EXPLANATIONS.

HC Deb 01 March 1859 vol 152 cc1058-68

MR. WALPOLE

Mr. Speaker, before you proceed to the business of the evening, I trust I shall be allowed, for the first time in my life, to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I make some explanations with reference to a matter which is more or less personal to myself. The House will have observed that yesterday evening I forbore from taking my usual place, because I thought it would be more convenient to my colleagues—my former colleagues—that they should not have any personal matter mixed up with the important measure which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce. I am not certain whether I should not have forborne from taking my seat again in this House until my successor was actually appointed; but as I find that some misconceptions have arisen, and been circulated, with reference to the reason which led to my resignation of office, I am sure the House will not think I am taking an improper course in venturing now to set myself right with it. In doing this, I must carry you back, if you will permit me, for one year. It is just a year since I was asked by my noble Friend at the head of the Government to join him in one of the most arduous and difficult tasks which any Minister could have to perform—namely, to conduct, avowedly in a minority in this House, the administration of the affairs of this great country. I wrote to him to say that upon private and upon public grounds I rather wished to decline. The private grounds I need not mention; and none of the public grounds will I here advert to, except that which has occasioned my resignation—namely, a doubt whether I should agree with some of my colleagues on the Reform Bill, which I knew they would have to propose. My noble Friend in the kindest manner—in that kind manner which is not exceeded by any one I have ever known—my noble Friend in the kindest manner, and in terms which I will not venture to quote, requested me—aye, pressed me—to join him, and stated that the subject of Reform was a matter for consideration and one to which in no point of detail was the Government then in any respect pledged. I said in reply to my noble Friend, "If there will be nothing dishonourable towards you or towards my colleagues in retiring from office, should I unfortunately not agree with you on this important question, I will consent to take office and do my best to assist you." It was upon these terms that I joined the Government of my noble Friend. The difference which I then foresaw has arisen, and it is in consequence of that difference that I am no longer a Member of the present Administration. Joining the Administration upon such terms as these, I had to consider what in all likelihood would be the principle upon which a Reform Bill would have to be based. I had no need of conjecture. Three times the subject had been introduced into this House upon the recommendation of the Crown itself. Three times the House has assented to the consideration of the question—once in 1852, once in 1854, once at the end of 1857; and, I think, after that had happened, no division having been taken upon the subject, and no Amendment having been suggested, the consideration of the question of Reform was a duty and a necessity imposed upon every one who took a part in public affairs. As I have said, I had no difficulty in conjecturing what I thought the principle of the Reform Bill would be. My noble Friend at the head of the Government in the year 1852, and again in the year 1854, enunciated those principles in the clearest possible manner. I will not quote his words upon any other part of the subject but on this point alone; and in order to set myself right with the House and the country, I hope I may be permitted to refer to the very language used by my noble Friend, when addressing the House of Lords on this subject. On the 31st January, 1854, my noble Friend said,— I beg that your Lordships will not lose sight, of this, that from the earliest periods of the Parliamentary history of this country there have been two great divisions of constituencies, and it is upon due weight being given to each of these two that the whole balance of the constitution in the House of Commons depends. They are, on the one hand, those who represent the property—landed, if you will, but the fixed and immoveable property of the country—represented by the knights of the shire, elected by the freeholders and those holding leases of property; and on the other, the burgesses, elected by their fellow burgesses not representing property, but representing residence and occupation of premises. That distinction is as old as the earliest period of our history. My noble Friend went on to remark that this was as a principle recognized, and even extended, in the Reform Act, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) has constantly referred to that circumstance, and expressly adhered to that distinction. My noble Friend at the head of the Government went on to say,— Property was there, that is, in counties, made the basis of representation; number and residence were the basis of representation with regard to boroughs. I do not pretend that this theory is carried cut in all its integrity and with all its detail. Theory it is not; it is a practical distinction, most important to be borne in mind if you desire that the House of Commons should be not a mere representation of numbers, but a representation of property and numbers combined, one portion of the Members representing more directly the interest of property, the other representing more directly and immediately the interests of residence and numbers. I do trust that the Government, in the measures they are about to introduce, will not attempt to break down this old, well founded, and most important distinction. These were the words of my noble Friend in 1854. I recollected these words when I joined the Government. At the end of the Session we had to consider how the pledge should be redeemed of giving to this country a Reform Bill based upon principles which Conservatives have always advocated, and also with a view of making a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the question. My opinions were perfectly well known to all my colleagues throughout our discussions; they were known to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in September. They were known and repeated, strongly repeated, to my noble Friend at the head of the Government towards the close of that month. We had discussions on the matter in November and December following. I never did give up what I believed to be essential to the constitution of the country—namely, the distinction to which I have adverted; and therefore to that part of the measure which abolishes that distinction, I could not assent. But the House is not aware—and, without mentioning any Cabinet secret, I may inform them—and, in my own justification, I think I ought to inform them—that nothing was settled upon this part of the question until after Christmas; and I was requested to consider the subject as a whole, before I gave my final decision upon any part of it. The Cabinet was to have met On the 10th of January to consider the question. Other business and other causes prevented its consideration, and it was not until the 25th of January that the question came under consideration for final adoption or rejection. Previous to that day I informed my tight hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of my strong convictions upon this subject. We met; we deliberated upon it. I was in a minority. And I then felt that I had nothing to do—but—with the most cordial desire to support Her Majesty's Ministers in every way I could—I felt that I had no other alternative than to request Lord Derby to place my resignation in the hands of the Queen. Of that letter I hold a copy in my hand, and as it states the only reason upon which I have retired from office, will the House permit me to read it? January 27,1859. My dear Lord,—I regret to say that I am about to take the most painful step which I have ever had to take in the whole of my life. I am going to request you to place my resignation in Her Majesty's hands, because I find it is utterly impossible for me to sanction or countenance the course of policy which the Government are now determined to adopt on the important subject of Parliamentary Reform. When you were so good as to ask me to join your present Administration, I told you I thought that I had better decline. I then foresaw that there were one or two questions with reference to which I might not be able to agree with my colleagues. On being assured, however, that, if that should happen, there would be nothing dishonourable to you or to them in asking leave to retire, I consented again to bear my part in the arduous task which the Queen was pleased to invite you to undertake. Parliamentary Reform was one of those questions; and it is now quite clear that I cannot come to an agreement with the majority of the Cabinet. The reduction of the county occupation franchise to a level with that which exists in boroughs is utterly contrary to every principle which the Conservatives, as a party, have always maintained. It is a complete destruction of the main distinction which has hitherto been recognized and wisely established between the borough and the county constituencies. It is to my mind a most dangerous innovation, by giving to temporary and fluctuating occupations a preponderating influence over property and intelligence, while it throws large masses into the constituencies who are almost exempt from direct taxation, and therefore interested in forcing their representatives to fix that taxation permanently on others. I will not dwell upon other points, for this is enough. But I cannot help saying that the measure which the Cabinet are prepared to recommend is one which should all of us have strongly opposed if cither Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ventured to bring it forward. Under all these circumstances, I have no other alternative but to repeat the request with which I commenced; and I shall, therefore, consider myself as only holding the seals of office until you can conveniently fill up my place. I am ever, my dear Lord, "Yours sincerely, "S. H. WALPOLE. The Earl of Derby. The date of that letter forces on me a few words of explanation—in consequence of certain reports that have been circulated—namely, why after I had written diet letter I remained in office and continued to occupy my seat on these Benches. The answer is easy. My noble Friend at the head of the Government was pleased to request me, in the great difficulties by which we were surrounded—difficulties not merely affecting our domestic policy, but difficulties affecting our foreign relations—my noble Friend requested me to withhold the actual announcement of my resignation until Parliament had met, because he was anxious that it should not be prematurely known that Government had to meet Parliament with divided counsels. My answer to my noble Friend was immediate. I said, that whatever I felt it my duty to do, I should always wish to consult his wishes as to the mode and time in which it should be done; and that if he thought I could assist hint in meeting Parliament, I would willingly, when that event occurred, appear in my place as one of his Administration, since I agreed with my colleagues in their general policy provided only I was allotted to retire before the Refrom was actually announced. It was on this understanding that I have continued to sit on the Treasury Bench for the last three weeks, doing, I hope, my duty to my colleagues, to this House, and to my country, and it was not until the announcement of the Reform Bill was made that I considered it my duty to make my resignation known. Indeed, one of my colleagues was good enough to say to me, "You have no right to go out until you know we have finally adopted a measure and will not change it." That reasoning was irresistible to my mind, and I felt that when that appeal was made, I could only answer that I was prepared to hold my office until the Reform Bill was announced. These are the explanations which I have to offer as to the reason which induced me to retire from office. Whether they are sufficient others must judge. But I wish the House to bear in mind, that had I remained I should have been Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose duty it would have been to have given no grudging support either to the principles or the clauses of the Bill. And I ask you, whether, with my strong convictions I could, as an honest man, have given it that support? It has been said, I know, that I have advocated the reduction of the franchise in boroughs to a £6 rating. How that should be known I cannot tell; but this I do know, that any information which I may have given upon that subject was of the most private and confidential character. This I also know, that I never proposed such a measure to the Cabinet. And this I further know, that I told my colleagues, and they all knew it, that I was prepared, if they thought they could stand upon it, to stand by the £10 occupation franchise settled by the Reform Act. I will not disguise from tile House—now that the circumstance has been published to the world—I will not disguise from the House that I think it desirable that you should obtain some resting place to which the franchise should be limited, and that that resting place should be adopted as a permanent settlement of the question. I do believe, for reasons to which I will advert when the second reading of the Bill comes on—I do believe that the reduction to a £20 occupancy in counties would have been such resting place; and I do believe that a reduction of the £10 value in boroughs to a £6 rating, which is equal to £8 value, would have been such a resting place, because that is a point at which landlords cease to be able to compound for their tenants' rates. I advert to this subject because the circumstance has been made known to the world. But I must deprecate in the strongest manner any intimation of private opinions being communicated to the public as reasons for my resig- nation when that is not the ease; and I must further say that if this is the policy on which we are to act for the future, I might be at liberty to reveal any schemes or propositions made by any other hon. Gentleman. Never, however, will I take such a course. But I will add that whoever may have wished to damage me by making the statement, he will probably find that such an attempt will recoil upon himself. Sir, I have only two other observations to make; one addressed to my late colleagues, the other to the House. To my late colleagues I have to say with the most perfect sincerity, agreeing with them in the policy which they have adopted, whether foreign or domestic—having taken, as they know, no inactive part in the social and legal reforms they are so wisely recommending to the House—believing that their policy as a general policy, independent of this particular question of Parliamentary Reform, is really for the good and wellbeing of the country—if my assistance as an independent Member can be of any use to them, they know, or they may know—I believe they do know—they can command it as much as if I remained among them still. To the House I will say, I have now sat here for twelve years. I have filled during that time the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, once for ten months, once for upwards of a year. I have had, no doubt, to mix in party strifes, and party conflicts; but I hope I have not—I am sure I have not intentionally—wounded the feeling of any one whatever. Sir, in now returning to that comparative obscurity, which is much more congenial to my character and disposition, I hope I shall be able to say hereafter, as I think I may say now, that I have endeavoured, both as a Minister and as a private Member, to do my duty to my Queen, to Parliament, and to my country. In saying this, I have said all that I wish to communicate. I have now to thank the House very sincerely for listening to these explanations. I regret most deeply that I could not agree with my colleagues in the particular measure which they have proposed—but not agreeing with them, I am sure the House will concur with me that I had no other alternative than that of tendering the resignation of my office.

MR. HENLEY

I have no doubt, Sir, the House will be kind enough to extend to me that indulgence with which they have just favoured my right hon. Friend. Under ordinary circumstances, I should have been well content to let my position rest upon what he has said, because in almost every particular I agree with what he has stated. There are, however, one or two points in which my position differs somewhat from his. The only condition that I made on joining the Government, when office was offered to me more than a year ago, was that we should endeavour to deal with the Reform question. I had no means of knowing whether that task was to be undertaken or not; but I considered, as my right hon. Friend has said, that from the state in which the question had been for some years it was a necessity for any Government to attempt to deal with it, and I would not have consented to become a Member of any Government except upon the condition that it was to undertake that question. That, at all events, will show the House that I did not approach the Reform question with any indisposition to deal with it. Surprise has been expressed, but in language much stronger than I care to use, that I could not support the Bill which the Government has proposed. I took as my guide that declaration of principles which my right hon. Friend has read to the House. I thought it was safe ground to stand upon, and the only point on which I have differed from my colleagues—the only reason which has induced me to leave the Government—is that which my right hon. Friend has stated. I believe that identity of suffrage, which is the principle of the Government Bill, is fatal to the constitution of this country. I care not whether the franchise is £10, or £15, or £5—I care not at what sum you fix it—but I hold that, if you take a paint-brush and draw a line across the country, and say that all the people upon one side are to have the franchise, and all the people upon the other are not to have it, although you may have no trouble for a few years, yet as sure as the sun is in heaven you will have all the people upon the outside of the line, at some time or other, making a very ugly rush to break over it. Depend upon it that when they do break over it in that way you will not find it easy to maintain the constitution of England. You have no precedent for the present proposal in your past history. You could not get identity of suffrage without a large measure of disfranchisement. To obtain it you are obliged to disfranchise all that large number of persons who have a freehold franchise within boroughs—who value that franchise, who wish to retain it, and who, as far as I know, have not abused it. I, for one, could never consent to attain identity of franchise upon such conditions. Let us consider the Government Bill under two aspects—first, as if it were to succeed; next, as if it were to fail. I shall take it in the first instance as a successful measure. I will ask my hon. Friends to consider this. Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 the working people have been having a less and less share in the representation. They had considerable representation before 1832 through the scot-and-lot voters and the freemen. I am not going to say anything either for or against the freemen, but through them the working classes had their voice in the representation. They are gradually dying out, and I ask my hon. Friends near me to consider if they draw a hard line and leave the working people behind it, how long they think it will stand? If one thing can be more destructive to our constitution than another, it will be to have a Reform Bill every few years; and that will be the case if you cannot settle your system upon such grounds that you can reasonably hope that it will stand. I do not say for any long time—finality is out of the question—but for a decent number of years. If you cannot do that, you are laying the sure foundation for revolution. It is for that reason that I cannot agree to identity of franchise. If there be an identity of franchise, the whole electoral power will then be placed in one class, and whether it were a 10, £15 or £5 class, it would, in my judgment, be equally dangerous; for when a question might come up, you would have them all going to rush into one thing. Our safety—the permanence of our constitution, in my judgment, has depended on the great variety of the constituency. You never have all at one time for one thing. If anything is proposed it gets well ventilated and well considered, and then the truth is found out and the country accepts it. I believe that under an identity of franchise you would lose that great and invaluable safeguard. I now come to the question of my resignation. In the month of December, as my right hon. Friend has told the House, we got a pretty clear inkling of what we should have to consider. I then informed the noble Lord at the head of the Government that I thought—that I apprehended (that was the term I used) that there would be an irreconcilable dif- ference between me and my colleagues, and I wished then to be allowed to retire. This was before Christmas. I was, as my right hon. Friend has stated, pressed to remain till I should see the while measure. I consented, expecting fully that I should have to decide on the matter in the early part of January; but from circumstances, as my right hon. Friend has said, over which we had no control, we had not the opportunity of knowing the decision of our colleagues till the end of January. Then, without any concert with my right hon. Friend, I placed my resignation in the hands of the First Minister, requesting him to lay it before Her Majesty, and do so in that way which he might consider most convenient to the public service, at whatever sacrifice it might he to myself—and no one who has been in the situation in which my right hon. Friend and myself have been placed for the last month but must feel how great was the sacrifice of feeling we made in having to carry on the business of office solely for the convenience, as we were told, of our former colleagues, and the public service. I hope, with my right hon. Friend, that I have not failed—I am sure I have not from any want of exertion—in doing toy duty during that time to the country and to the Queen; but every one must feel that my position was a most painful one, and, if I may use such a phrase, it was almost like walking about with a mask on one's face. But I was pressed to remain in office, for the time, and, whether rightly or wrongly, I gave way. With respect to the lowering of the franchise, I might equally complain with my right hon. Friend, though I do not care about it, because I am not a person who keeps his light under a bushel. Many of my Friends on this side of the House know that I thought the borough franchise ought to be lowered. I thought the resting-place mentioned by my right hon. Friend a very patent and manifestly good resting-place, and close on an analogy with the old rating suffrage. It has been said that I did not care what became of the boroughs so long as I could take care of the counties. Now, that is one way of putting the question: but there is another way of putting it, and that is this:—When I know that my fellow-countrymen, the working men of this country, were within the last thirty years considerably improved in everything that distinguishes men and makes them safe subjects, I do not think it a degradation to a borough, or to any other constituency, that a portion of those fellow-countrymen should have, through that legtimate channel, a share in the franchise. That is my view of the matter, and I think that, holding these opinions, it was absolutely impossible that I could take part in the responsibility of the measure proposed by my colleagues in the Government. I have always acted, I hope, with perfect frankness to all those I have come across, and I felt that I could not sit on that (the Treasury) bench, letting it be supposed that I approved the principle of this Bill to which I have adverted. Any other part I say nothing about—I do nut want to give an opinion on any other part—but I can never agree to that great change in the constitution of this country—namely, time establishment of one uniform franchise throughout the country, both in counties and boroughs. I thank the House for the attention with which it has always heard me, whether on this or any other occasion, and I take leave to make the same expression of my feelings as my right hon. Friend has done of his in far better words then I can use; and if in office or out of it I have said or done anything which this House might have taken amiss, I beg to state that it never was my intention so to act. I trust that I shall always retain the good opinion of the House, which I hope I have hitherto enjoyed.