vast and complicated,
of labor and industry, that the history of the world offers no
parallel to it. And all these mighty creations are out of all
proportion to the essential and indigenous elements and resources of
the country. If you destroy that state of society, remember this--
England cannot begin again. There are countries which have been in
great peril and gone through great suffering; there are the United
States, which in our own immediate day have had great trials; you
have had--perhaps even now in the States of America you have--a
protracted and fratricidal civil war which has lasted for four
years; but if it lasted for four years more, vast as would be the
disaster and desolation, when ended the United States might begin
again, because the United States would only be in the same condition
that England was at the end of the War of the Roses, and probably
she had not even 3,000,000 of population, with vast tracts of virgin
soil and mineral treasures, not only undeveloped but undiscovered.
Then you have France. France had a real revolution in our days and
those of our predecessors--a real revolution, not merely a
political and social revolution. You had the institutions of the
country uprooted, the orders of society abolished--you had even the
landmarks and local names removed and erased. But France could
begin again. France had the greatest spread of the most exuberant
soil in Europe; she had, and always had, a very limited population,
living in a most simple manner. France, therefore, could begin
again. But England--the England we know, the England we live in,
the England of which we are proud--could not begin again. I don't
mean to say that after great troubles England would become a howling
wilderness. No doubt the good sense of the people would to some
degree prevail, and some fragments of the national character would
survive; but it would not be the old England--the England of power
and tradition, of credit and capital, that now exists. That is not
in the nature of things, and, under these circumstances, I hope the
house will, when the question before us is one impeaching the
character of our constitution, sanction no step that has a
preference for democracy but that they will maintain the ordered
state of free England in which we live, I do not think that in this
country generally there is a desire at this moment for any further
change in this matter. I think the general opinion of the country
on the subject of Parliamentary Reform is that our views are not
sufficiently matured on either side. Certainly, so far as I can
judge I cannot refuse the conclusion that such is the condition of
honorable gentlemen opposite. We all know the paper circulated
among us before Parliament met, on which the speech of the honorable
member from Maidstone commented this evening. I quite sympathize
with him; it was one of the most interesting contributions to our
elegiac literature I have heard for some time. But is it in this
house only that we find these indications of the want of maturity in
our views upon this subject? Our tables are filled at this moment
with propositions of eminent members of the Liberal party--men
eminent for character or talent, and for both--and what are these
propositions? All devices to counteract the character of the
Liberal Reform Bill, to which they are opposed: therefore, it is
quite clear, when we read these propositions and speculations, that
the mind and intellect of the party have arrived at no conclusions
on the subject. I do not speak of honorable gentlemen with
disrespect; I treat them with the utmost respect; I am prepared to
give them the greatest consideration; but I ask whether these
publications are not proofs that the active intelligence of the
Liberal party is itself entirely at sea on the subject?
I may say there has been more consistency, more calmness, and
consideration on this subject on the part of gentlemen on this side
than on the part of those who seem to arrogate to themselves the
monopoly of treating this subject. I can, at least, in answer to
those who charge us with trifling with the subject, appeal to the
recollection of every candid man, and say that we treated it with
sincerity--we prepared our measure with care, and submitted it to
the house, trusting to its candid consideration--we spared no
pains in its preparation: and at this time I am bound to say,
speaking for my colleagues, in the main principles on which that
bill was founded--namely, the extension of the franchise, not its
degradation, will be found the only solution that will ultimately be
accepted by the country. Therefore, I cannot say that I look to
this question, or that those with whom I act look to it, with any
embarrassment. We feel we have done our duty; and it is not without
some gratification that I have listened to the candid admissions of
many honorable gentlemen who voted against it that they feel the
defeat of that measure by the liberal party was a great mistake. So
far as we are concerned, I repeat we, as a party, can look to
Parliamentary Reform not as an embarrassing subject; but that is no
reason why we should agree to the measure of the honorable member
for Leeds. It would reflect no credit on the House of Commons. It
is a mean device. I give all credit to the honorable member for Leeds
for his conscientious feeling; but it would be a mockery to take
this bill; from the failures of the government and the whole of the
circumstances that attended it, it is of that character that I think
the house will best do its duty to the country, and will best meet
the constituencies with a very good understanding, if they reject
the measure by a decided majority.