Lords Sitting of 4 April 1859

MINUTES
. PUBLIC BILLS—2a Patents for Inventions (Munitions of War); Common Rights, &c. (War Department).

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
THE EARL OF DERBY*: My Lords, the magnitude of the interests involved in the statement which it will be my duty to submit to your Lordships will, I am sure, be a sufficient justification for my interposing between this House and the ordinary business of the day. And if, with a view to place myself in order, and to enable others, if they so think fit, to follow me, I make the formal Motion that this House do now adjourn, I trust your Lordships will believe that I make that Motion merely as a matter of form, and not with the slightest desire to interfere with the progress of business after I shall have concluded my present statement. My Lords, in explaining to your Lordships the advice which, in common with my colleagues, I felt it my duty humbly to tender to Her Majesty, and the course which, with Her Majesty's gracious sanction, we propose to adopt, it is unnecessary for me, I am sure, to recall to your recollection the circumstances which have rendered any such announcement requisite, It must be fresh in the memory of all your Lordships that on Thursday night last the House of Commons, after a debate of seven nights, and in one of the fullest Houses ever known, by a considerable majority sanctioned an Amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, upon a proposition of Her Majesty's Government for the second reading of the Bill which they had introduced with regard to the representation of the people in Parliament. My Lords, it is only due to the House of Commons to say that, in a now considerable Parliamentary experience extending over thirty-seven years, I never

1267
remember any debate which was conducted with such an amount of unflagging interest from the commencement to the end, with a greater degree of ability, and above all—in a case which might naturally excite strong political and personal feelings—with so little asperity or acerbity either on the one side or the other. I think, my Lords, that in point of ability, in point of tone and temper, that debate was highly creditable to both sides of the House, and may fairly challenge comparison, not only with those debates which we have heard of as taking place in those days when it is said there were political giants, but undoubtedly, also, in those more recent times of which many of your Lordships, with myself, have had experience, and during which, too, there have occurred exciting debates in which we have borne our respective parts. My Lords, I shall reserve for a future part of the statement I have now to make any observations upon the nature and character of the Amendment to which I have referred. I would only say at present that, in the unanimous judgment of my colleagues and myself, the result and effect of that Amendment left us only two possible alternatives between which to choose—namely, either the immediate tender of our resignation of the offices we have the honour to hold, or, on the other hand, an appeal to the judgment and opinion of the country. My Lords, I know that many of our political friends and some of our political opponents have suggested that there is another course which might be taken, and without discredit to ourselves—that we might take the course of ignoring altogether the decision which the House of Commons have pronounced of simply dropping the Bill which we have introduced, and of proceeding—without taking any notice of the vote which has been passed—with the ordinary business of the Session. My Lords, in my judgment such a course would neither be respectful to the House of Commons nor consistent with our Parliamentary and constitutional duty. It was impossible for us to conceal from ourselves that the vote taken was substantially a vote of want of confidence in the Government; for the House of Commons would not permit them even to discuss the measure which they had introduced. And if, under such circumstances, we had taken no notice of that vote, I think we should have been justly charged with a contemptuous indifference to the opinion of that House, and
1268
should have provoked and brought down upon ourselves heavy and well-merited censure. My Lords, there was, as I have said, but one of two courses for us to pursue—either respectfully to bow to the opinion of the House of Commons, or, on the other hand, to appeal from the judgment of that House to the only higher constitutional power in the country—namely, the constituencies of whom they profess to be the representatives. Another course was suggested to Her Majesty's Government, from no friendly quarter and in no friendly tone; that suggestion was so incompatible with the feelings and character of Her Majesty's Government that it was impossible for a single moment to entertain it, and the bare supposition that Her Majesty's Government could agree to it approached as near as possible to a personal insult. But before I proceed to state to your Lordships the course we have resolved to adopt, and the reasons for taking it, I must beg your Lordships to look back to the circumstances under which Her Majesty's present Government accepted the responsibility of office, and even to carry your memory still further back, and bear with me while I take a brief and rapid retrospect of a few years, and the various changes and fluctuations they have produced in our Parliamentary contests. I have heard it said that the days of Parliamentary Government have come to an end. If by that is meant that the days are gone by when the House of Commons was divided into two distinct parties—within each of which the leaders exercised an undisputed and uncontrolled power over their followers, commanding their votes and exercising a species of Parliamentary discipline—then, I admit, those days are gone, and are not likely to return. Nor do I think, though there was a great convenience to the public in this sharp separation of parties, that the change has been, on the whole, prejudicial. But, my Lords, if it is meant that henceforth no Government can hope for support, not on individual questions on which exceptions may occur, but that no Government will hereafter be able to obtain a permanent majority in the House of Commons strong enough to prevent it being overborne by other conflicting parties, not themselves bound by any common tie, each having its own leaders and its own projects, if the House of Commons is to be divided into a number of little parties, none capable of exercising a permanent influence on the affairs of the

1269
country, but able collectively to thwart the measures and impede the business of the Ministry that has been formed, if, in that sense, Government by party is at an end, then I warn your Lordships that the system of Government by Parliament itself will have a very heavy shock to encounter. If we look back on the history of the last few years, at least since the lamented death of the late Sir Robert Peel, such has been almost the normal condition of the House of Commons. My Lords, I should be most ungrateful if I applied the observations I now make to the great Conservative party with which I have for many years been connected; I should be most ungrateful if I did not recognise with the deepest emotion of thankfulness the cordial, the warm, the unwavering support, I have for many years received from that important party. It has given me a cordial and generous support—a support founded in some degree on personal regard, but, I hope, still more on a concurrence of political opinion, and a belief that I have exercised power to the best of my judgment, and of such faculties as I possessed, for the welfare of the country. But if I look at those who sit on the other side of the House of Commons, I see—and see it with regret, because it stands in the way of all public business—I see "confusion worse confounded." I see a number of parties incapable of concurring together in support of a Government, yet most dangerous when accidental circumstances bring them together to oppose it. I see, and I lament to see it, a large portion of the House of Commons enlisted under separate leaders and following different guides, prevented by mutual differences and mutual jealousies from acting together for the good of the country. If we look back on the last few years, we shall see that Parliament itself has been the theatre of constant and unceasing rivalry between the two noble Lords who have alternately been the leaders of the so-called Liberal party. I wish to speak of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) with all the respect I unfeignedly feel for his many valuable qualities; nor am I slow to recognise the services he has conferred on his country. Nor can I have the slightest doubt of the sincerity of his zeal in bringing forward the question of Parliamentary Reform: of that question he has been the consistent and unflinching advocate; to that question the noble Lord is constitutionally attached, but attached
1270
less with the affection of a parent, anxious for the prosperity and advancement of his offspring, than with the jealous affection of a lover, ready to sacrifice anything to obtain the beloved object, but ready, also, to die rather than that object should receive any attention, or owe either hap-pines, or advancement to any other person. The noble Lord of whom I have spoken has many high and distinguished qualities, but there is combined with them a restless disposition, an insatiable craving always to be doing something, and a determination that whatever is done shall be done by himself, or not at all. His indomitable perseverance in the discharge of business—which has hardly found sufficient scope in the performance of official duties—is accompanied with a degree of restlessness under which he cannot be satisfied for a moment unless he is seeking to do some injury to the cause of those who are acting against him. The noble Lord has had the singular fortune of having overthrown more successive Governments than any other statesman; and not only Governments to which he was opposed, he has more than once been the means of overthrowing the Government of which he was a member. I am not going back as far as 1834, when I was a colleague of the noble Lord, and when an imprudent statement made by him in the House of Commons led to the disclosure of certain dissensions in the Cabinet of Earl Grey, and induced me to drop an expression in reference to the noble Lord's conduct that afterwards became almost proverbial. That was in 1834. In 1835 Sir Robert Peel succeeded to power; at the same time a question had been opened most important to the welfare and peace of Ireland: it was the extinction of the tithe system by the substitution of a rent charge. The Government of Sir Robert Peel gave notice of the introduction of a Bill on that subject early in the winter of 1834; but it did not suit the noble Lord the Member for the City of London that the question should be in any hands but his own. He adopted a course at that time unprecedented, but which has furnished a sufficient precedent for Motions of the same description. The noble Lord introduced, to prevent the discussion of the measure, a Resolution, to the effect that no settlement of the tithe question in Ireland could be satisfactory or final that did not apply the surplus revenue of the Church to the object of public education. That Resolution answered its purpose; the Go-

1271
vernment of Sir Robert Peel properly and justly assumed that the vote of the House of Commons on that Resolution was equal to a vote of want of confidence. It resigned office; and what was the consequence? It was, that the settlement of a great and important question was for a considerable time postponed, to the serious injury of Ireland; and when a. settlement took place, under a Government of which the noble Lord himself was a Member, that very provision, deemed indispensable to a satisfactory settlement, was omitted, and merged in oblivion. The next period to which I shall call your Lordships' attention was when Sir Robert Peel quitted office in 1846. I need not remind your Lordships of the circumstances of that eventful year. Sir Robert Peel had broken up the Conservative party, and excited its resentment by the adoption of the measure sanctioning the repeal of the Corn Laws. It is unnecessary to go into the discussion of that question. The course Sir Robert Peel took was warmly praised and applauded by the Liberal party; but that applause and that praise did not prevent the noble Lord from taking the opportunity, on the very day on which the Bill was read a third time in your Lordships' House, of carrying a hostile Motion against the Government of Sir Robert Peel, which led to his resignation of office. Looking back to the conduct of the Conservative party on that occasion, I am compelled to say that, in my opinion, they obeyed rather the dictates of resentment—though not an unnatural resentment—than those of sound policy. I do not think they were justified, whatever their feelings might be, in joining in a vote which deprived the Government of the power of maintaining tranquillity in Ireland, in the manner which the Government deemed indispensable to the public service. In consequence of that vote Sir Robert Peel resigned office, and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London succeeded to the head of the Administration, adopting the principles and the measures of the Minister whom he had succeeded. My Lords, that Minister, with signal generosity, extended the shield of his protection over his previous opponents during the four years that followed his resignation, By the aid of that portion of the Conservative party which adhered to Sir Robert Peel, that Government was maintained in power till the close of the year 1850. Sir Robert Peel died, as your Lordships are aware, in the year 1850,
1272
and at the commencement of 1851, by no attack from others, but from their own intrinsic weakness, the Government of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London was reduced to such an extremity that they felt themselves compelled to tender their resignation to Her Majesty. That was owing, singularly enough, to a vote on which the Government opposed, or pretended to oppose, a Motion brought forward by Mr. Locke King for the reduction of the county franchise to £10, and in opposition to which they succeeded in bringing, by all their efforts, the large number of forty-eight persons to oppose a majority of 100. The Government having upon that occasion, as I have stated, fallen to the ground, it was necessary for Her Majesty to construct another. I see at the table a noble Marquess, to whom I believe, upon that occasion, Her Majesty appealed for advice. I see a noble Earl on the other side whose advice and assistance Her Majesty also requested, and Her Majesty at the same time did me the honour of making to me a proposal to undertake the responsibility of forming a Government. None of those noble Lords, nor I myself, were in a position to undertake so serious a responsibility as the formation of a Government in the then existing state of parties, and accordingly the Government of 1851, without change or modification, was again placed upon its legs. That Government then continued until the commencement of 1852, but in the interval there had arisen dissensions in the Cabinet, upon what ground I, of course, cannot pretend to say, between the noble Lord the Member for the City of London and the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, and the result of those differences of opinion was, that in the month of December the noble Viscount quitted the office which he held in the Government of the noble Lord, [A noble LORD: Was turned out of office.] But if the noble Viscount at that time quitted office, or, as has been suggested behind me, was turned out of office, it was not long before retaliation followed; for, in February, 1852, upon the Motion of the noble Viscount, the whole of his previous colleagues were placed in a minority, and they were compelled again to resign office. My Lords upon that occasion I was again appealed to by Her Majesty, and, looking at the serious nature of the difficulties which Her Majesty had to encounter in forming a Government, I consented, very reluctantly, to accept the responsibility

1273
that was cast upon me. I need not say-that that Administration was not of very long duration. It commenced in the month of February, and terminated in the month of December. When that Government was overthrown, the noble Earl whom I see opposite was called upon by Her Majesty to form an Administration upon a basis up to that time strange to the constitution of this country. I recollect that the noble Earl upon that occasion expressed his opinion that the country was so entirely sick of and disgusted with the differences and struggles of parties, that he could safely construct an Administration composed of Members of all differences of opinion, and of all gradations of opinion; and that such an Administration would carry on satisfactorily the Government of the country. That Administration contained among its Members men of all shades of opinion—even from those who, like the noble Earl opposite, were but newly baptized into the doctrines of Liberalism, to those who were Radicals of the deepest dye. I use that expression in no offensive sense; but it cannot be denied that of that Administration the late Sir William Molesworth was a Member. Nor can it be denied that he belonged to what was then called the extreme Radical party. Well, my Lords, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London accepted the office of Foreign Secretary, but shortly afterwards the noble Lord, finding, I suppose, that the duties of that office were incompatible with the labours attaching to the leadership of the House of Commons, resigned that office, and, I think, for the space of a year, or a year and a half, or something more, he remained in the Cabinet without office, and, I believe, without salary. At that time, to use an expression of the noble Earl opposite, we were just beginning to drift into that war which led to such calamities, but at the same time, to such glory to those who were engaged in it. The attention of Parliament was altogether directed from the commencement of that war—and I am quite sure the noble Lord opposite will admit that it was directed without any hostile feeling, or without any manifestation of a desire to embarrass the Government—to the prosecution of that war, and to the promotion of the external interests of the country. But in the month of June, 1854, the noble Lord again changed his office. He then accepted office of President of the Council. Your Lordships will not have forgotten that towards the close
1274
of the year 1854 there was a threat of a Motion to directly impeach the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the war, and of a measure to inflict upon them the strongest condemnation. That measure did not originate from their Conservative opponents. It originated in the heart of the Liberal ranks. With no little dissatisfaction, I think, to the Government, and to the astonishment of the public, a few days before that Motion was brought under discussion in the House of Commons, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London said, it was impossible for him to defend the proceedings or the measures of his colleagues, and, retiring before the storm which had been excited, he left them to fight their own battles with their own Liberal supporters. That step of the noble Lord and the Motion subsequently brought forward by Mr. Roebuck for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of the Government in that respect led to the resignation of the Government of the noble Earl. That was in 1855. Again, Her Majesty did me the honour of asking me whether I would then undertake to conduct the business of the country. I thought upon that occasion, that with the co-operation of some noble Lords and of some right hon. Gentlemen I might be enabled to discharge that task, however imperfectly. That co-operation was refused me, and I have no right to complain that it was so. Greatly, as I think, to his credit, the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, with signal courage accepted the arduous task imposed upon him. He undertook the Administration of the Government at a most critical period. Within a very short time after the noble Viscount accepted office—I think within a very few weeks—there was another change of Government. He was left by throe, I think, of his most distinguished colleagues, who could not agree with him in the propriety of permitting an inquiry to go on into the conduct of the war, and upon their retirement the noble Viscount again called upon the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, to undertake the duties of the Colonial Department. While the noble Lord held the seals of that department he undertook also a mission in a diplomatic capacity to Vienna. My Lords, the noble Lord was not very successful in his diplomatic career. So considerable was the dissatisfaction which that career produced in the minds of his colleagues upon his return, that I believe there is no doubt

1275
the noble Lord was requested to resign office. His resignation again caused considerable inconvenience to the Cabinet. The noble Lord, I think, since that period has never been a Member of any Government. But far be it from me to say that he is less active. In the year 1857 the noble Lord took a prominent part in the House of Commons—a part which I cannot by any means condemn, because I took a similar part in your Lordships' House in bringing forward in terms of condemnation the proceedings upon the coast of China. That, as your Lordships know, led to another Ministerial crisis. It led to a dissolution of Parliament and to the calling of a new Parliament—to the signal success of the noble Viscount, the Member for Tiverton. Now, my Lords, that Parliament—which is this Parliament—was summoned under considerable excitement. It was summoned in consequence of an appeal to the pasions and sympathies of the country in favour of the noble Viscount individually, as one who upheld the insulted honour of the country against combinations and cabals, I know not what else. He claimed the support of all those, whatever their political opinions might be, who desired to maintain the honour and dignity of the flag of England. The noble Viscount enjoyed another signal advantage in calling that Parliament together, and I well recollect saying at the time that, although there might be great success attending that election, that success was insecure, and that majority was a majority not to be depended upon, because it consisted of persons who supported the noble Viscount from the most opposite causes; some believing him to be the soundest and stanchest of Conservatives, and others believing, and naturally so, as he had accepted the leadership of the Liberal party, that he alone was the head of the Liberal party. My Lords, it is not too much to say that the Parliament of 1857 set up the noble Viscount as a political idol. He returned to Parliament with an overwhelming majority; but, as I said before, a majority founded upon no principles, and the continuance of which, consequently, was not to be calculated upon. Accordingly not a year elapsed from the time that Parliament was assembled before it broke the idol which it had set up, and again among the principal executioners was his noble Friend the Member for the City of London. I am coming now to the close of this long statement, for which I have to
1276
apologise to your Lordships, but I wish to show you what is most seriously important, and what may well call for reflection on the part of all those who love the British Constitution, what is infinitely more important than the success of this or that particular measure—infinitely more important than the overthrow or the rise of this or that Ministry—I want to point out the danger to our Parliamentary system arising from these constant changes and fluctuations year by year—not a single year passing without its Ministerial crisis, hardly a year passing without a Ministerial abandonment of office. My Lords, I solemnly declare, if that system is to be persevered in, if that system is permitted by the people of England to be continued, there is an end to all hope of the stability of Governments; there is an end to all chance of Government upon a system—there is serious injury done to the political influence of Parliament at home, and there is a serious depreciation of the weight and influence of England in the affairs of Europe. When in 1858 Her Majesty graciously called upon me to undertake the duties of the office which I have now the honour to hold, as I have already stated to your Lordships on a former occasion, I placed before Her Majesty unreservedly our position in the House of Commons; I pointed out to Her Majesty that at that time I could reckon upon the support of little more than one-third of the House of Commons, and consequently, that if there were a combination of the remainder of the House against me, and those who acted with me, we should be left in a permanent minority, varying from 120 to 150. I requested—I may say I urged upon Her Majesty to reconsider the command which she had placed upon me, and I ventured to solicit that Her Majesty would consider whether, among the other leaders of the House, and among the various parties in the House, there were not some to be found who could conduct the affairs of the country with a greater certainty of being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons than I could for a single moment pretend to. Her Majesty graciously took the time for which I had asked to consider, and on the following day—and not until the following day—Her Majesty informed me, upon full consideration, that it was her wish and desire that I should undertake the responsibilities of the office which I now hold. So urged, my Lords, and seeing the difficulty in which the Crown was placed,

1277
and the inconvenience to which Parliament was exposed by these frequent changes, I felt it to be my duty not to shrink from the responsibility or the labours which Her Majesty Bought to impose on me. I undertook office, knowing that I was in a minority in the House of Commons; I undertook it in the firm desire faithfully and diligently to discharge those duties which were placed on my shoulders; I undertook it in the hope that, by a steady adherence to business, by attending to the interests of the country, by seeking not to embitter but rather to conciliate party differences, by endeavouring to maintain the honour of the country abroad and to promote its prosperity at homo, I might so far conciliate an adverse majority of the House of Commons that they would allow me without obstruction to carry on the business of the country until, at all events, it could be made clear that there was some one large, definite party, able to carry out their own policy, ready to replace me, and likely to enjoy the confidence of the two Houses of Parliament, as well as of the country. I hope I may say, that during the twelve months in which I and my colleagues have held office, we have not neglected the duties belonging to our respective positions. I hope that we have not neglected the interests of this country at home; I am sure that we have laboured to maintain and uphold its honour abroad. And I firmly believe at this moment—I have no wish to speak boastfully of ourselves, or disparagingly of others—but I do firmly believe, that if the peace of Europe is yet to be maintained, it will have been owing to the unceasing efforts and untiring vigilance of ray noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to the attitude which, under his guidance and at his suggestion, Parliament and the country have assumed with regard to the political objects now in question. I should be unjust, however, to the noble Lords who sit opposite—and more especially unjust to the noble Earl lately at the head of the Foreign Office—if I did not admit that with regard to all foreign business, and, indeed, with regard to the transactions of all business generally, we have met from them nothing but courtesy and fair play. The noble Earl especially has been studiously anxious in relation to the Foreign department, the difficulties of which he well knows, not to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by the interposition of any untimely questions or the introduction of any unseemly discussions.
1278
I may also say that, after one attempt, made very shortly after the Government succeeded to office, and which—though at one time it had a most formidable appearance, considering the host that were mustered against us—yet before the wish of the country and the power and force of reason melted away like a snowball in the sun, so that they not only did not bring their threatened resolution of condemnation to a vote, but begged to be permitted to withdraw it: after that event we had no reason to complain of the interference of the House of Commons with the management of the affairs of the country. There were, however, remaining from our predecessors two or three questions of very considerable difficulty, which had baffled the skill and power of preceding Governments, which were left to us as a species of damnosa hœreditas with which, if we should find ourselves able, it would be our duty to grapple. Of those questions, perhaps the most important—certainly the one which had been the most frequently before the public and which had been assumed to be the favourite project of the Governments which had preceded us—was the question of Parliamentary Be form. It was not only the noble Lord the Member for London, who in the discharge of his duty had thought it necessary from time to time to bring that question under the notice of Parliament, but two successive Governments—that of the noble Earl opposite and the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton—had pledged themselves, and had pledged their Sovereign, by the speech from the throne, to introduce a measure of Parliamentary Reform. Nay, more, my Lords; the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had upon two occasions, in 1852 and in 1854, embodied his propositions and his scheme in two different Bills; and your Lordships, I am sure, will all recollect that very pathetic scene when, almost with tears in his eyes, the noble Lord in 1854, was compelled, under the pressure of the foreign war, to abandon his favourite project of Reform. Now I say, in passing, that though the war in 1854 formed a very convenient apology for not proceeding with the measure which a Member of the Government was very anxious to undertake, it has been whispered—it was whispered at the time, and it has been repeated with somewhat more confidence since, and I believe I may say that it is hardly a secret, that there was another and more formidable obstacle to proceeding with that measure

1279
of Parliamentary Reform, and that between the noble Lord and the noble Viscount there was on the subject of that measure so insuperable a difference of opinion, that although the noble Viscount consented to remain a Member of the Government till the Bill was read a second time, it was well known that there were provisions in that Bill to which he had signified his intention never to assent, and that if that measure had been proceeded with in 1854 it would have broken up the Government of the noble Lord. Again, in 1857, engagements were taken by the Minister of the day, in the name of the Sovereign, that that measure of Parliamentary Reform should be dealt with in the ensuing Session. I cannot but say, that in giving those pledges I think that the Governments of both those noble Lords exercised their power very imprudently and unwisely. I think that it is not consistent with the respect due to the Sovereign—that it is not consistent with the respect due to Parliament, that measures should be announced in the speech from the Throne with regard to which I will not only say that no Bill had been prepared, but with regard to which I will further say that no progress had been made towards the formation of a Bill, and that I believe no serious intention existed of ever bringing one forward. In succeeding, therefore, to the inheritance of that long-deferred legacy, I considered it my duty to undertake—not indeed the introduction of a measure, but in concurrence with my colleagues, carefully and deliberately to consider the whole question, and to ascertain whether it might be possible, consistently with our political opinions, to introduce such a measure as should not run counter to those opinions and principles, and which yet should have a chance of obtaining the sanction and assent of Parliament. I was encouraged to believe that we might, in bringing forward such a measure, look for a fair amount of countenance and support, because while it was in progress we were assured from time to time how desirable it was that no further delay should occur in the settlement of the question. We were constantly told how important it was that we should not go too far, that our measure could not be too moderate, that it could not be too small that it could not be too far removed from those dangerous doctrines and extensive principles of Reform which were advocated by persons who, though they belonged to the Liberal party, yet had no sympathy
1280
with the great Whig leaders. We undertook the question, and we prepared a Bill, and as soon as the Liberal party were free from the responsibility of carrying a measure, there was no end to the anxiety and the pressure on their part that not a single day should be lost in submitting a measure to Parliament. But what took place in the mean time? The Member for the City of London had made no secret—he had spoken openly, and before numbers, of his confidence, that whenever the Conservative party should bring forward a Reform Bill that would be the moment for the Liberal party to overthrow them, whatever might be the character of the measure. Distinguished Members of the previous Government made speeches, in which they said that any Ministry which undertook to bring in a Reform Bill would incur a serious responsibility—that they must be prepared to satisfy the country that any Reform was wanted; and, moreover, a tight honourable Baronet, a leading Member of the last Administration, intimated his opinion that the Government were in a dilemma with regard to the measure of Reform, from which they would find it impossible to extricate themselves, because, either they must propose to reduce the county franchise to £10, or else they would find themselves in a minority in the House of Commons, which would never be satisfied with a smaller reduction. But, since we have brought forward a Bill reducing the county franchise to £10, we have been told by the very same Gentleman that if we had been contented with a £20 franchise, we should have had no difficulty in passing our Bill; and we have heard that language from those who were Members of the Governments which had upon two successive occasions proposed a £10 franchise, and who had themselves supported Mr. Locke King's Motion. The noble Lord the Member for the City, in particular, had given as his reason for supporting that Motion that he saw no reason why the inhabitant of a county should not vote on as low a franchise as the inhabitant of a town, and on that ground he voted for a Bill to reduce the county franchise to the same level as the franchise in boroughs. And now we are told that the signal defect in our Bill, that which shows our recklessness and blindness, is the bringing down of the county franchise to the same amount as the borough franchise, and refusing to lower the borough franchise below the

1281
county franchise. This is not the proper occasion to vindicate the provisions of our Bill; if it were, I should be prepared to discuss them calmly and deliberately, and to offer such grounds for their adoption as, though they might not persuade your Lordships to adopt them, would at least show that they were not proposed without due consideration. What I wish, however, to impress upon your Lordships is, that in that Bill we dealt with the question in such a manner as largely to add to the numbers of the constituent body of the country, to give the suffrage to a much larger number of persons than had ever previously enjoyed it, and to a larger number than would have been entitled to it under- either of the Bills introduced by the noble Lord the Member for the City. In drawing up our Bill we had the advantage of the great experience of the noble Lord, and we had the double advantage of being fortified by his authority, whatever course we might have adopted in the provisions of our Bill, for there was no one single point on which the two Bills of 1852 and 1854 were not diametrically opposed to each other. The Bill of 1852 proposed a £20 county franchise; the Bill of 1854 proposed a £10 franchise; the Bill of 1852 proposed a £5 borough franchise, with one year's residence; the Bill of 1854 proposed a £6 rating franchise, with two and a-half years' residence, and payment of rates during the whole of that period. The Bill of 1852 proceeded upon the principle of not disfranchising a single borough; the Bill of 1854 disfranchised sixty-three boroughs. The Bill of 1852 enfranchised two new towns; the Bill of 1854 did not enfranchise new constituencies, except to a limited extent, but distributed among constituencies already represented additional Members, of whom forty-seven were allotted to counties, I think, and sixteen or seventeen to boroughs. Therefore we might have fortified ourselves by the authority of the noble Lord, whether he had adopted the principle of disfranchising or not disfranchising—whether we had grouped boroughs or not—whether we had lowered the franchise in counties to £20 or £10, or whether we had adopted the £5 or £6 franchise in boroughs, with the period of residences mentioned. We were not ashamed of availing ourselves of the noble Lord's great experience and knowledge. We carefully considered the separate provisions of his two Bills, and where we found valuable provisions, no fear of being accused of
1282
plagiarism deterred us from making use of them. In taking that course we certainly had a right to calculate on a fair and impartial consideration of the measure which we laid before Parliament. In the speech from the Throne Her Majesty bespoke for that measure, and in their answers to that speech both Houses undertook to give to it, that calm and impartial consideration which was proportionate to the magnitude of the interests involved. But I think I may appeal to your Lordships whether in the House of Commons the course pursued was consistent with that fair requirement, or with the assurance given by Parliament. I would not have complained, nor would my colleagues have complained if, after the Bill had been introduced in a speech of singular clearness and ability by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if after, at the request of hon. Members opposite, the desired period for consideration of its details had been allowed, those opposed to the Government had taken objection to the principle of the Bill, and had rejected it upon the second reading as unworthy of their acceptance, or even if they had sought to modify its details in Committee. For myself and my colleagues I may say that, in introducing that measure, we did not seek to gratify this or that party—we did not seek to serve party or political interests—we did not seek to excite in its favour that factitious enthusiasm which it might have raised had we made it a one-sided party measure; but we sought to lay such a measure before Parliament as might command the reasonable approbation of moderate and thinking men, and might be accepted as the solution of a very important and difficult question. Had that Bill been permitted to take the usual Parliamentary course, had it been allowed to go into Committee, we should have been prepared to vindicate there its provisions; but if on any of them the decision of the House had been adverse to our views, we should have considered ourselves perfectly at liberty to consider calmly whether that decision was so much at variance with the principle of the Bill as to make it inadmissible; and if we had found that the alteration made did not seriously interfere with the principle of the Bill, no amount of false pride would have deterred us from accepting it. But that was not the course pursued. It was felt that this was a just, fair, and, on the whole, a reasonable measure. It was

1283
felt with alarm, by those who thought they had the monopoly of reform in their hands, that this was a measure which would commend itself in the main to the deliberate consideration of the country; and they determined—and I cannot but complain of that determination, and the mode in which it was carried out—that a deliberate consideration it should not receive, and that the discussion of it should be anticipated by a Resolution which was only not unprecedented because the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had himself furnished a precedent for it. A very high authority in your Lordships' House, and a very high authority elsewhere, derived from a long experience of public business, have expressed themselves in terms of very great doubt as to whether that Motion was admissible or not. The highest authority in the other House ruled it otherwise, and of course I have nothing to complain of on that point; but, to say the least of it, the Motion was one calculated to prevent the House of Commons, Parliament, and the country, from judging fairly and fully of the merits of the measure. I can conceive no course more dangerous, more prejudicial to the conduct of affairs in Parliament, than, when a measure of this importance is proposed, to seek to pass by anticipation a sweeping censure upon portions of it which it was perfectly competent to discuss subsequently in Committee, and thereby to prejudice the House, and prevent its opinion being known to the country. If this measure had gone on—even suppose it had never passed—we should have had an expression of opinion from the House on its various provisions; we should have known the mind of Parliament, and we should have been able to compare it with the opinions of the people out of doors. But we stand in this position now—after seven nights' debate, not on the Bill, but on the Amendment of the noble Lord, we are left in entire ignorance as to what those who oppose the Bill would substitute in place of it. It is not to be believed that it was proposed undesignedly or without purpose, and for the purpose it was a very wise Resolution, because it evaded a fair discussion and introduced prejudice against the provisions of the Bill. It was with no slight touch of irony that the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, if I am rightly informed, told his noble Friend, the Member for the City of London, who communicated to him his intended Resolution, that it was an excellent
1284
Resolution, and admirably adapted for the purpose for which it was intended. But what was that purpose? The purpose was, and it was all but avowed, to destroy the Bill, and to destroy the Government who introduced the Bill, before they had the power of explaining, debating, or discussing the measure. It was a wise Resolution, and very well adapted for the purpose for which it was intended. In that indefinite Amendment the Government had no means of judging, and no intimation was thrown out, of the extent to which it was wished the borough franchise should be reduced. Wisely and very cautiously was it so framed, because the very moment that any substantive proposition had been made for the substitution of some other sum for the £10 borough franchise, that moment all the slumbering discord prevailing through the whole bulk of what is called the Liberal party would have been brought to light, and would have shown that, although agreed on the condemnation of the Government scheme, there was no possible variety of opinion not represented by some section, and that, with regard to the substitution of any specific proposition for that of the Government, if called upon to do it, it was absolutely impossible they could succeed in carrying it out or veiling the hollowness, the discord, or the want of coherence between those who upon the whole were invited and induced to accede to a vague and indefinite Resolution. I say that the course pursued was not in accordance with the pledge given to the Crown in the Address; it was not consistent with usual Parliamentary practice; it was not consistent with true patriotism, or a sincere desire to settle a question which it was known had produced, and must produce by postponement, considerable excitement and greater difficulty in the way of its settlement. An opportunity was presented to Parliament honourably and creditably to settle this great question. They have preferred the interests of party to the interests of the country, and without for a single moment calculating how the Government could be replaced; some with a purpose, some unwittingly, some through ignorance, consented to a Resolution, the certain effect of which was the overthrow of the Government and the destruction of the Bill. With regard to the borough franchise, the noble Lord the Member for London was asked what amount he proposed, and he said cavalierly that he was not called on to say. But

1285
think, with due deference to that noble Lord, the question was moat material to the consideration of the Resolution, because, had the question been between £10 and £8,—I say, for example, had the question been between £10 and £8, it might not have been very difficult to come to an agreement. It was also very desirable to know whether the opinion of the House of Commons, which was averse to £10, was equally averse to £8, to £6, to £5, to household suffrage, to manhood suffrage, or whether, in point of fact, any scale was regarded as one upon which a decision could be formed and a measure introduced upon an intelligible principle to secure the assent of the House of Commons. But even with regard to the effect of the measure there was a difference of opinion among those who supported the Amendment. Some of them declared, like the noble Lord the Member for the City, that they were anxious to defeat altogether a noxious and dangerous measure. It might have occurred to the noble Lord that, if it were so noxious and dangerous a measure, there was a fair and legitimate opportunity of defeating it upon the second reading. The noble Lord shrank from that ordeal, because he believed that if it were permitted to go to that stage it would be infallibly carried, and the measure left for fair consideration in Committee. Others said they voted for the Amendment because they concurred in the principles which it enunciated, but they did not intend to vote against the second reading. They intended first to vote for the Resolution, and then to vote for the second reading of the Bill. It was in vain that my right hon. Colleagues over and over again assured those Gentlemen that they grossly deceived themselves if they imagined for a single moment that it was possible for their expectations to be realized—that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would be accepted by the Government, as it was intended by the noble Lord, as fatal to the measure, or fatal to the existence of the Government. However, among those who entertained a different opinion, or professed a different opinion—and it is at once a sample of the perfect unanimity and good understanding among the leaders in the Liberal camp—among those who professed most solemnly no intention to destroy the Bill, and on the contrary, desired to see it carried with amendments—among those who entirely differed as to many objections of the noble Lord the Member for the City
1286
of London, one who prominently put forward that doctrine was the noble Viscount lately at the head of the Government, and now by courtesy and nominally, I believe, leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons. But in noticing the observations of that noble Viscount I must refer to that which I alluded in an earlier portion of this address—I must refer to that advice which he considered consistent with his position to offer, and consistent with our honour to listen to—namely, that we should be permitted neither to retire, nor to dissolve, nor to withdraw the Bill, but that we should be condemned to keep our places, and in those places to do the bidding—my Lords, the noble Viscount's expression was, "to do our bidding," I should like to know to whose bidding it was intended we should defer. Was it the bidding of the noble Viscount, who prefers a £20 to a £10 county franchise, and has only very lately, as he ingenuously confessed, become a convert to a reduction below £10 in the borough franchise? Or was it the bidding of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London? Or was it at the bidding of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), who with the noble Lord concerted and concocted this precious Amendment, and who intimated that in his opinion the proper franchise to introduce, and short of which it was not to be hoped that the country would be satisfied, was the borough municipal franchise, with no very great or decided aversion to the introduction, if need be, of voting by ballot? I think I may refer to the noble Earl who sits opposite, whether the reduction of the Parliamentary franchise to that of the municipal franchise would be a great improvement on the present system, judging by the evidence which is given day by day before the Select Committee, the appointment of which he moved. For my own part, I am perfectly satisfied that the introduction of the municipal franchise would throw the whole representation of those boroughs into the hands of numbers and classes least qualified by intelligence and education to exercise that franchise with judgment and safety. But, my Lords, whose bidding was it that we were to follow? According to the noble Viscount, whose slaves were we to be? Were we to be the servants of the noble Viscount, or the servants of the noble Lord, or the servants of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, or the servants of the hon.

1287
Member—I think now, hon. Member for Birmingham? "Our bidding!" If that motley and heterogeneous assembly which calls itself in the House of Commons "the Liberal" party, had been asked to tell us what "our bidding" was, probably not twenty-five men would have agreed as to the injunctions to lay on the submissive and humble slaves, Her Majesty's Ministers. But it is hardly necessary to tell the noble Viscount—it is hardly necessary to say to any one, that as long as we have the honour to serve Her Majesty in the responsible situation of Ministers of the Crown, we will do no one's bidding except the bidding of our Sovereign and the bidding of our own consciences and our own honour. "You shall not retire from office," says the noble Viscount; and how does the noble Viscount intend to prevent our resignation, if we think fit to tender it, and Her Majesty think fit to accept it? He may mean—and I do not dispute the fact—"You cannot resign office, because if you do it is impossible to find a Minister to succeed you. I look round and I see I have no chance. I look at my noble Friend, and not only has he no chance, but his accession is the last thing which would enter into my wishes or hopes. I look to the hon. Member for Birmingham, and I know the Crown will not accept him, Parliament will not accept him, the country will have none of him. He has tried the country, and the country has rejected his wild and extravagant proposals as entirely unworthy to be taken into consideration." I offer an apology to the noble Viscount if I have misunderstood his expression that we cannot resign by supposing he meant we were not to be permitted to resign, instead of that if we did resign we should be speedily reinstated. The noble Viscount went on, and in the heat of argument, in the heat of debate, I presume, used an expression which I certainly should not have expected from one who has had a long acquaintance with the constitutional history of the country. He went on to say Parliament would not permit us to resign, and Parliament would not permit us to dissolve. I should like to know where the noble Viscount has found that doctrine. It has always been held to be the constitutional prerogative of the Crown, when and where it pleased, to dissolve Parliament; and since the memorable year of 1784—which the noble Viscount would have done well to remember, for the attempt was followed by disastrous consequences which
1288
recoiled upon the heads of its authors—there has been no attempt to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament when and for what reason it thought fit. I have trespassed at great length upon your Lordships; but I thought it due to myself and my colleagues—I thought it due to the position which my friends and myself hold—I thought it due to the serious subjects that press upon our attention—that I should not disguise the difficulties which surround our present system of Parliamentary Government; that I should not disguise the views, hopes, and expectations upon which we brought forward a Bill for the settlement of this important question; and that I should not also disguise the nature of the opposition we encountered, and the character of the vote by which the House of Commons has not condemned the Bill of the Government, but has prevented the Government from fairly bringing it forward. As I have already stated, when the Vote passed in the other House my colleagues and myself were fully and unanimously of opinion that there were only two alternatives which it was possible for us to select, namely, to take upon ourselves the responsibility of advising Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament so soon as it could be done consistently with the discharge of those duties and the performance of that amount of business which is indispensable before a dissolution can take place, and thereby making an appeal to the deliberate opinion of the country; or, in the second place, to offer Her Majesty our gratitude for past favours, and with a deep sense of Her Majesty's kindness and confidence humbly and dutifully to tender to Her Majesty the resignation of our offices. My Lords, we carefully considered these two alternatives, and I can assure your Lordships that, if we had considered our own ease and comfort—if we had considered anything but the imperative calls of duty—if we had not been prepared to sacrifice our private convenience to the public interest, there was not one of my colleagues who would not, with me, joyfully have accepted the alternative I have pointed out,—who would not have embraced with satisfaction the opportunity of relieving themselves from the cares, labours, and responsibilities of office, and who would not have contentedly withdrawn into the retirement of private life. My Lords, the interests at stake were too great to permit us to consider our private feelings and per-

1289
sonal conveniences. There was the critical state of affairs abroad as well as at home, and I will repeat again, I believe that the preservation of the public peace of Europe, if it is still to be maintained, will be seriously endangered by any change in the present composition of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I speak this not boastfully as to myself and my colleagues, but I know that there is no country in Europe in which the lovers of peace do not look with serious apprehensions to the overthrow of the present Government and the substitution of a Government presided over either by the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton or the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. My Lords, we are not insensible to the inconvenience of a dissolution at the present moment, to the delay which it will cause in the conduct of public business, to the various evils which are inseparable from a dissolution of Parliament at this season of the year; but wishing to hold the balance between the two, and believing that it is essential that in the present state of things the country should have an opportunity of pronouncing an. opinion, and of applying, at the earliest possible opportunity, a remedy for the present unsatisfactory state of things, we thought it our duty respectfully to tender our advice to Her Majesty that she would be pleased to sanction as early a dissolution of Parliament as shall be compatible with the state of public business; and, if Her Majesty should not be pleased to approve of that suggestion, we humbly and unanimously tendered to Her Majesty the resignation of the offices we held. Her Majesty was graciously pleased, without any hesitation—not being insensible to the inconvenience of either course—but without hesitation, Her Majesty intimated her pleasure that we should continue to hold our offices, and Her Majesty sanctioned an appeal to be made to the judgment and decision of the people. My Lords, to that appeal I look with confidence. But the country will greatly mistake the nature and character of that appeal if it supposes that the question which is submitted to it is, whether this or that measure of Reform should be adopted, and whether this or that clause or provision should be inserted in the Bill. We have redeemed our pledge to propose to Parliament what we thought would have satisfied the reasonable expectations of the House of Commons, and would have shown the conciliatory spirit in which will undertook
1290
the question. But, my Lords, after the vote of the House of Commons on this subject, we hold ourselves free from the provisions of that Bill, and freed to reconsider the whole question anew, without prejudice and with due deliberation. The course adopted by the other House on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London will have this effect, that no single Member of that House, who may be unconnected with office, will be by his vote pledged to one single provision of that measure. The principles and details of any new Bill will be as open to consideration and deliberation as they were before our measure was submitted to Parliament. I know some of my friends in the House of Commons have been threatened, that if they go to the hustings they must go with this Bill round their necks, and they have been defied in such a case to meet a popular constituency. I say nothing about the hustings, because that is not a place where calm deliberation always prevails, but where passion and clamour often carry the day. But I am satisfied that, where any constituency will calmly and fairly consider the merits and demerits of that measure, they will be of opinion that the Bill we offered was a large, liberal, and useful measure of Reform, and one which, while largely extending the advantages of the franchise and admitting many of the lower classes, yet did not indiscriminately admit such a number as to overbear all other classes, and enable the lower classes to monopolize the representation. The House of Commons, however, has thought fit to prohibit the discussion of that measure. The Amendment of the noble Lord will have the effect of postponing for another year the settlement of the question of Reform. It will have the effect of creating serious inconvenience to the public interests by the interruption of useful and necessary legislative measures, by the check it will give to commercial speculation, by apprehensions of the possible consequences of a change of Ministry, and of danger to the peace of Europe. I know all this; and I know, too, that the vote which the House of Commons has pronounced will not have the effect, in the slightest degree, of establishing any principle of Parliamentary Reform. My Lords, we do not appeal to the country on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, still less do we appeal to the country on the particular provisions of that Bill. We appeal to the country on a much larger and broader ques-

1291
tion—whether the present state of the House of Commons—split up as it is into hundreds of petty parties, any one of which is unable to conduct the business of the country, but which are able, by combining together, to obstruct any Government that may be formed—shall receive the continued support and countenance of the people of England. We appeal to them as men who have endeavoured faithfully to discharge the duties of our office, who endeavoured to deserve the confidence which the House of Commons has withheld, and the confidence which our Sovereign has been pleased to renew to us; we appeal to them to know whether they will entrust the preparation of a measure of Reform to those who would approach it in a calm and deliberate spirit, and discuss it in a moderate and temperate tone; or whether they would entrust the preparation of such a measure to men who have embarked upon the wild and visionary schemes of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and the hardly less dangerous and visionary propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle, the partner of the noble Lord in concocting this Resolution. We appeal to them whether, as lovers of fair dealing and plain and straightforward conduct in public men, they would sanction the overthrow of a Ministry who, in honourably endeavouring to discharge their duty, have fallen, not in pursuance of a difference of opinion brought forward in fair Parliamentary conflict, but who have been overthrown in consequence of the success—the undeserved, but I will not call it the unanticipated success—of what, not to use an offensive expression, I will term an ingenious manœuvre.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise with the reluctance which I always feel in following the able speeches of the noble Earl, and I trust that your Lordships will bear with me while I offer a few observations upon what has fallen from him. The noble Earl commenced his speech a few minutes before I entered the House, but I understand he bore testimony to the spirit of moderation in which this question has been discussed in the House of Commons, in which I most cordially concur with him. That debate has raised the House of Commons very much in the public estimation, and has given great weight to its decision. That noble Earl has praised the House of Commons for the moderate tone in which its discussions have been conducted. I am sorry that there should have been portions n the able speech with which he has him-
1292
self just favoured us which do not deserve the same eulogium. He commenced by stating the three courses that were open to him and his colleagues after the recent vote of the other House. One of them was to resign; another was to dissolve; and the last was to continue in office and introduce another Bill consonant with the opinion generally expressed by the great bulk of the House of Commons. The last course, with which he dealt first, the noble Earl entirely repudiated. Some thought, however, that such a course might have been adopted, and would not have been altogether inconsistent with the one taken by the noble Earl last year with regard to an equally important measure, and that there would be some advantages in a Conservative Government going on with a Reform Bill when the wishes of the House of Commons were well known,—not indeed because a Conservative Government could bring in a mere sham measure, which a Liberal Government could not do, but because if they sought to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the people there would be, for the reasons pointed out by Mr. Walpole in his letter to the noble Ear which it would perhaps be offensive for me to repeat, a greater chance of their Bill being carried. But when the noble Earl declares that he and his Colleagues think it utterly inconsistent with their honour to follow such a course—I accept that declaration—the question at once falls to the ground; for I am sure no one of your Lordships would press a Government to do that which they deemed incompatible with their honour. The first other alternative open to the noble Earl was resignation, and to his reasons for not adopting that course the greater part of his speech was directed. The noble Earl began with a review of the state of parties; and on this point I much agree with some of his remarks. No doubt the conditions of party are entirely changed since the days of Walpole and Pitt, when enormous majorities could be induced to vote anything at the dictation of the Minister. I am glad that all this is now altered. It is clearly quite incompatible with the present state of public feeling, and in a reformed Parliament, that any Government should on every question, small or great, count on a majority servilely following its beck, or that on any little question of the day in which they might be placed in a minority they should resign. At the same time it is most important that those who are charged

1293
with the administration of the affairs of a great country should have that numerical support in the House of Commons which may enable them to have a policy of their own, and to pursue it. The noble Earl dwelt on the want of cohesion in the Liberal party; but I must be permitted to say it is in the nature of a Liberal party to lack cohesion in a greater degree than their Conservative opponents. It is obvious that those whose general principle is to stand upon the ancient ways and not to move except upon great occasions, and under great pressure, are much more likely to be united than those who adopt the general principles of progress and advancement, and who may reasonably be expected to differ very often as to the pace at which they would proceed. And when the noble Earl further objects so strongly to parties being divided into guerilla bands, he must forget the use which he and his friends have sometimes made of those irregular forces. When that noted guerilla chief, Mr. Milner Gibson, on two successive occasions, with the tact and skill for effecting sudden coups de main which distinguish such guerilla warriors, made his ingenious manœuvres against the late Government, the noble Earl and his followers eagerly availed themselves of his co-operation for the attainment of their party objects. The noble Earl then went on to deal with the other alternative, and dealing with this part of his subject he indulged for more than twenty minutes in a tone which I regret, and I am sure my feeling was shared by many other noble Lords, and not perhaps wholly confined to this side of the House. Why I was not present at the commencement of the noble Lord's speech was that I waited in "another place" to hear the statement made by the noble Earl's Colleague there. It was very short; it abounded with compliments to everybody, and was conceived in the very best possible taste, and carefully avoided making the slightest attack upon any persons then present. But the noble Earl, on the other hand, thinks it worthy of his high position here to consume half an hour of our time with a very minute biographical memoir of a noble Lord who has done things that entitle him to the respect of the country, and who if he sat in this House would doubtless be prepared to answer his critic. I will not follow the noble Earl through all his details, but, speaking from memory on a subject parts of which are matters of his-
1294
tory, I can state that some of the things he has said are not correct in point of fact.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Which way not correct?
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl in one of the sorest sentences I ever heard objected to receiving advice from a political rival, and I really must be permitted, in performing my own insignificant part in this debate, to take the course which—
THE EARL OF DERBY: I must appeal to the noble Earl's own sense of justice. He says I have made statements which are not correct in point of fact. Surely I am justified in asking him what those statements are, that the matter may be cleared up.
EARL GRANVILLE: I will mention one. The noble Earl, indulging in a flight of imagination for which I really should not have given him credit, pretended to give us an exact account of what passed between Lord John Russell and his colleagues in 1855, and told us that that noble Lord's colleagues requested him to resign. Now, as one of that noble Lord's colleagues I utterly deny that either directly or indirectly the slightest request of the sort was made to him. I hope the noble Earl is satisfied with that explanation. The noble Earl went on to say that one of the reasons which rendered the resignation of his Government undesirable was the preservation of the peace of Europe; and he paid in passing a high tribute to the sagacity and the industry displayed by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Malmesbury) in the conduct of our foreign relations. Now, I am not about to make any personal attack upon that noble Earl; but I must say, as an adherent of the political party to which I belong, that I do not admit that there are not men on my own side of this and the other House of Parliament who are equal to the noble Earl in all the qalities necessary for the administration of public affairs; and I take leave to add that, as has been acknowledged by the noble Earl opposite himself, there has not fallen from any one of those men one word of an imprudent or a factious character with respect to foreign polities which could unfit them or in any way impede their exertions for securing the peace of Europe, if they were charged with the duty. The noble Earl has made a statement on this point which is, no doubt, justified in his opinion by the information which he possesses. But what does this House know on this

1295
subject We know that at the beginning of the present Session great alarm was felt as to the state of affairs on the Continent. We know that at that time in the discussions in both Houses of Parliament language was held which was gracefully acknowledged by the noble Earl as being calculated to strengthen the hands of the Government in their efforts to preserve peace. For a whole month not a question was asked; and, as far as I or any of my Friends are aware, not a single practical step has been taken by Her Majesty's Ministers in order to put an end to the unsatisfactory state of the relations between France and Austria. We were told, indeed, that Lord Cowley was about to proceed on a pacific mission to Vienna, and some remarks were made on the subject in the other House by those who are generally opposed to Government which not only increased the chances of a successful termination to that mission, but which, as it was acknowledged, were of great use to the noble Earl in the work he had undertaken. Since that time the noble Earl behind mo (the Earl of Clarendon), in the most conciliatory tone, put a question relative to the result of Lord Cowley's mission; and the answer given was that that noble Earl had started without any instructions from his own Government. This was subsequently corrected as meaning that he had received "no official instructions." It appears, however, that, through the sagacity and the high reputation of Lord Cowley among European diplomatists, his mission was, as far as he was himself concerned, successful. It appears, however, that the noble Earl has not acted on that arrangement, which, according to the noble Earl, was mainly owing to the suggestions of my noble Friend; for during Lord Cowley's absence from Paris another plan was mooted,—some think it worse, others better; but it was entirely separate and distinct from any proposal of the noble Earl. From the facts patent to us all, therefore, whatever may be the sources of information possessed by the Government, it would not appear to be self-evident that the peace of Europe would be endangered if anything happened to the present Ad-ministration. The noble Earl then came to the question of Reform; and here also he favoured us with a sketch of facts about which, without the least want of respect, I must say he could not he accurately informed, for it turns out that his statement is perfectly wrong. Among other state-
1296
ments, the noble Earl said that the Government of Lord Palmerston had made no preparation for bringing in a Reform Bill; that they had no intention of bringing such a measure forward, and that they had abandoned the subject sine die.Now, I can assert that the question of Reform was considered by a full Committee of Lord Palmerston's Cabinet, that the Committee reported upon it, and that the Report was submitted to the whole Cabinet, and, though no Bill was brought in, and some points remained still unsettled, yet the real postponement of the measure was the consequence of the Resolution of the House of Commons that the Government of India Bill should take precedence. Therefore, in this part of his speech the noble Earl has volunteered statements of facts, of the accuracy of which he could not know, and which turn out to be altogether unfounded. The noble Earl likewise alluded to conversations on the part of Lord John Russell. I have never heard Lord John Russell hold the language attributed to him by the noble Earl—others may have done so; but whether or not, I must say that it is not worthy the noble Earl thus to address to this House and the country at large these little odds and ends of conversations picked up, sometimes perhaps correct, and sometimes incorrect, in reference to persons of character in public life. With regard to the Reform Bill introduced by the Government I will follow the noble Earl's example, and not trouble your Lordships by going through it in detail. It would be unfit and most unbecoming to raise in this House a debate on the subject which has been scarcely exhausted during seven nights' debate in the House of Commons. But this is sufficient for me, that the Bill was proposed to Parliament after having been condemned by two of the most distinguished colleagues of the noble Earl; and that it has been rejected by the House of Commons. ["No, no!"] No? why the Resolution that marked with blame the two principles of the Bill was agreed to by a large majority; and, more than that, in the large minority that voted against the Resolution, I cannot bring to my mind any person not belonging to the Government who had spoken in approval of the measure. And now it is condemned still more emphatically—it is utterly abandoned by the noble Earl himself. He begs the country to understand that the Government does not in the slighest degree pledge itself to this Bill, but that

1297
it may take any course it pleases on the subject of the representation of the people. I say the Bill is abandoned; and I think this is some answer to the charges the noble Earl has brought against those who supported the Resolution in the other House of Parliament. When he says those who voted for the Resolution voted inconsistently, unreasonably, and unpatriotically, he should remember that he tempted a hostile majority by a measure that was universally condemned, and he has no right to speak in such strong language of the fair Parliamentary and constitutional conduct that majority pursued. Such are the reasons the noble Earl gave for not resigning. He then proceeded to attack with great vigour certain advice which had been given to the Government by Lord Palmerston on the subject. Before that period I am sure that, as the noble Earl has said, in the course the Government had taken they had not been influenced by any single speech, or the raillery of which the noble Earl complained, and of which he was himself so great a master, and sometimes a very liberal dispenser, to depart from the course they might think it their duty to take—and I am glad to find that that was the case. The noble Earl then came to the third alternative—that of a dissolution. There can be no objection to that course. It is a perfectly legitimate and constitutional course; but it is a course which throws great responsibility on any Government that adopts it at any time, and a course that ought to be carefully weighed before it is resorted to, not only as to all the circumstances attending the dissolution, but the results that are likely to arise both at the hustings and in Parliament. I, however, am not afraid, looking at the spirit of moderation which characterizes the people of England, of an appeal made to them on a subject which is most interesting to them all, and I am free to admit that the course the Government has resolved upon is a very honourable and constitutional course. But what I wish to know a little about is the exact issue upon which the country is appealed to? As to Parliamentary Reform, the noble Earl has cast that into the air, leaving the country to catch it as they can; and in whatever shape it may fall into their hands, in that shape he is prepared to deal with it. The noble Earl shakes his head; that, however, is what I gather of the noble Earl's intention from his speech; and I am the more inclined to think I am right as that
1298
is exactly the policy the noble Earl adopted when he appealed to the country on the great question of free trade and protection. It is impossible, then, to gain from him any intimation of his policy, but he leaves it to the constituencies to make a policy for him. ["No, no!"] If can understand plain English this is the course he intends to pursue now. I think it would have been more satisfactory if the noble Earl when he stated that the Government had abandoned the Bill, and meant to appeal to the country—it would have been more becoming the position of a great Minister and a great Statesman if he had stated exactly the policy upon which that appeal, was to be made. I regret that that has not been done, not on account of any party motive, but if there he danger from those persons of extreme democratic opinions, I have for myself no doubt that to go to the country with this announcement of no-policy on the part of the Government upon the subject of Reform—this throwing of the question to the country like a ball to be caught up as it may—is exactly the line of conduct such persons would recommend. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships at such length; but I could not avoid making these observations after hearing statements from the noble Earl which I certainly was not prepared to hear when I entered the House.

RAILWAY TICKETS TRANSFER BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had been assured by the railway companies that it was most important and necessary to guard against the frauds that were perpetrated on them, in order to enable them to give the public cheap facilities in connection with return and excursion tickets. The railways had a right to ask to be protected against these frauds, and if not, it could not he expected that the public would meet with these facilities.
  Moved, That this Bill be now read 3a
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to the enormous power it would give to the officials employed by railway companies to take persons into custody and detain them, in order that they might be brought before the magistrates on suspicion of having committed an entirely new offence. That offence was committed when a person who had taken a contract ticket, a return,

  1299
  or excursion ticket, sold it, or gave it away, or otherwise disposed of it to another person. He thought the proper course for the railway officers to adopt in such cases was to obtain a summons against the offender.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he hoped this Bill would pass before the dissolution of Parliament, as it was necessary for the protection of railway companies, and the season for excursion trains was now approaching. The Railway Clauses Act designated it as a fraud on the company if any passenger refused to leave the train when he arrived at the place for which his ticket was taken, and thus travelled beyond the distance he had paid for; and it could not be denied that a most deliberate fraud was likewise practised by a person getting a return ticket, distinctly stated not to be transferable, and then transferring it to another person.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly and passed.
  House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.