THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, considering the vast importance of the subject, their own professed anxiety to settle the question, and the admitted inconveniences and clangors of piecemeal legislation, they would take advantage of the coming Autumn Session to present to Parliament and the country a complete Bill for the reform of the representation of the people? said, before putting the Question that stood in his name, he wished to remind the House and the Government that every Reform Bill, with one solitary exception, that had, so far as he knew, ever been presented to Parliament, or, indeed, to any Continental State, had been a complete Bill, containing not only a measure for the enlargement of the franchise, but also what was its necessary supplement, and, in some respects, its more important part—a measure for the redistribution of seats. For, great as might be the apparent anomaly of excluding from the franchise persons in counties who 1085 possessed the same qualification as gave persons resident in boroughs the vote, it was as nothing to the injustice of small towns—almost villages—without population, without commerce, without trade of any kind, sending Representatives to Parliament, whilst great centres of commerce, with teeming populations and large industries, were left wholly unrepresented or only partially represented. That anomaly would be increased if by any misfortune the Franchise Bill of 1884 were passed without at the same time being accompanied with a Redistribution of Seats Bill. The one exception to which he had referred was the Reform Bill of 1866, brought in, like the present one, by Mr. Gladstone. He thought that it was not an unfair assumption to make, that this mode of proceeding had peculiar attractions for that statesman, at least when he was in power. When in Opposition he held extremely different views on this point. Then he told them that—
Nothing could be more contemptible and base than the conduct of a Government which could give forth, with the view of enlisting the generous confidence of its supporters, that it would deal with the subject of Reform and would stand or fall by its own propositions, and which all the while could silently exclude from the scope of their declaration all portions of that question except only the reduction of the franchise, although among such questions we find one only second in importance to that of the franchise itself."—(3 Hansard, [182] 1144–5.)Such had been the views of Mr. Gladstone while in Opposition; but when in power he seemed to have acted on wholly different principles. He was not going to weary their Lordships by going back to the period of 1866. He might, however, remind their Lordships that it was owing to the Whig majority that the proposal of the Government in 1866 had not met with the approbation of the House of Commons. That majority had been made of sterner stuff than that which now followed the crack of the Ministerial Whip. Well, it was upon the Motion of the noble Duke the Master of the Horse (the Duke of Westminster) that an Amendment was carried which was in terms similar to that proposed by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), and carried in their Lordships' House last Tuesday night. It was an absolute enigma to him that the noble Duke and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) should 1086 now oppose a proposition which was identical in terms to that which they had so successfully supported in 1866. In consequence of the Amendment, all but carried, in 1866, Mr. Gladstone set himself to do what until then he had said it was impossible to do—he brought in a complete Bill. It is true that measure did not become law; but it was distinctly on the question of the franchise, and not on redistribution, that it was defeated. It was defeated on an Amendment changing the qualification from a rental to a ratable value. It was a pure question of franchise, and had nothing to do with redistribution. What he wished to submit to their Lordships was, that there was no reason whatever, provided the Ministry were in earnest about Reform, and had no ulterior objects in view, why they should not adopt the course taken in 1866, and bring in a complete Bill. On that occasion the present Secretary of State for the Colonies said they had no guarantee that a redistribution scheme would be passed if the two questions were dealt with separately, and that it would be better to leave the whole subject over until the next year, adding that if it were necessary to meet earlier, in order to overtake the work, he, for one, would not complain. Now the Government informed them that their intention was to introduce a complete Bill in the month of February, when Parliament again assembled, and to go on with it till the end of the Session; and their Lordships must give them the credit, when they said that, of imagining that they would be able to pass it. Now, there was no practical controversy about the extension of the franchise; the whole difficulty arose in regard to the redistribution of seats; and if the Government told them they could pass a Redistribution Bill between February and August à fortiori they certainly could pass it if they began the work next October. It seemed to him that any other course which the Government might choose to pursue must lead to the certain loss of that Bill; and it was well that the House and the country should understand that the onus of the loss of that Bill, and the reason why 2,000,000 of their fellow-subjects were not admitted to the franchise, lay with Her Majesty's Government, and not with the Opposition. It was impossible they 1087 could imagine that their Lordships' House could so stultify itself before the country and the world—could so wholly justify everything that its worst enemies said against it by accepting in the month of November the same measure from the same House of Commons which they had refused to accept in July. Such a course of conduct could only be attributed to a want of ordinary intelligence, or to a craven and despicable fear. Their Lordships might, by adopting that course, avert the hatred of the Radicals, with which they were now honoured; but, at the same time, they would assuredly earn for themselves their thorough and well-deserved contempt. He could not conceive that such a course was one which they could possibly pursue, nor did he believe it was one which the Government could think they were capable of adopting. Unless the Government were prepared to solve the difficulty in the only practical way and to introduce a complete Bill, not all the sophistry and misrepresentation of Radical orators—and God knew they were masters in that art—not all the foul vituperation of which they had recently had examples in the Press and on the platform, not all the mock demonstrations and processions in Hyde Park, which were got up on the same principle and by the same means, though they were not half so good as those which they saw at Christmas time at Drury Lane, would suffice to throw dust in the eyes of John Bull, or to conceal from the people of the United Kingdom the plain and palpable fact that their zeal for reform was only a "sham," and a clever electoral trick to present a false issue to the country, in order to win back for a thoroughly despised and discredited Government another lease of that power which they had so shamefully abused. The noble Earl concluded by putting his Question.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, the noble Earl has thought right to preface the Question of which he gave Notice by a speech that would have been an eloquent addition to the important debate in this House last week. But having myself had an opportunity of speaking in that debate, I do not think it necessary now to follow the noble Earl in his argument. As to the Question which he has just put, I am not aware that I can make any addition to the statement which I made after the noble Earl on the Cross 1088 Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had given Notice of a Motion which, I must regret, from what fell from the noble Marquess opposite, is likely to be opposed by him on Thursday.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he wished to prefer a request to Her Majesty's Government, and that was, that they would remember that they were responsible Ministers of the Crown, and not eke out the dearth of argument as to franchise without redistribution by inflammatory language. A few days ago, at the Foreign Office, language had been used by a right hon. Gentleman, only recently a Colleague of the noble Lords opposite, which had been looked upon as an incitement to violence. He had less concern with the right hon. Gentleman who was an old established railer, and all his life had set Englishmen by the ears; but it had been his misfortune to hear a speech from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, which, though in deprecation of violence, was too like the celebrated speech to an angry mob—"Do not nail his ears to the pump." The noble and learned Earl went on to say he was a calm and sedate man; and no doubt he knew himself best, so that the heat he sometimes displayed was factitious and a rhetorical artifice. But as a rhetorical artifice it was ineffective, for emphasis depended on the sense of the words, and not on declamation and passionate gestures. The noble and learned Earl then said his political career must shortly close; if he referred to his health, he sincerely hoped the noble and learned Earl was mistaken, and that one they all esteemed so much would be long spared to them; but if he meant to refer to the fall of the Prime Minister, then, with equal sincerity, he hoped his prognostic might be true. The noble and learned Earl had to choose between being calm and sedate, and using warm language; but he had been very frequently reminded by speeches of the noble and learned Lord of the words—"Tantæne animis cælestibus iræ?