LORD CAMPBELL,in rising to move the Resolution—
That in the Opinion of this House, in any further Scheme to amend the Reform Act of 1832 and increase the Body of Electors, it is not desirable or necessary that all Boroughs should return Members by the same Qualification,said, that a few words as to the moment at which we have now arrived would, he thought, suffice to explain the course he had pursued and recommend it to the leniency as well as judgment of their Lordships. A train of circumstances, too long to be recounted and too recent to be unknown, had forced upon the country the question whether power should be transferred from the middle class to the numerical majority. The question would be gravely influenced if not finally determined by the Bill the present Government initiated. After the 25th of February, so far as we can estimate the 702 future, their line of action would be settled; and not only they, but the country would have entered on a path they could not afterwards relinquish. In that case deliberation would be over. The present time was ours, and it would rapidly escape us. If it should turn out that our policy is not as yet to lodge the power of the State in the numerical majority, the Resolution he proposed would point out to them the single mode by which, as things stood, they could avoid that consummation. At least it was on that ground and in that sense he had proposed it. No doubt it might be said that a longer notice was desirable. But noble Lords will see at once why it was not given. The noble Earl the late Prime Minister was coming down on Monday to move for certain information on the franchise. A debate upon the question was anticipated, and up to that time no one else would feel at liberty to call attention to any portion of the subject. The notice disappeared on the very day when noble Lords had come there to discuss it. It was scarcely possible that any other should be given until Tuesday. Thursday was the only vacant day before the 25th of February, after which the line of reasoning he had to offer might be in vain submitted to their Lordships or the country. He felt the greater obligation to convey in language, however inexact, what, after months of toil, occurred to him upon the subject; because a Commission of Inquiry on the franchise which the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) and himself had urged upon the Government at the end of last Session might, perhaps, have been much more effectually advocated. It was now so clear that one great source of complication would arise from the want of an authoritative document to enlighten the world at large on certain new conditions of the franchise, that he could not quite defend the course which the noble Marquess and he together had adopted in forbearing to bring on a regular debate on that proposal. The want of a Commission, he feared, would render it impossible to resort to one method of adding to the body of electors and yet averting the supremacy of numbers. It was more essential, therefore, to recommend another to their Lordships if the supremacy of numbers was not the object of our policy. The question, whether it is or not, Governments have usually evaded; but without some reply to it, we cannot advance a step in representative Reform or 703 give any kind of counsel on the subject. No means can be adopted or proposed until the end has been determined. But on this great preliminary issue the verdict of the country does something to facilitate an answer. In 1848, when Europe was submerged under the wave of revolution, the Democratic party forced the question before Parliament. It agitated as it occupied society, and for a time, perhaps, there was a balance of opinion. But when the moment for decision came, in June, 1848, Parliament and the public ranged under the banner of the noble Earl, at that time Lord John Russell, and resolved that the proposals of Mr. Hume, by which numbers, or the largest class, were to be supreme over elections, should meet an unequivocal resistance. In 1849 the same battle opened, the same conclusion was arrived at. In 1850 the decision was renewed, and it cannot be said, as far as the country goes, to have been subsequently shaken. No General Election has disturbed it. The Ministerial engagement of February 20, 1851, cannot be said to have altered the position of the country. The series of Bills, which since that epoch have been withdrawn, repudiated, or defeated, can hardly be described as a reversal of the judgment on the broad question Mr. Hume so frequently submitted to the Legislature. Up to this moment the Empire seems to have pronounced that the supremacy of numbers is not the object of our policy. The question, whether it ought to become so, must open vast considerations unless one seemed at present to determine it. If it were not for that one consideration many feelings would incline me to concur with those who are demanding the change in the seat of power to which I have referred. The social welfare of the largest class appears to militate against it. The social welfare of that class must, in a great degree, depend upon the rate of wages. It is a long established truth that the rate of wages is determined by that relative amount of population, and of capital, of which the class receiving wages are themselves the arbiters. The State can do but little to promote the economic virtues which go to influence the labour market, as the effect of schools is rapidly obliterated. It has one other means at its disposal. The franchise may be so adjusted as to reward the industry and stimulate the prudence of the working man by making civil rights the goal of his exertion. But this process 704 is impossible when it requires no exertion upon his part to reach the body of electors, and where the franchise descends to him instead of his being drawn upwards to the limit. The political supremacy and social welfare of the working class appear irreconcilable. If the greatest happiness of the greatest number is pursued, it is not by giving them, in all boroughs, an electoral majority that we can ever hope for its attainment. On this ground alone, which it appears impossible to strengthen, however easy to support, the State could hardly feel entitled, unless an overpowering necessity was seen, to transfer the ruling power to the numerical majority. But if that transfer could be justified by some new considerations not yet established or explained, at least, what I would now suggest may be conceded by all parties. It is that such a mode of government ought not to be embraced without a resolution to embrace it, and that we ought not to reach a new and pregnant form of national existence without intending to arrive at it. When a noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon), whom I now see in his place, told your Lordships years ago that we were drifting into war, his language must have been full of meaning, or it would not have been so frequently referred to as it has been. What I understand the noble Earl to have implied is that the vessel of the State, with no effective pilot at the helm, at the mercy of the winds, the waves, and currents it encountered, by starts and bounds was moving onwards to a point to which volition and design had never previously impelled it. Since 1851, we have observed in the action of successive Governments the same kind of movement towards the rule of the numerical majority, although corrected by the sense, and baffled by the fortune of the Empire. It is now time that a condition so full of uncertainty, of danger and of weakness, should exhaust itself. It is time that, if we cannot resolve upon a transfer in the seat of power, we should resolve against the method which is certain to precipitate it.My Lords, that task appears to be a simple one; because one method only can precipitate the end I have referred to. No form of voting can precipitate it, since forms of voting do not change the body of electors. No measure on the county franchise can precipitate it, since the counties do not send the Parliamentary majority. The only scheme by which you can transfer power from the middle class to 705 the numerical majority is the direct downward vertical extension of the £10 suffrage in all boroughs indiscriminately, without security or balance. By this method only can you reach a system which consigns the greater number of elections, and thus the greater number of elected, to the largest class in the community. But, on the other hand, no doubt the method is infallible. An intermediate basis of £5, £6, or £7 qualification can never have stability. Men who do not see this should hardly be allowed to touch the lowest wheel of our political machinery. The Democratic party have repeatedly declared in Parliament and out of it that household suffrage, in the sense in which Mr. Hume explained it, is their object. Their present Leader has renewed that declaration. They stand pledged by a series of conspicuous and now historical proceedings, which had their origin in 1848, to agitate in favour of it. The intermediate suffrage would enhance their power, and would not take away their motive to demand it. The best authorities—I mean such persons as Sismondi and De Tocqueville—have agreed that the lower franchise is less easy to defend against ulterior encroachment than the higher one. The line of reasoning which guides them I do not now repeat, because last Session I endeavoured to submit it to your Lordships. Causes which are general and abstract would therefore blend themselves with causes which are personal and local; the law which governs Democratic movement in the world, the facts which bind the Democratic party in our country, would unite to hurry on your intermediate limit to the household suffrage which it points to. Household suffrage, if we mean by it a law that all rated houses should give votes to their occupiers, is shown by the statistics the late Government presented to involve an unmeasured transfer of power from the electors to the non-electors in nearly all the boroughs of the kingdom. That I might not rely too much on the impressions derived from the blue book, I have recently confirmed them by the best statistical inquirers. Such must be the issue of direct and vertical extension in all boroughs, uniformly given, without any kind of compensation to protect the less extensive class against the larger one. And the question I shall now venture to submit to your Lordships is—Are we committed by some irrevocable circumstances to a policy so weak, so fatal, and disastrous, if you 706 do not wish the State to be controlled by the numerical majority; so just, so deep, and so unerring, if that result is one the Empire pursues?
My Lords, in consequence of that policy having been frequently attempted, the impulse of the House would be, perhaps, to say that although it cannot be defended it cannot be escaped. To probe this vital question some reference to the past is unavoidable, and will therefore be, I trust, forgiven by your Lordships. These difficulties all arose in the Parliament which first met in November 1847, and sat till 1852. In that Parliament there was not a vote of any kind to sustain, to indicate, or to encourage a simple and direct extension of the £10 suffrage in all boroughs; and the result to which that system, as I have shown, leads, was year after year repelled by overpowering majorities. In the whole Parliament there were but two divisions in favour of any change in the Reform Act; a majority in favour of the ballot in 1848, a majority to read the first time a Bill on the extension of the county franchise in 1851. Both of these majorities were known to be accidents; both of thorn were reversed; both of them were inoperative as regards the points they favoured; but they contain the sum total of the lessons on Reform that Parliament administered, and they did not in any way suggest the policy in question. It first appeared in the Bill of 1852, and ten days afterwards the Parliament withdrew its confidence from those who had presented it. The Parliament which sat from 1852 to 1857 in no way departed from the judgment of its predecessor. The policy was urged again in 1854; and it would be almost ironical to say it met with no decided sanction or conspicuous encouragement, the Bill having been set aside by general remonstrance from all the parties in the State, and all the journals which are thought to influence opinion. No vote for any change in the Reform Act ever happened in that Parliament. The Parliament, which sat from 1857 to 1859, no doubt passed a Resolution on the second reading of the Bill, introduced by the noble Earl over the way and Mr. Disraeli, to the effect that the borough franchise ought to be extended further than that Bill proposed. But it was not pointed out in what mode it ought to be extended, or that in all boroughs the extension should be uniform. The Resolution was ambiguous; and we all know 707 the real issue on which the Parliament pronounced was whether the Bill should be accepted or rejected. The Parliament which sat from 1859 to 1865 had very soon—in 1860—the opportunity to baffle and repel the policy I have referred to. The Bill of 1860, founded on it, was disposed of by a long series of Liberal attacks, and by the silence of Lord Palmerston. In 1865 the same judgment was pronounced by the same Parliament. In the Parliament which now exists, when the late proposal for a £7 limit in all boroughs was on the verge of being discussed, the project was swept away upon an issue raised by a near relative of the noble Marquess near me (the Marquess of Clanricarde). Up to this very moment the country stands unwedded to that policy. In 1852 it came from the Executive which it destroyed. Its importunity, indeed, has never been exhausted. It has marked and vitiated nearly every subsequent proposal. The fatal track has been adhered to. The wheels have never left the rut originally chosen. Reform has floundered where it fell. From the Bill of 1852 it passed, with variations of amount, to that of 1854, to that of 1860, to that of 1866. In the same way, my Lords, we hear from learned men that fabulous mistakes in history have been sometimes transmitted from the Middle Ages to our own, as each work became the stagnant copy of its predecessor. In spite of all its pertinacity the mistake in this transaction has not been endorsed by Parliament, or by the body of the Liberals. However lured by eloquence, however goaded by authority, however overawed by partizanship, of which we know the fascination and the terror, an instinct yet more powerful has guarded them against it. On every occasion they have seen further than the leaders who impelled them, and resolved to stand still before the danger in the path.
My Lords, by the indulgence of the House, three propositions may now, I trust, appear sufficiently established—That we are not as yet prepared for measures, after which the supremacy of numbers over Parliament must be considered unavoidable; that indiscriminate and vertical extension of the £10 limit in all boroughs is the single, clear, and open way to that result; and that on that way we have not entered yet, and are not forced to enter. Very little further is required to support the Resolution I shall have the honour of submitting to your Lordships. And no- 708 thing shall come from me which does not bear directly and essentially upon it.
By their Addresses to the Crown both Houses have declared a readiness to consider legislation on Reform. A necessity for legislation on the subject is acknowledged. In 1859 it was proposed to increase the number of electors by a large variety of methods which involved nowhere any change in the £10 qualification. It was said that 500,000 voters might be so created. Justly or unjustly an incredulity exists upon that subject. Such a mode of acting would scarcely meet the exigency of the moment. We must in some way disturb the present limit in the boroughs. There are two practicable methods by which you may approach it beyond the method I have dwelt upon so long, and which the country has so frequently repudiated. You may extend it in all boroughs with plurality of voting to guard the old electors from a virtual disfranchisement, or you may extend it in some boroughs to a low degree, retaining it substantially inviolate in others.
My Lords, it is far from my intention to inveigh against plurality of voting. Great injustice has been done to it. It has been confounded with the system by which every elector would be permitted to heap all his votes upon one candidate so as to give a representative to the minority, and also with the system by which votes would be apportioned according to a sliding scale to income. Plurality of voting, I am bound to admit, involves no principle more startling than that, above a given limit, men shall have a greater voting power than beneath it. After some organic change, by which, in a single borough, 4,000 new electors had been added to 2,000 old ones, plurality which conferred two votes on all the old electors above the £10 limit would give them equal power with the new ones underneath it who must otherwise absorb, and not divide, the power of the borough. In point of fact, the principle exists already in our system—in a form more violent than that which I have just imagined. The principle is that of simple inequality, and it is now enforced by making householders above £10 electors—beneath that limit, non-electors in a borough. It would then be enforced by giving householders above a determined point a certain voting power, and householders beneath that point a lesser voting power. And in degree, the present inequality, so far from being ex- 709 tended, would be mitigated. The inequality of a positive and of a negative is greater than the inequality of a whole and of a fraction. The inequality of an elector and a non-elector is greater than the inequality of an elector with two votes in a class numerically weak, and an elector with one vote in a class numerically powerful.
But, my Lords, although I have endeavoured to uphold the system of plurality against the obloquy and misconception which surround it, I cannot be blind to the fact that they are nearly fatal to its prospect. At this moment it is clear, if it was not before, that a Commission should have been appointed in the autumn to familiarize the public with a method which might have put an end to many dangers which exist. It would be far too sanguine now to count upon that method. No one understands, and every one in consequence denounces it. We are thus forced on the alternative the Resolution points to. It is, that in certain boroughs you should have a suffrage which avowedly and openly—not by hidden germ and shuffling descent—gives the working classes an ascendancy in voting. The principle is not in want of explanation. It has been known for centuries amongst us. In Preston, up to 1832, we learn from the well-known work of Oldfield that the right of voting fell to all the body of inhabitants. 100 Members so returned would give the working classes advocates and organs, although it would not give them a majority in Parliament. By this method you might add with case 1,000,000 of electors to the register, and yet not advance a step to the control of numbers over Government. It would not be an innovation cither in our system under the Reform Act. Diversity of franchise is still its strong characteristic. In Universities men vote on one qualification; in counties on another; in boroughs on a third; and it would be ridiculous to hold that, by establishing a fourth in cities, which form a class alone, a novel principle would be insinuated.
My Lords, it would be too fatiguing to the House, and too exhausting to myself, to dwell on the collateral advantages to be obtained from such a measure. Able writers have explained them; but it is not swayed by thoughts like theirs that I have ventured to address you. We are in a grave political dilemma. The line of indiscriminate descent in all boroughs is exploded because we are not ready to confront the vital change which it eventually 710 involves. The policy of 1859 (or lateral Reform) is insufficient for the moment. Plurality of voting is discredited. No course remains but to deliver boroughs from the iron uniformity which began in 1832, and which makes a large addition to the number of electors either fatal or impossible. If I am asked to name the practical advantage which the Resolution, if adopted, would secure, I do not hesitate to answer that without it the hope of such a salutary line would be materially lessened. The Resolution, if adopted by your Lordships, must be canvassed and explored in every society and every journal of the kingdom. It could not be evaded or forgotten by the mind of the community, and planted there might find its way into the statute book. Publicity is all you want to give effect to truth, and this—beyond the reach of individuals—your Lordships have the power of conferring. At the same time, if it would add to the difficulties of the Government in the present situation of affairs, I should not even wish it to be carried. It is well known that the Opposition are, in some degree, divided into sections, of which one is anxious to delay a crisis, the other ready to precipitate it. On public grounds belonging to the first, and day by day rejoicing in the strength which it acquires, I could not lend myself to any course by which Her Majesty's Advisors would be weakened in their attempt to grapple with the difficulties they have not created but inherited. Until, however, I have reason to suppose that it would add to their embarrassment, believing it would guide their course towards the safety of the Empire, I move the Resolution—
That in the Opinion of this House, in any further Scheme to amend the Reform Act of 1832 and increase the Body of Electors, it is not desirable or necessary that all Boroughs should return Members by the same Qualification.—(Lord Campbell.)
EARL GREYMy Lords, I cannot forbear from entreating my noble Friend not to ask the House to come to a vote upon the Resolution he has proposed. I am far from denying that the question it brings before us is one which, at a proper time, will be well deserving of our serious consideration; but it is only one of many questions which must arise with reference to Reform, and which will have to be considered when the whole subject is regularly brought before your Lordships, and, I submit, it would be extremely inconvenient on this occasion to select one only of these 711 questions for the purpose of expressing an opinion upon it. This is what we are asked to do by the Motion before us, and I would therefore strongly urge upon my noble Friend not to press this Resolution upon the House. I cannot, however, offer this advice without at the same time expressing a hope that the great question of Reform will be brought before your Lordships at such a period of the Session and in such a manner as to give this House a proper opportunity of considering it. If the Bill is to be proceeded with—as I understand it is—immediately upon the adoption of the Resolutions which have been submitted to the other House of Parliament, and is only, after it has been considered in all its details, sent up to this House for your Lordships' concurrence, then I would submit that we should not have an opportunity of considering to any useful purpose the detailed provisions of the measure. I would therefore suggest a different course. I would beg to remind your Lordships that when, in 1833, the great and difficult question of the abolition of slavery was brought before Parliament by the noble Earl now at the head of the Government, who was at that time Secretary for the Colonies, that measure was submitted to the House of Commons in the form of Resolutions; those Resolutions became the heads of the intended Bill; they were discussed at great length in the other House of Parliament, and after being materially altered, were brought up to this House for your Lordships' concurrence. Your Lordships then discussed the Resolutions to which you agreed; they were returned to the other House of Parliament; and a Bill founded on them was brought in which ultimately became law. That course was found to be extremely convenient upon that occasion; and I would venture to express a hope that Her Majesty's Government will follow the precedent then set, and adopt a similar course with the Reform Resolutions. It seems to me that great advantage would attend the adoption of such a course. By adopting it after the Resolutions had been agreed to in the House of Commons, and before a Bill was introduced, your Lordships would have an opportunity of fully considering the principles upon which that Bill is to be framed before it is submitted to Parliament, or its provisions finally decided upon. The Resolutions which we learn from the Votes of the other House are now before them will, I trust, be modified in the course of the discussion, and be sent 712 to us by the House of Commons in a form so clear and specific as to form the proper ground-work for a Bill, which can hardly be said of them at the present moment. Your Lordships would thus have an opportunity of discussing the principles of the measure at a time when the expression of your views might influence the ultimate decision on the Bill. On the other hand, it is quite clear that if we only receive the Bill very late in the Session, after all its details have been discussed and finally determined upon in the other House of Parliament, it will be very difficult for us to introduce any modifications, or express any opinions which would be likely to have their due weight in the House of Commons. It appears to me that this is a subject which may be very usefully discussed in this House, before the detailed provisions of the measure are settled and embodied in a Bill; and I would beg to point out that your Lordships seem to me to possess greater advantages in some respects for the due consideration of this important question than the other House; because we cannot conceal from ourselves that there are portions of any measure of Reform which must very materially affect the interests of individual Members of the other House, and the mere fact that they do affect their interests may seriously influence the decision to which the House of Commons may come. For instance, in considering the principle upon which re-distribution of seats shall be settled, it is impossible that many Members of the House of Commons should not be aware that the decision at which the House may arrive on this question will seriously affect their individual prospects of being returned to the reformed House of Commons, and their votes on that question may not unnaturally be somewhat biassed by that consideration. Now, your Lordships would be entirely free from that bias. In considering this question your Lordships could deal with it with greater freedom and greater impartiality than it could be dealt with in some cases by Members of the House of Commons; and therefore the prospects of the adoption of a measure suited to the wants of the country would be materially improved by having the principles upon which it is to be framed discussed in this House before the Bill is finally adopted by the House of Commons. If the contrary course is adopted the measure may come so late before your Lordships that however desirable it may be to settle the question during the present 713 Session, it may be impossible for us to do so—because I hold that it is the bounden duty of this House not to pass a measure of such transcendent importance unless we can give it a deliberate examination, and that careful consideration which the subject undoubtedly requires. If it comes before us without any preliminary examination at the very end of the Session, it may be very difficult indeed for your Lordships to pass the Bill this year. But more than this—it appears to me that a preliminary examination of the principles of the Bill is calculated to diminish the danger of a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. It is quite possible that your Lordships may take a different view from the House of Commons on some points of the measure. If so, a preliminary discussion of the Resolutions would greatly tend to prevent a serious disagreement between the two Houses on such points of difference, and to make it easier to come to a common understanding, so that a satisfactory Bill might be carried in the present Session. A good many of your Lordships can, like myself, remember the great struggle for Reform in the years 1831 and 1832. It is therefore unnecessary for me to say anything in order to convince your Lordships of the very serious nature of the evils which arise from a disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament on a great constitutional question, and it certainly would be a great misfortune if such a disagreement were to take place on the subject of Reform. I believe that the danger of this would be much diminished, if not entirely avoided, by the adoption of the course I propose; and that it would tend to prevent any disagreement between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons if your Lordships were to have a proper opportunity of discussing this all-important question. On this ground I consider it to be of great importance that the Resolutions should be sent to us from the other House before a Bill is introduced. I have taken this opportunity of throwing out the suggestion; but, at the same time, I have no desire to press the noble Earl at the head of the Government for an immediate answer. All I want is that the noble Earl and the Government should consider seriously what I have now said, and unless they have strong reasons for adopting a different course, I hope such Members of Her Majesty's Government as sit in the other House will ask that House to communicate the Reso- 714 lutions to which they may agree to your Lordships, and invite your Lordships to concur in them before a Bill is introduced. I will only add one word more. It seems to me that much of the advantage which is to be derived from the mode of proceeding by Resolution instead of by Bill would be lost if the Resolutions are not to come before the House before the Bill is framed; for if it is to be framed and discussed in the Commons before it comes before your Lordships, I am totally at a loss to see what useful purpose the Resolutions will answer, at least so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. On the other hand, if we con first discuss the Resolutions, I cannot but think that the probability of passing a sound measure of Reform will be greatly increased.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, it is not necessary for me, in the few words I have to say, to trespass long upon your Lordships' attention. It is very satisfactory to me, as it must be to the other Members of Her Majesty's Government, to see noble Lords in this House anticipating an early opportunity of discussing the provisions of the Reform Bill which is to be introduced into the other House of Parliament, It is also satisfactory to find that there is not that objection felt upon the part of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) and other noble Lords to the mode of proceeding by preliminary Resolution, which has been so strongly expressed elsewhere. But, my Lords, the noble Baron who introduced this question must forgive me if I decline to enter into it and to follow him in the historical review of the steps which have been taken, and into an argument upon the principles of the proposed Bill. I must decline to discuss in any degree the character of the provisions of a Bill which is not yet submitted to the Legislature, or the basis of Resolutions which have not yet been discussed by the other House. My Lords, whatever advantages there may be in proceeding by Resolution, I do not think that any advantage could be derived from selecting a single portion of what may or may not be in the Bill, and passing an abstract Resolution upon the subject of that particular point. Moreover, my Lords, the noble Lord's Resolution, I must say, is one that does not appear to me very much to advance the solution of the question; because it is to the effect that it is not expedient in any future arrangement of the franchise that the suffrage in all boroughs should be based upon the same 715 qualification. This does not at all help us forward. The noble Lord only advances the simple abstract proposition—he does not tell us on what principle he would introduce a variety in the suffrage, or on what ground we should be justified in giving the inhabitants of one town a precise qualification which was to be withheld from the inhabitants of another, nor does he tell us why he would withhold the right of voting from any one town. I perfectly agree with the noble Lord that a mistake was made in 1832 by the abolition of a number of various franchises which had existed previous to that time. Many of them had become objectionable on some grounds, but as they had grown up during a length of time, and in the course of a vast number of years, they had the advantage of introducing various qualifications in different places, and enabling different boroughs to be represented by Members who were returned by different classes of electors. But that is a very different thing from attempting, after you had adopted the dead level of a uniform franchise in all boroughs, to introduce into them various descriptions of franchise—which have no authority to recommend them, and for the adoption of which in one borough no reason applies which does not also apply in the case of another borough. However, my Lords, without discussing the provisions of a Bill which is not yet introduced, I may perhaps be permitted to say that I do not at all agree with the noble Lord in his description of the Bill which he says it is intended to introduce. He describes it as a measure for the transfer of political power from the middle classes to a numerical majority—by which I suppose he means the most numerous class of society. Now, I do not think that that can be taken as the meaning of the portion of Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne which spoke of the extension of the suffrage without unduly disturbing the balance of political power. The noble Lord tells me that there are only one or two modes of extending the suffrage, and one of those modes is lowering it; which he says would have the effect of completely transferring political power to the numerical majority. I am not going to enter into the question of plurality of voting, or any of the other questions which the noble Lord has thought fit to describe as belonging to the measure; all I wish to say is, that the character given to the Bill which the noble Lord imagines we are about to introduce is very 716 different from the character of the paragraph in the Queen's Speech, and necessarily from that of any measure which it is intended, in accordance with that paragraph, to introduce and pass through Parliament. I trust that the noble Baron will see that it is impossible for me upon the present occasion to discuss any portion of the very large and difficult measure which is about to be submitted in its integrity to Parliament, and that your Lordships will see that no advantage can be gained by your Lordships adopting a Resolution upon a point which may or may not come on for consideration hereafter. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), to whom I always listen with that respect that they invariably deserve, the noble Earl was kind enough to say that he did not expect from me upon the present occasion any precise or positive answer to the question. The noble Earl very courteously sent me notice this morning that he intended to make the suggestion he has just made; but I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting other Members of the Cabinet upon the point, and I should be sorry to give any opinion upon it offhand. I am, however, quite of opinion that it is a question which deserves the serious consideration of the Government. I can assure him that my only object, or at ail events my chief desire in dealing with this question is that the Bill should pass through the two Houses as rapidly as possible, and that as much time as possible should be given to your Lordships' House to discuss its principles. I shall be willing to adopt any course that will be most likely to expedite the passing of the measure, but my only doubt is whether the course suggested by the noble Earl might not lead to considerable delay. If the Resolutions, after passing the House of Commons, are to be submitted to your Lordships' House, and a full discussion is to take place upon them in order to ascertain how far we agree with the House of Commons upon the principle of those Resolutions, it appears to me that all that time the Bill will be hung up, and wholly withdrawn from the consideration of Parliament. I do not wish to express any precise opinion upon the suggestion made by the noble Earl at the present moment—it is one that deserves to be considered; but my object is to accelerate as much as possible the safe settlement of a most important question:—and as far as opinions have as yet been indicated, 717 it has not met with any opposition of a character threatening to interfere with the consideration of the measure, and as far as the proceedings of the other House have hitherto gone we have no sign that any factious opposition will be resorted to. My Lords, it will be a most happy circumstance indeed if the two sides of the House, feeling the necessity for mutual agreement and confidence in reference to this question, meet in a spirit of calm and deliberate discussion, resolved to bring about an early and satisfactory settlement of this most important matter in which the happiness and prosperity of the country is concerned.
§ EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, this question is, I think, not only very important, but very difficult; and it will be but right in this and the other House of Parliament to allow the Government to use their own discretion in respect to the mode in which the question should be proceeded with. It is true, however, that there are objections to dealing with the question by Resolutions; though it must also he admitted that such a method of procedure has its advantages; and the same may be said of the suggestion of the noble Earl. The discussion by your Lordships of the Resolutions come to by the other House might lead to a complete canvassing of the main principles of the measure before it assumed the shape of a Bill; but, on the other hand, it would lead to considerable delay, and, for my part, I am quite willing that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) should consider the matter and take that course which to him seems most likely to bring about the result he aims at. With regard to the Motion before your Lordships, I must say the noble Earl made a very valid objection to it when he said it was vague and indefinite. I quite agree with him, and I think it is fatal to the Resolution; but I have seen certain other Resolutions to which I think the same objection will apply.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI said it was a negative Resolution, and did not advance the matter.
BAUL RUSSELLYou said the noble Lord was ready to affirm something and did not know what that something was; that seems to me to be an elaboration of the description "indefinite." I trust, however, that next week, before the noble Earl has made up his mind on the suggestion of my noble Friend (Earl Grey), we shall know what is actually to be proposed 718 to Parliament upon the subject; for at present, whether it be from my own want of sagacity or no, I am absolutely at a loss to know what the Resolutions on Reform, which are well known to the public, mean. I am indifferent as to the method of procedure, or the nature of the propositions; but I do want some definite propositions upon which this and the other House can say "Aye" or "No" with a clear understanding of the question decided on.
EARL GREYsaid, that what he desired was to have a preliminary discussion on the proposals of the Government in the same way as was done with the Slavery Abolition Bill; and he could not but think time would be saved if the Resolutions were discussed by their Lordships before they assumed the shape of a Bill. The preliminary discussion in 1833 enabled the Bill to pass with very little trouble.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, the form of procedure suggested by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) concerned the other House as a question of privilege. He doubted whether the House of Commons should be asked to forward their Resolutions to their Lordships for discussion before the Bill was framed. It should, in his opinion, be left to the other House to take its own course in the matter, and if the suggestion were made at all it should be made not by a Member of the Government but by a private Member.
EARL GREYsaid, he was surprised, considering that the question was one which affected the interests and the welfare of Englishmen of all classes, and one which might possibly change the governing authority of this great nation, to hear the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down give utterance to a doctrine which he certainly had thought would not have found expression in their Lordships' assembly.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if the question were a Railway Bill, or other matter of detail, the question of time might be a consideration; but when the measure was one of the greatest importance to the country—in fact, one essential to the Constitution and likely to settle that Constitution for a great number of years—he was sure their Lordships would think it entitled to the fullest discussion, no matter at what period of the Session it might be introduced.
§ LORD REDESDALEdesired, in answer to the noble Earl (Earl Grey), to remark that though the question was one, as the 719 noble Earl had justly said, affecting the interests and welfare of the nation at large, it was one which also materially affected the constitution of the House of Commons. It would not, he thought, be right for their Lordships to initiate a measure by which the constitution of the other House would be affected, or to proceed to a discussion of such a measure without an express invitation from the assembly so greatly concerned.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as the noble Earl the First Minister had expressed an unwillingness to adopt the Resolution, after his former statement he should not feel at liberty to press it. The noble Earl was perfectly mistaken in supposing that he (Lord Campbell) had in any way denounced his coming measure as a transfer of power to the numerical majority. He had not indulged in any speculation, much less description, with regard to it; but had only ventured to remark that, before any kind of practical suggestion on Reform could be given to the country, the question—Were we ready to accelerate that transfer—ought to be encountered. So far from complaining of the reserve the noble Earl had exercised, he wished that reserve had been extended further, and that the noble Earl had not in any manner compromised his freedom with regard to the principle the Resolution had embodied. A noble Earl (Earl Grey) had thought fit to disparage the Resolution as a negative one. It might be negative in the form of words which happened to be used, but it was quite affirmative in character. It affirmed the intelligible policy of introducing into boroughs more than one qualification. That policy alone could meet the problem of the day; and either House of Parliament, in his opinion, "was justified in urging it upon Her Majesty's Advisers.
§ Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.