QUESTION. (Hansard, 16 April 1858)

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE

rose to ask the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) if he would have any 1175 objection in the present position of the question of Parliamentary Reform, to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Bill for the amendment of the Laws relating to the Representation referred to in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the present Session? In his (Mr. Duncombe's) opinion the question of Parliamentary Reform was in a very unsatisfactory position. He did not remember any question with regard to which the House of Commons and past Governments, and even the Sovereign, had been placed in so false a position as that of Parliamentary Reform. In 1852, when the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), who was then Prime Minister, abandoned the finality principle, he advised Her Majesty to say in Her gracious Speech from the Throne,— It appears to me that this is a fitting time for calmly considering whether it may not be advisable to make such amendments in the Act of the late reign, relating to the representation of the Commons in Parliament, as may be deemed calculated to carry into more complete effect the principles upon which that law is founded. In pursuance of that pledge the noble Lord certainly introduced a Reform Bill, but after doing so he retired from office, and the Bill then disappeared. The loss did not appear to have been great, for the Bill was not very acceptable either to the country or to Reformers in that House. So matters remained until 1854, when, under the Earl of Aberdeen's Government, that House, in their Address to Her Majesty, in answer to the Speech from the Throne, used this language: — We humbly thank your Majesty for informing us that measures will be submitted to us for the amendment of the laws relating to the representation of the Commons in Parliament. The war with Russia was then going on, and it was thought advisable that the measure of Parliamentary Reform introduced by the noble Member for the City of London, as the leader of that House, should remain in abeyance during the continuance of the war. He believed the House adopted a wise decision upon that occasion. The question remained in this position until the commencement of the present Session, although during the last Session of Parliament several independent Members brought forward measures for effecting reforms in the representation. His hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) proposed two Bills with that object; Lord Ebury, who then represented Middlesex, brought forward a 1176 Bill on the subject; and he (Mr. Duncombe) also submitted to the House a measure for the more frequent registration of voters and relieving them from the payment of assessed taxes as a condition of registration. The postponement of these measures was then urged on the ground that the Government were pledged to introduce a Bill which would comprehend all the objects they proposed to accomplish. At the opening of the Session in December last, the House of Commons, in replying to the Speech from the Throne, said,— We humbly thank your Majesty for informing us that our attention will be called to the laws which regulate the representation of the people in Parliament, with a view to consider what amendments may be safely and beneficially made therein. Parliamentary Reform and the Indian question were then the two most prominent features in Her Majesty's Speech. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had redeemed his pledge with respect to the government of India, and laid a Bill upon the table of the House. The next question, therefore, that should have come before them was Parliamentary Reform, and he (Mr. Duncombe) had now to ask the noble Lord whether, assuming that a Bill for Parliamentary Reform was ready, or all but ready, he would lay such Bill before the House? If the noble Lord did so, or if he could give such an explanation as to its details as would satisfy the House it would be evident that his Government had been in earnest on the subject. If the measure was ready, let it be brought forward at once. He knew this was an unusual—and might be an unprecedented request. But the House was in a very unusual and unprecedented position. An Indian Bill had been introduced by the late Government, which stood for a second reading. The present Government opposed the introduction of that Bill, and voted to a man that it was inexpedient to legislate upon the subject during the present Session. But what had the present Government done? They had also introduced an Indian Bill, although they voted some six weeks ago that it was inexpedient to legislate with respect to the government of India at this moment. Now, if the noble Member for Tiverton, would lay upon the table the Reform Bill which the late Government had ready, in all probability they would have another Bill on the subject from Her Majesty's present Government. At all events, if the Bill of 1177 the noble Member for Tiverton proves unsatisfactory, no doubt the noble Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) would kindly step forward, and would spread a feather-bed before the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon which his Bill might safely drop. The noble Lord at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby) had, in another place, very justly found fault with the constant mention of Parliamentary Reform in the Queen's Speeches for the last five or six years, while nothing had been done on the subject. The noble Lord said that it was most inconvenient to keep this subject "perpetually dangling before the Legislature;" but he added that he and his colleagues would do the House the favour to "look into the question." The noble Lord said:— I have felt it my duty, in conjunction with my colleagues, to look into this important question.] will not pledge either myself or them to introduce, cither now or within any very short period, a Bill upon this subject."—[3 Hansard, cxlix. 43.] Well, then, where were they to look for the Reform Bill? Nobody could blame the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), or the noble Lord at the head of the Government, if they did not introduce n Bill on this subject. They were not pledged to do so; and he believed that the more they looked into the question the less they would like it, and that there was therefore little chance that any measure for the reform of the representation would be introduced by them. But was it fit and proper that such an important question should be left in this state, especially as they were told that Reformers formed a large majority of that House? For his own part he thought it was not; and if they were to go on in the same manner, and suffer themselves to be cajoled year after year, of course the present Government would not bring in a Bill next year, and that House would just be in the same position in which it was at that moment. He would venture to give this advice to the Earl of Derby, that unless he was prepared to bring in a Bill that would be satisfactory to the people, that would provide for a wide extension of the franchise, that would give protection to the voter, and that would equalize the representation by a redistribution of seats, he had better leave the question untouched, for it was utterly impossible that any measure which did not include such provisions could satisfy the just wants and expecta- 1178 tions of the people. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Duncombe) hoped the noble Member for Tiverton would lay upon the table the Bill referred to in the Speech from the Throne. If that measure were satisfactory, let them proceed with it; for Reformers were in a majority in that House, and could do what they liked. If it were a bad one, it would at all events servo as an index for future Governments, and teach them to avoid its objectionable features, and to frame a Bill more in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the people. He begged, therefore, to ask the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, "whether he would have any objection, in the present position of Parliamentary Reform, to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Bill for the amendment of the laws relating to the representation referred to in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the present Session?"

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in stating that, in the lust Session of Parliament, the then existing Government did pledge themselves, and more than once, upon the occasions to which he refers, to propose a measure of Parliamentary Reform during the present Session. My hon. Friend, however, is technically not quite correct in his description of the manner in which that question was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the present Session, because the passage which he has just read did not indicate that any Bill was actually prepared, but simply stated that the attention of Parliament would be called to the subject-matter in question. Sir, it was our intention to have redeemed, in the course of the present Session, the pledge which we had thus given. There were two subjects of great importance with which we had to deal. One was the government of India; the other Parliamentary Reform. In considering which of the two was the more pressing and urgent in its nature, it was our deliberate opinion — in which we may have been right or wrong—that, from the circumstances of the moment, the arrangements for the future government of India called most urgently for the consideration of Parliament. We therefore devoted our attention in the first place to the preparation of a Bill upon that subject. We did not, however, abstain from also devoting our attention to the question of Parliamentary Reform. But the urgency of the Indian affair, and the interposition of that financial crisis 1179 which rendered necessary a Session of Parliament before Christmas, so far interfered as to prevent us from actually embodying, in the technical shape of a Bill, the arrangements which we should have been prepared to submit to Parliament. We obtained leave to introduce, and laid before this House, a Bill upon the subject of India. We expected—short-sighted mortals!—that we should also have the opportunity of presenting to the House a measure upon Parliamentary Reform. A majority of this House, however, determined that that should not be; and, by cutting short our official existence, appeared of opinion that it was not for us to have an opportunity, during this Session at least, of submitting for their consideration a Bill upon this question. We, of course, bowed to their decision; and we now sit on this side of the House, instead of occupying a responsible position on the other side of the table. In the first place, then, my answer to my hon. Friend is, that we did not so far embody our arrangements in the shape of a Bill as to be able, even if we thought it expedient upon constitutional grounds to do so, to lay a Reform Bill on the table of the House. But even if we had prepared a Bill, I very much doubt whether it would be the opinion of this House that a measure of such importance, and bearing upon matters of such great national interest, should be introduced from any quarter except by the responsible Ministers of the Crown. My hon. Friend says there is nothing to expect from the present Government. Now, I certainly understand what passed, on the occasion to which he alluded, in rather a different sense from my hon. Friend. I rather infer, from many things which have come to my knowledge, that the present Government do intend, in the course of the next Session, not only to consider the subject of Parliamentary Reform, but to submit to the House the result of their consideration in the shape of a Bill; and judging, among other things, from the communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Attorney General and his constituents, I should be led to infer that even out of office they did turn their minds very practically to the subject, and have made such progress in it that there can be little doubt that, in the course of the recess, those arrangements to which the Attorney General recommended the attention of his constituents will be embodied by the Government in the shape of a Bill for presentation to this House. I 1180 think, therefore, that my hon. Friend need not be under the alarm which he has expressed upon this question. I think he may, upon that point at least, repose confidence in the Government, and wait with patience until the next Session, which is to produce the fruit of their deliberation.