§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, before your Lordships proceed to the business of the evening, I think it is clue to your Lordships, in the present state of affairs, that I should state to you, without the slightest reserve, the position of the Government, and the circumstances by which that position has been brought about. I trust you will forgive me if, in laying before you, quite openly and without any reserve, both the course which has been pursued and the present state of affairs, I refer back to a single fact connected with the period at which my Colleagues and I took office. At that time Her Majesty's Government, having failed in carrying the Reform Bill which they had introduced in the House of Commons, felt it to be their duty—and I question not whether they did so rightly or wrongly—to resign office, and the Queen 1285 was therefore left without a Government. Under those circumstances, I felt myself unable to resist the appeal made to me by Her Majesty that I would accept the responsibility of forming a Ministry; but in doing so I undertook the responsibilities of office perfectly unpledged with regard to the subject of Reform. At the same time, I must say, my Lords, that almost immediately after the formation of the Government my Colleagues and I came to an unanimous agreement that it was absolutely impossible that we could altogether ignore that great and pressing question. The question which then naturally pressed on us was—considering the failure of our predecessors although they had the support of a majority of the House of Commons—in what manner we might bring to a successful issue a question which for more than eleven years had baffled the efforts of every preceding Government. My Lords, I felt, as I have had the honour of saying to you already in the course of the present Session, that it was a question which could not be settled by the mere authority or influence of any Government whatever; and that if the Government of last year was unable to settle the question, still less was the present Government likely to be able to command such a majority as would carry its measure against all opposition. We felt, therefore, that the only mode open to us—that the only prospect which was held out to us of a successful issue to our undertaking—was to proceed by what I may call a sort of tentative process, and to invite Members of different political opinions in the House of Commons to consider whether by an arrangement which might be more or less acceptable to various parties in the House a conclusion upon this great question might be arrived at. My Lords, it was with this view that we determined in the first instance not to proceed by a Bill, but by introducing a series of Resolutions, through which we had hoped to elicit from the House of Commons the views they took upon the main questions which would be necessarily involved in any Reform Bill. I admit that the Resolutions were somewhat vaguely and indistinctly drawn;—our desire was not to pledge the Government to a specific point upon any one of those Resolutions, but to endeavour to obtain the general opinion of the House of Commons as to what measures would be likely to meet with a general assent. My Lords, the House Commons has not thought 1286 fit to entertain the mode of proceeding we proposed, and consequently we were deprived of the great advantage of being able to collect what was the general feeling and desire of the House of Commons on the main points which we desire to ascertain. I do not, of course, say that we were prepared to adopt any mode of proceeding which the House of Commons might think fit; but what we desired to know was what arrangements might be made, what compromise was likely to be accepted, and in what manner we might, without any sacrifice of our own convictions, bring this measure to a satisfactory conclusion. The House of Commons, however, having evidently shown their disinclination to proceed by way of Resolutions, and having expressed a wish that a Bill should be introduced with the least possible delay, Her Majesty's Government did not hesitate, notwithstanding the great disadvantage under which they now laboured, to undertake to bring forward a measure; and it then became the duty of the Cabinet to consider immediately, without a minute's delay, the provisions of such a Bill as they thought they could lay upon the table of the House. Of course, the main provisions of a Bill had been the subject of anxious inquiry in the Cabinet for some time past; but we had not, up to that period, actually framed a Bill, and it therefore became necessary to consider what the provisions of the Bill should be. Two schemes were under the consideration of the Cabinet, varying from each other in that very essential particular—the amount of the extension of the franchise. One of these schemes was more extensive than the other. The more extensive one, I may say, was that to which our Resolutions originally pointed, and more especially the fifth Resolution, which, though, it has not been formally communicated to your Lordships' House, was, I may mention, to the effect that the introduction of a system of plurality of votes might allow us to reduce the franchise lower than could be done under other circumstances, and to establish it on a firm and durable basis. The other was a scheme of less extent. Both of these schemes were anxiously considered by my Colleagues and myself; and, though one very distinguished Member of the Cabinet entertained strong objections to the course we were endeavouring to pursue, yet he felt that, in order to secure the great object of perfect unanimity in the Cabinet, it was his duty to waive any 1287 objections he might personally entertain, as he shared in our earnest desire that this question might be settled. I had then hoped that with that exception the larger and more extensive scheme would have received the unanimous consent of my Colleagues, and we were prepared to submit that scheme to the other House of Parliament, when to my regret—and I may add somewhat to my surprise—I ascertained that two of my most valuable and most distinguished Colleagues, occupying most important posts in the Government, had, upon a re-consideration of the figures which had been presented to them, come to the conclusion that our proposed arrangements, especially in regard to the small boroughs, would produce such an extensive and injurious effect, that they were compelled to withdraw the adhesion which they had given to the proposal. I need hardly say that withdrawal relieved the other Colleague of whom I have spoken, from any obligation under which he might have felt himself placed. I and my other Colleagues were now placed in the painful position of having to consider whether we should present to Parliament that which we believe to be the more desirable and the more extensive measure of Reform, when such a proceeding would lead to outranks being diminished by the loss of no fewer than three Secretaries of State, all of them men of mark and character in the Cabinet, and all of them men who, in their several positions, have displayed more than ordinary ability. We may or we may not have come to the right conclusion; but I confess that I could not make up my own mind to so painful a sacrifice as long as there was a prospect, even by the introduction of a Bill less satisfactory to myself, of a compromise being effected. Under these feelings I and the majority of the Cabinet consented to submit to the House of Commons a measure which, I admit, we felt was not perfectly satisfactory, but which we hoped might, at all events, for a time settle this important question. My Lords, it became very shortly obvious that on either side of the House did that proposition meet with a satisfactory reception. It was not accepted by the Members of the late Government, and it was felt by the supporters of the present Government to be such a measure as could not be regarded as a final and satisfactory settlement of this vexed question. We had therefore, during the course of the past week, to consider—and to consider most 1288 anxiously—whether we should adhere to our second proposition, or recur to that which commanded the support of the great majority of the Cabinet, and at the cost of a sacrifice of three most esteemed and valuable Colleagues, to present to Parliament that measure which, in the first instance, the majority of the Cabinet considered the most desirable one. I need not say with what pain we came to the conclusion that it was our duty, placed in the position in which we are, charged with the awful responsibility of endeavouring to settle this great question, seeing no alternative, seeing it was proved last Session that our predecessors could not frame a successful measure on this subject, and seeing also the infinite importance of not allowing this question to stand Session after Session in the way of public business, to keep alive perpetual agitation and excitement in the country—to struggle with the difficulty. I felt it my duty to struggle with the difficulty, and my Colleagues supported me in that determination. I, for my part, whatever regret I might experience in separating from those of my esteemed Colleagues, who could not bring their convictions into unison with those of the remainder of the Cabinet, felt it my duty neither to throw up the post which I hold nor to abandon the hope of carrying a Reform Bill. I have determined to bring forward and to submit to Parliament, with such assistance as I can obtain, the measure which it was at first intended to introduce, but which the circumstances that I have explained to your Lordships led us for the moment to abandon. That measure will be in a very short time laid before the other House of Parliament. I trust that by the expiration of the present week we shall be able to replace—I will not say whether we shall be able to replace adequately or not—the Colleagues whom we have had the misfortune to lose. I believe that at the expiration of this week we shall be able to present a complete and united Cabinet; and I trust that, at no distant period, we shall be prepared to lay before Parliament the measure which we originally determined to introduce; and we hope, and hope most earnestly, that we shall be able to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion during the present Session. I cannot express the regret I feel at parting with three of the most important and most valued of my Colleagues, to whom I am united by feelings of political and personal friendship; but I felt that if I had not 1289 endeavoured to go on I should have failed in my duty to the public and to my Sovereign. And, whatever pain may feel on account of this separation, I trust that the remainder of my Colleagues will be equal to every duty they may have to perform; and that, in the course of the present Session, we may bring to a successful conclusion this great and paramount question, which has so long baffled all Administrations.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONMy Lords, after what has fallen from my noble Friend at the head of the Government I feel it necessary to trouble the House with a few words. There are two reasons why I should abstain from entering at any length into this question at the present time. First of all, it is to me a matter of infinite pain even to seem to enter into any kind of controversy with my noble Friend; and secondly, the provisions of the measure which Her Majesty's Government are prepared shortly to lay before Parliament are not yet known to the public generally, and it is impossible for me to justify the course I have taken, without reference to the measure itself. But I am anxious to state one thing, which is this:—In separating myself from my Colleagues I have not been influenced by any indisposition to deal with this question. I have felt from the very commencement that there was no alternative but to undertake the task of dealing with it, after the pledges which had been given by individuals, by successive Governments, and by the words which Her Majesty herself had spoken. More than that—I felt it right that this question should be now finally settled. Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 the number of the working classes has, perhaps, had a tendency to diminish rather than to increase in the representation, and certainly it has decreased in comparison with the representation of other classes, I felt that this question ought to be dealt with, and that considerable classes of our fellow-subjects might safely and with advantage be enfranchised. I admit the necessity and the justice of such a measure. I thought, moreover, such a measure might well be a bold and a new one, not too closely linked in character to former measures relating to this subject. And, at the same time, I have all along felt—and my Colleagues will confirm me as to this point—that an ample measure should be brought forward in an ungrudging and 1290 free spirit, because I believed that unless that were done there would be no chance of settling this vexed question upon an enduring basis. But I also entertained a strong opinion that the measure ought not to be a one-sided one, and that, while we admitted a full proportion I of the working classes, we should not admit them in such proportions, and under such conditions, as would place them in I absolute pre-eminence and control over all other constituents. I shrink from a class government of whatever kind; I shrink from the dead uniformity of any one class or interest or opinion; I shrink from sweeping away all intervening barriers and reducing the complicated system of English constituencies to two clearly defined, and, perhaps, ultimately hostile classes—a rich upper class on the one hand, and a poor artizan class on the other. Those are the views which have constantly weighed on my mind; and if agreed in many of the principles of the measure to be introduced, I felt at the same time that principles by themselves, as mere principles, are almost worthless, and that the only test you can have in this case is the common test of arithmetic. Now, that was the test I ventured to apply to the measure of which my noble Friend has spoken; and I could not hide from myself that, no matter how satisfactory its general principles might appear, the change proposed would bring about results very different from those which were expected. I do not want to go into details; but I saw great reason to fear that the results of the measure would effect an enormous transfer of political power, and alter the character of five-sixths of the boroughs of this country—that the principles might be good in theory, but the compensation in practice was illusory. I felt that I could not be a party to a change of so very great and extensive a character; though, as I have already assured your Lordships, I quite recognised the importance of admitting so many of the unenfranchised classes. In proof of my readiness to accept a large measure of enfranchisement, I may mention that, personally, I should not be afraid to go down to that point which is sometimes said to be the only resting-place—namely, household suffrage—in all those boroughs which exceed a certain limit of population, and to establish a £6 rating franchise in other minor boroughs. I mention this to show that, individually, 1291 I had no objection to deal with the question, but, on the contrary, was prepared to accept a large measure, providing only that the conditions on which it was granted were, in my opinion, satisfactory and safe. I have one other thing to say regarding the statement of my noble Friend. My noble Friend alluded to the compromise of a £6 rating introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. Now, with reference to that proposal, I have only to observe that, if it was a measure distasteful to my noble Friend and, as I think he said, to the majority of the House of Commons, it was equally distasteful to me. It was not what I desired, but I accepted it—as I believe my noble Friend accepted it—simply with a view to prevent the consequences which unfortunately have since occurred. In conclusion, my Lords, I can assure you that the pain with which I adopted the step I have felt it right to take is scarcely to be expressed by me. My noble Friend, I know, undertook the Government of the country from a feeling of loyalty to the Crown, and a sense of public duty to the country. He undertook it under great difficulties and great discouragements; and therefore it has been to me, I think, the most painful act of my life to sever my official connection with him at, perhaps, the very moment of his greatest difficulty and embarrassment. But I have felt it my duty to do so. I have not been able to see how, consistently with my conscientious convictions on the subject, and with that self-respect which every man owes it to himself to maintain, I could adopt any other course. Under these circumstances, I have felt it my duty to place my resignation in the hands of my noble Friend. That resignation has been accepted, and I now hold office only awaiting the appointment of my successor.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I hope it will not be considered presumptuous on my part if, in the absence of my noble Friend Earl Russell, from indisposition, I say a few words with reference to the speeches which we have just heard. On the part, not only of my own friends in the House, but of the whole House, I venture to tender our acknowledgments and thanks to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, for the very much longer and fuller statement than what I am given to understand has been communicated to the other House of Parliament, regarding the proceedings of the Cabinet during the 1292 last week, and, indeed, of the whole period during which Her Majesty's Government have been in office. In the first instance, I hope your Lordships will at once give me credit for my desire, on grounds of taste as well as discretion, to refrain from saying one word—whatever the opinion I may have formed—on the differences between the Prime Minister and the noble Earl who has just sat down. It would, indeed, be almost impossible to do so, because there would be very great difficulty in following the statements of the two noble Earls, because we are still very much in the dark as to the circumstances which led to the painful alternative which the retiring Members of the Cabinet thought it their duty to adopt. But what I rise for is to say, that I can entirely confirm the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government as to the position he took when assuming office. My recollection is exactly the same as his—that he then stated, in this House, fairly and frankly, that, in respect of the question of Reform, he considered himself free to act according to the circumstances of the time, and to what appeared to him the public exigencies required when the time came. It is true that in a few days after a statement was made by the Leader of the House of Commons which gave rise to a very different impression in the country; but until to-day we were not aware of what the noble Earl has stated, and which is no doubt correct, that almost immediately after they came into office the present Cabinet did arrive at the conclusion (which, no doubt, was the right one) that it was desirable they should deal with the question of Reform. The noble Earl has told us what course they took in order to give effect to that conclusion. They thought it desirable, by very vague and very indefinite Resolutions, to try what the temper of the House of Commons was with regard to this great question. With regard to that I raise no question; but what I do complain of is that, from the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government and the noble Earl who has just spoken, it appears that during the eight or nine months which elapsed from the time when they made up their minds that it was right to deal with the question to the period when they placed those Resolutions before the House of Commons, the Ministers not only did not make up their minds on any practical measure, but did not even come to a decision among themselves as to the principles on which it 1293 was advisable to deal with the subject. I do think the noble Earl who has just spoken has shown a very proper feeling in not dealing with that part of the Prime Minister's speech in which he intimated he was surprised at the course which three of his Colleagues deemed it their duty to take. It is quite clear that no real decision of the Cabinet had been come to as to what the meaning of the Resolutions solemnly laid before the House of Commons was in their minds and wishes destined to bear. There is only one other subject on which I will make a remark. The fact is, on an occasion like this I should have preferred to say nothing; but I think I ought to observe that the Resolutions were withdrawn in favour of a Bill which, according to the statements of the two noble Earls, was approved neither by the majority nor by the minority of the Cabinet. It appears to me, I must confess, a most extraordinary way of settling differences to have taken a third course, which was equally disagreeable to both the majority and the minority, And, with reference to one observation made by the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, I must deny that any Parliamentary action was taken on the proposals of the Government. There may have been individual speeches made on the subject. In those cases the speakers stated that they spoke for themselves; but as for the acknowledged Leader of the Opposition, no one can say that he did not show a perfect readiness to adopt the mode which the Government thought the best for dealing with the question. On the contrary, speaking of the proposal to proceed by Resolutions, he said that, though he thought it a bad mode of dealing with the question, and though many of his friends were of the same opinion, yet as that mode had been adopted by the Government, he was ready to consider their Resolutions. I am entitled to say, therefore, that though doubts were expressed, and suggestions thrown out, by various speakers, there was no Parliamentary action with respect to the Resolutions produced by the Government, or the very full sketch of a Bill given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a subsequent occasion. We have heard from the noble Earl who has felt it necessary to retire from the Government (the Earl of Carnarvon), though he was prepared to go as low as household suffrage, something about the other Bill which is to be produced; but we do not know how much lower the ma- 1294 jority of the Cabinet are prepared to go. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury spoke of the difficulty of passing it Reform Bill. Every one is aware of that difficulty; but this I will say—that during the last fifteen years there has not been so favourable an opportunity as exists now of passing a measure of Reform which will be satisfactory to the country and settle the question. This opportunity can be frustrated only by the fault of one side or the other. It can be frustrated either by factious opposition on our part, which I hope and believe will not be offered; or, on the other hand, by the inadequacy of the measure to be brought in by the Government. I therefore hope the Government will take advantage of the time which will elapse between this and the bringing in of the Bill—a fortnight or three weeks, I believe [The EARL of DERBY: A fortnight]—I hope they will take advantage of this time in considering what sort of Bill the country really requires, and in endeavouring to frame it in a simple and direct manner, and with as little tendency as possible to puzzle and mystify Parliament and the country. I am not authorized to go further than to express my own conviction, but it is one founded on conversations which I have bad indiscriminately with many Members of both Houses—it is, that if the Government approach the question in that way, the party with which I have the honour to be connected will meet them in a cordial and hearty spirit.
EARL GREYMy Lords, I cannot adequately express the regret and concern with which I listened to the statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby). I heard that statement with great regret—in the first place, because of the occurrence itself which has taken place; I heard it also with regret because I felt that, after what has been stated to us, there is little chance of this great question of Parliamentary Reform receiving that amount of careful consideration which it ought to obtain in the present Session of Parliament. I regret it most of all because it seems to me that the speech of the noble Earl introduces a novelty into Parliamentary practice, and announces a new system of carrying on the Government of the country, which I believe to be as disastrous to the public welfare as it is certainly unprecedented. If I correctly understood the noble Earl, it seems to me that the view of Her Majesty's Government was 1295 that they should come down to the House of Commons without any regular plan of Reform prepared on their own responsibility, and should endeavour to ascertain what were the views of the House of Commons, and act accordingly. My Lords, I thought such a course had been disclaimed. I thought that we had been told upon very high authority that Her Majesty's Government did not come down to the House of Commons to fish for a policy. I do not understand how those two statements can be reconciled. I have always believed, and believe still, that previous inquiry into this great question would have been better before any attempt was made to legislate on the subject. But did that imply that Her Majesty's Government was not ultimately to be responsible for the measure introduced? Far from it. In my opinion there were two courses, and only two courses, open to Her Majesty's Government. They might have either determined to attempt legislation in the present Session, or they might have determined—and I do not conceal my own opinion that it might have been the wisest course—that before legislating certain preparations were necessary. Had they adopted the second of these views, there was then an obvious course for them to have taken. They might, when Parliament met, have proposed Resolutions laying down the main principles on which Reform ought to take place, and then proceeding to pray Her Majesty by Address to institute in some mode or other an inquiry as to the best mode of carrying those Resolutions into effect. I believe that such an inquiry would have been attended with very great advantage, would have thrown much light upon the subject, and would have satisfied the country as to the soundness of the proceeding about to be adopted, and thus have done very much to bring all parties to an agreement. Whenever that inquiry was completed a measure founded upon its results might have been framed by Her Majesty's Government on their own responsibility, and submitted to Parliament in the ordinary manner. There was another very great and difficult subject urgently requiring to be dealt with more than thirty years ago, regarding which at the time there was the greatest conflict of opinion, no two persons agreeing how it ought to be settled. I advert to the question of the reform of the Poor Law. On this most difficult subject the Government of the day 1296 appointed a Royal Commission, which was presided over by a very able Prelate, the late Bishop of London, and by the Report of that Commission the Government were enabled to frame and pass a Bill with general assent, which they would in vain have endeavoured to obtain without previous investigation. Something of the same sort might have been done here when once the main principles of Reform had been decided on by Parliament; and this would have tended to an earlier and more satisfactory solution of the question than is now likely to be attained. This, I say, is one course that they might have adopted. If, on the other hand, they determined to legislate without such a Royal Commission, then there was only one course they could have taken with propriety—they should have appointed last autumn the ablest men whom, under the circumstances, they could command, to collect all the information which was necessary to enable them to come to a sound judgment. And the information so collected ought to have been submitted to a Committee of the Government charged with the preparation of the Bill, following the precedent of 1830–1. Such a Committee might have prepared a scheme which, after being considered and adopted by the Government, might have been submitted to Pariament. With a view to the adoption of either of these courses, it would have been a very proper mode of proceeding to submit suitable Resolutions to Parliament. But if the Government intended to legislate this Session, it is quite obvious that Resolutions could lead to no useful result whatever, unless they were founded on a clear and definite view of the subject already adopted by the Government, and contained a distinct explanation of the main provisions of the Bill they intended to propose. The Resolutions actually submitted to the House of Commons were of a totally different character. They could not have been more vague if they had been intended as the preliminary to inquiry, and not to legislation; they decided nothing, and any man at all favourable to any kind of Reform might, with some slight reservations, have adopted them. To bring forward such Resolutions by way of founding a Bill upon them appears to me to have been I really a mockery of Parliament. Now, we stand in this position—we shall have had no less than six weeks of the Session wasted before any step whatever 1297 is taken. At the expiration of that time, we are then, as appears from the statement made by the noble Earl to-night, with the views of the Government most fluctuating and undecided, to hope that in the course of a few days a Bill worthy of the acceptance of Parliament may be prepared. I would ask any man of ordinary understanding, whether he believes that a subject of this extreme difficulty can be satisfactorily dealt with in this way? For, remember what we have to accomplish. We have not merely to decide to what extent the franchise shall be lowered; but we have to consider with the enlarging of the franchise what other changes may become necessary, in order that the House of Commons may be so constituted as properly to discharge its high functions. Think of what enormous importance it is that the House of Commons should be so constituted. Our desire is that the country should be well and wisely governed. We want to have the House of Commons, both by its legislation, and by its advice and control, directing the Executive Government in a wise course of administration. Now, for that purpose it is necessary that the House of Commons should not merely consult the passing wishes of the majority of the population, it is necessary that the House should be so constituted that the highest intelligence to be found in the nation should be there adequately represented, and should exercise its due influence. A mistake once made in altering the constitution of the most powerful body in the government of this country is irretrievable. It is one of those things in which, if error is committed, you cannot retrace your steps; a mistake once committed may prove fatal. It is therefore most necessary that whatever is done should be done with due consideration and with the greatest possible care. I, for one, can hardly anticipate that when the question now to be dealt with is submitted to our consideration, the Bill drawn up by Government can exhibit that statesmanlike foresight of future difficulties which I believe to be essential in dealing with the constitution of this country, and with our most artificial and complicated social relations. I cannot bring myself to believe that the matter is either so simple or so easy as some suppose. There are considerations of the deepest importance to be taken into account before you decide on the propositions which ought to be adopted. Not anticipating that a discus- 1298 sion of this magnitude could have occurred to-night, I have been compelled to express very inadequately my sentiments with regard to it; but, after hearing the statement I of the noble Earl, I felt bound, at however short notice, to express the strong feelings which I entertain. I could not allow this occasion to pass without protesting against the manner in which this question is proposed to be dealt with.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, I have no desire to complain of the manner in which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has discussed the statement which it was my duty to bring before the House, or yet of the good-humoured criticism in which he has indulged upon the course taken by the Government. There was only one point on which, I think, the noble Earl was guilty of a slight amount of exaggeration. He stated that eight or nine mouths after the formation of the Government the Government themselves had not in the slightest degree arrived at an understanding concerning the foundations of the Bill they were about to introduce. The time may have seemed long to the noble Earl opposite; but I venture to inform him that, up to the present moment, Her Majesty's Government have not been eight months in office. If the noble Earl will calculate the lapse of time from July 11, when the new Ministry was formed, to March 4, he will find that Her Majesty's Government have not been, as I have said, eight months in office, so that the noble Earl can hardly say that eight or nine months were wasted over the preparation of a Reform Bill. The noble Earl has said, then, that it was not until after eight or nine months from the time the Government came into office that its Members agreed among themselves upon the principles of the Bill which they would introduce. My reply is that, with regard to the principles of the Bill and its main provisions, Her Majesty's Government were perfectly agreed in the month of November last; and the only question then remaining for discussion among them was as to the extent to which the franchise should be extended. That was a very important question, upon which, I admit, we desired to ascertain the opinion of Parliament and the country generally. With regard to the criticism of the noble Earl who has last spoken (Earl Grey), I understood him to say that the Government should have taken one of two courses—either to have introduced a measure on their own respon- 1299 sibility, and have declared they would stand or fall by it; or else to have referred the whole matter to a Commission for the purpose of settling what should be the principles of the Bill afterwards to be introduced. With reference to the first course, I have to say that we profited by the experience of our predecessors; if we had followed their example—that is, if the Government had determined to stand or fall by their Reform Bill—the probability is that one Government after another would have come forward, none of them would have stood, but each would have fallen, to the perpetual interruption of public business, to the contained absence of all agreement, and to the certain destruction of any measure of Reform, no matter by what party it was proposed. And what if we had taken the other course which he says we should have followed? Does the noble Earl for a moment think that the country, excited as it was, would have allowed us to delegate the whole of our authority to a Commission, sending it over the country to inquire upon what principles the Reform Bill should be framed? The late Government thought they had ample information to legislate upon, and we had all the information they had obtained, together with such further information as we had been able to collect ourselves. What would be the object of a Commission? To frame a Reform Bill? But what would have been the language of the House of Commons if we had pursued this second course which the noble Earl insists we should have followed? The House of Commons would have told us our proposal was a makeshift, and have said, "You are abdicating the functions of your office; you are loosening the reins of Government; you are proving yourselves utterly unworthy of confidence; and, shirking your duty, you endeavour by plausible pretexts to retain office for another year, and seek to stifle the question of Reform." Such, I think, would have been the result of adopting either of the two courses recommended by the noble Earl. I quite agree with the noble Earl's description of what it is desirable the House should be; but, I venture to think the noble Earl's views in this respect are Utopian; he looks for an amount of perfection in the House of Commons which no Reform Bill will ever produce; I go further, and say that, whatever change you make in the Constitution, I doubt whether you will obtain as the result a 1300 House of Commons more truly representing the feelings of the people of this country, or more judiciously, more wisely, and more impartially consulting the benefit of all classes of the community. But it is, nevertheless, true that under the present system a large number of persons are excluded from the suffrage, although they are fit to accept the responsibility attaching to electors, and I believe some of those excluded would exercise the privilege of voting intelligently, honestly, and wisely. These, then, if they had fair play, should be admitted. But the question is to what extent the class to which they belong should be admitted, and what arrangement could be made so as to prevent the electoral body being swamped by its largest and least able portion. This is not a question of principle—it is a matter of detail requiring very close and careful consideration, and I say it is not unworthy of a Government, before they commit themselves to any measure, to ascertain the general feeling of Parliament and the country—to take the House of Commons, as it were, into council—and to be guided by it—not as a matter of principle, as to which they are hound to exercise their own judgment—but as a matter of detail, so as to produce a measure that will be likely to meet the general wish and give general satisfaction. That, my Lords, is the vindication of the course Her Majesty's Government thought, and still think, it most consistent with their duty to take, and that duty to the best of their belief they have endeavoured to perform.
EARL GREYI have no right to address your Lordships again, and will not, therefore, trespass upon your time further than to say that I trust your Lordships who have listened to me will recognise how entirely the noble Earl who has just sat down has misunderstood the whole scope of my argument.