66

of this, that from the earliest periods of the Par-
liamentary history of this country there have been
two great divisions of constituencies, and it is
upon due weight being given to each of these two
that the whole balance of the constitution in the
House of Commons depends. They are, on the
one hand, those who represent the property-
landed, if you will, but the fixed and immoveable
property of the country-represented by the
knights of the shire, elected by the freeholders and
those holding leases of property; and on the other,
the burgesses, elected by their fellow burges es not
representing property, but representing residence
and occupation of premises. That distinction is
as old as the earliest period of our history."
My noble Friend went on to remark that
this was a principle recognized, and
even extended, in the Reform Act, and

the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell)
has constantly referred to that circum-
stance, and expressly adhered to that dis-
tinction. My noble Friend at the head of

the Government went on to say,

to join him in one of the most arduous and any other part of the subject but on difficult tasks which any Minister could have this point alone; and in order to set myto perform-namely, to conduct, avowedly self right with the House and the country, in a minority in this House, the adminis-, I hope I may be permitted to refer to the tration of the affairs of this great country. very language used by my noble Friend, I wrote to him to say that upon private when addressing the House of Lords on and upon public grounds I rather wished to this subject. On the 31st January, 1854, decline. The private grounds I need not my noble Friend said,— mention; and none of the public grounds I beg that your Lordships will not lose sight will I here advert to, except that which has occasioned my resignation—namely, a doubt whether I should agree with some of my colleagues on the Reform Bill, which I knew they would have to propose. My noble Friend in the kindest manner-in that kind manner which is not exceeded by any one I have ever known-my noble Friend in the kindest manner, and in terms which I will not venture to quote, requested me-aye, pressed me-to join him, and stated that the subject of Reform was a matter for consideration and one to which in no point of detail was the Government then in any respect pledged. I said in reply to my noble Friend, If there will be nothing dishonourable towards you or towards my colleagues in retiring from office, should I unfortunately not agree with you on this important question, I will consent to take office and do my best to assist you.' It was upon these terms that I joined the Government of my noble Friend. The difference which I then foresaw has arisen, and it is in consequence of that difference that I am no longer a Member of the present Administration. Joining the Administration upon such terms as these, I had to consider what in all likelihood would be the principle upon which a Keform Bill would have to be based. I had no need of conjecture. Three times the subject had been introduced into this House upon the recommendation of the Crown itself. Three times the House has assented to the consideration of the question-once in 1852, once in 1854, once at the end of 1857; and, I think, after that had happened, no division having been taken upon the subject, and no Amendment having been suggested, the consideration of the question of Reform was a duty and a necessity imposed upon every one who took a part in public affairs. As I have said, I had no difficulty in conjecturing what I thought the principle of the Reform Bill would be. My noble Friend at the head of the Government in the year 1852, and again in the year 1854, enunciated those principles in the clearest possible manner. I will not quote his words upon

"Property was there, that is, in counties, made the basis of representation; number and residence were the basis of representation with regard to boroughs. I do not pretend that this theory is carried out in all its integrity and with all its detail. Theory it is not; it is a practical distinction, most important to be borne in mind if you desire representation of numbers, but a representation of property and numbers combined, one portion of the Members representing more directly the interest of property, the other representing more directly and immediately the interests of residence in the measures they are about to introduce, will not attempt to break down this old, well founded, and most important distinction."

that the House of Commons should be not a mere

and numbers. I do trust that the Government,

These were the words of my noble Friend in 1854. I recollected these words when I joined the Government. At the end of the Session we had to consider how the pledge should be redeemed of giving to this country a Reform Bill based upon principles which Conservatives have always advocated, and also with a view of making a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the question. My opinions were perfectly well known to all my colleagues throughout our discussions; they were known to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequor early in September. They were known and repeated, strongly repeated, to my noble Friend at

party, Have always maintained. It is a complete
destruction of the main distinction which has
between the borough and the county consti-
hitherto been recognized and wisely established
tuencies. It is to my mind a most dangerous
innovation, by giving to temporary and fluctuating
occupations a preponderating influence over pro-
perty and intelligence, while it throws large
masses into the constituencies who are almost
exempt from direct taxation, and therefore inte-
rested in forcing their representatives to fix that
taxation permanently on others. I will not dwell
upon other points, for this is enough. But I cannot
help saying that the measure which the Cabinet
are prepared to recommend is one which we
should all of us have strongly opposed if either
Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ven-
tured to bring it forward. Under all these cir-
cumstances, I have no other alternative but to
1 shall, therefore, consider myself as only holding
repeat the request with which I commenced; and
the seals of office until you can conveniently fill
up my place.
"I am ever, my dear Lord,
Yours sincerely,

"The Earl of Derby."

"S. H. WALPOLE.

the head of the Government towards the close of that month. We had discussions on the matter in November and December following. I never did give up what I believed to be essential to the constitution of the country-namely, the distinction to which I have adverted; and therefore to that part of the measure which abolishes that distinction, I could not assent. But the House is not aware—and, without mentioning any Cabinet secret, I may inform them and, in my own justification, I think I ought to inform them that nothing was settled upon this part of the question until after Christmas; and I was requested to consider the subject as a whole, before I gave my final decision upon any part of it. The Cabinet was to have met on the 10th of January to consider the question. Other business and other causes prevented its consideration, and it was not until the 25th of January that the question came under consideration for final adoption or rejection. Previous to that day 1 in- The date of that letter forces on me a few formed my right hon. Friend the Chan-words of explanation-in consequence of cellor of the Exchequer of my strong con- certain reports that have been circulatedvictions upon this subject. We met; we namely, why after I had written that letdeliberated upon it. I was in a minority. ter I remained in office and continued to And I then felt that I had nothing to do occupy my seat on these Benches. -but-with the most cordial desire to answer is easy. My noble Friend at the head of the Government was pleased to request me, in the great difficulties by which we were surrounded-difficulties not merely affecting our domestic policy, but difficulties affecting our foreign relations-my noble Friend requested me to withhold the actual announcement of my resignation until Parliament had met, because he was anxious that it should not be prematurely known that Government had to meet Parliament with divided counsels. My answer to my noble Friend was immediate. said, that whatever I felt it my duty to do, I should always wish to consult his wishes as to the mode and time in which it should be done; and that if he thought I could assist him in meeting Parliament, I would willingly, when that event occurred, appear in my place as one of his Administration, since I agreed with my colleagues in their general policy, provided only I was allowed to retire before the Reform Bill was actually announced. It was

support Her Majesty's Ministers in every way I could-I felt that I had no other alternative than to request Lord Derby to place my resignation in the hands of the Queen. Of that letter I hold a copy in my hand, and as it states the only reason upon which I have retired from office, will the House permit me to read it?

January 27, 1859. "My dear Lord, I regret to say that I am about to take the most painful step which I have ever had to take in the whole of my life. I am going to request you to place my resignation in Her Majesty's hands, because I find it is utterly impossible for me to sanction or countenance the course of policy which the Government are now determined to adopt on the important subject of Parliamentary Reform. When you were so good as to ask me to join your present Administration, I told you I thought that I had better decline. I then

The

I

foresaw that there were one or two questions with reference to which I might not be able to agree with my colleagues. On being assured, however, that, if that should happen, there would be nothing dishonourable to you or to them in asking leave to retire, I consented again to bear my part in the arduous task which the Queen was pleased on this understanding that I have continued to invite you to undertake. Parliamentary Reform was one of those questions; and it is now quite clear that I cannot come to an agreement with the majority of the Cabinet. The reduction of the county occupation franchise to a level with that which exists in boroughs is utterly contrary to every principle which the Conservatives, as a

to sit on the Treasury Bench for the last three weeks, doing, I hope, my duty to my colleagues, to this House, and to my country, and it was not until the announcement of the Reform Bill was made that I considered it my duty to make my resignation

I

known. Indeed, one of my colleagues was nation when that is not the case; and I good enough to say to me, "You have no must further say that if this is the policy on right to go out until you know we have which we are to act for the future, I might finally adopted a measure and will not be at liberty to reveal any schemes or prochange it." That reasoning was irresistible positions made by any other hon. Gentleto my mind, and I felt that when that ap- man. Never, however, will I take such a peal was made, I could only answer that I course. But I will add that whoever may was prepared to hold my office until the have wished to damage me by making the Reform Bill was announced. These are statement, he will probably find that such the explanations which I have to offer an attempt will recoil upon himself. Sir, I as to the reason which induced me to have only two other observations to make; retire from office. Whether they are suf- one addressed to my late colleagues, the ficient others must judge. But I wish other to the House. To my late colleagues the House to bear in mind, that had I I have to say with the most perfect sincerity, remained I should have been Secretary agreeing with them in the policy which of State for the Home Department, whose they have adopted, whether foreign or duty it would have been to have given domestic-having taken, as they know, no no grudging support either to the prin- inactive part in the social and legal reciples or the clauses of the Bill. And I ask you, whether, with my strong convictions I could, as an honest man, have given it that support? It has been said, I know, that I have advocated the reduction of the franchise in boroughs to a £6 rating. How that should be known I cannot tell; but this I do know, that any information which I may have given upon that subject was of the most private and confidential character. This I also know, that I never proposed such a measure to the Cabinet. And this I further know, that I told my colleagues, and they all knew it, that I was prepared, if they thought they could stand upon it, to stand by the £10 occupation franchise settled by the Reform Act. I will not disguise from the House-now that the circumstance has been published to the world-I will not disguise from the House that I think it desirable that you should obtain some resting place to which the franchise should be limited, and that that resting place should be adopted as a permanent settlement of the question. I do believe, for reasons to which I will advert when the second reading of the Bill comes on-I do believe that the reduction to a £20 occupancy in counties would have been such resting place; and I do believe that a reduction of the £10 value in boroughs to a £6 rating, which is equal to £8 value, would have been such a resting place, because that is a point at which landlords cease to be able to compound for their tenants' rates. I advert to this subject because the circumstance has been made known to the world. But I must deprecate in the strongest manner any intimation of private opinions being communicated to the public as reasons for my resig

forms they are so wisely recommending
to the House-believing that their policy
as a general policy, independent of this
particular question of Parliamentary Re-
form, is really for the good and well-
being of the country-if my assistance as
an independent Member can be of any use
to them, they know, or they may know-
I believe they do know-they can com-
mand it as much as if I remained among
them still. To the House I will say, I
have now sat here for twelve years.
have filled during that time the office of
Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, once for ten months, once for up-
wards of a year. I have had, no doubt, to
mix in party strifes, and party conflicts;
but I hope I have not I am sure I have
not intentionally-wounded the feeling of
any one whatever. Sir, in now returning to
that comparative obscurity, which is much
more congenial to my character and dispo-
sition, I hope I shall be able to say here-
after, as I think I may say now, that I
have endeavoured, both as a Minister aud
as a private Member, to do my duty to my
Queen, to Parliament, and to my country.
In saying this, I have said all that I
wish to communicate. I have now to
thank the House very sincerely for listen-
ing to these explanations. I regret most
deeply that I could not agree with my
colleagues in the particular measure which
they have proposed-but not agreeing with
them, I am sure the House will concur
with me that I had no other alternative
than that of tendering the resignation of
my office.

MR. HENLEY: I have no doubt, Sir, the House will be kind enough to extend to me that indulgence with which they have just favoured my right hon. Friend. Under

within boroughs-who value that franchise, who wish to retain it, and who, as far as I know, have not abused it. I, for one, could never consent to attain identity of franchise upon such conditions. Let us consider the Government Bill under two aspects-first, as if it were to succeed; next, as if it were to fail. I shall take it in the first instance as a successful measure. I will ask my hon. Friends to consider this. Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 the working people have been having a less and less share in the representation. They had considerable representation before 1832 through the scot-andlot voters and the freemen. I am not going to say anything either for or against the freemen, but through them the working classes had their voice in the representation. They are gradually dying out, and I ask my hon. Friends near me to consider if they draw a hard line and leave the working people behind it, how long they think it will stand? If one thing can be more destructive to our constitution than another, it will be to have a Reform Bill every few years; and that will be the case if you cannot settle your system upon such grounds that you can reasonably hope that it will stand. I do not say for any long time-finality is out of the question

ordinary circumstances, I should have been well content to let my position rest upon what he has said, because in almost every particular I agree with what he has stated. There are, however, one or two points in which my position differs somewhat from his. The only condition that I made on joining the Government, when office was offered to me more than a year ago, was that we should endeavour to deal with the Reform question. I had no means of knowing whether that task was to be undertaken or not; but I considered, as my right hon. Friend has said, that from the state in which the question had been for some years it was a necessity for any Government to attempt to deal with it, and I would not have consented to become a Member of any Government except upon the condition that it was to undertake that question. That, at all events, will show the House that I did not approach the Reform question with any indisposition to deal with it. Surprise has been expressed, but in language much stronger than I care to use, that I could not support the Bill which the Government has proposed. I took as my guide that declaration of principles which my right hon. Friend has read to the House. I thought it was safe ground to stand upon, and the only point on which I have differed from my colleagues-but for a decent number of years. -the only reason which has induced me to leave the Government-is that which my right hon. Friend has stated. I believe that identity of suffrage, which is the principle of the Government Bill, is fatal to the constitution of this country. I care not whether the franchise is £10, or £15, or £5-1 care not at what sum you fix it but I hold that, if you take a paint-brush and draw a line across the country, and say that all the people upon one side are to have the franchise, and all the people upon the other are not to have it, although you may have no trouble for a few years, yet as sure as the sun is in heaven you will have all the people upon the outside of the line, at some time or other, making a very ugly rush to break over it. Depend upon it that when they do break over it in that way you will not find it easy to maintain the constitution of England. You have no precedent for the present proposal in your past history. You could not get identity of suffrage without a large measure of disfranchisement. To obtain it you are obliged to disfranchise all that large number of persons who have a freehold franchise

If

you cannot do that, you are laying the sure foundation for revolution. It is for that reason that I cannot agree to identity of franchise. If there be an identity of franchise, the whole electoral power will then be placed in one class, and whether it were a £10, £15, or £5 class, it would, in my judgment, be equally dangerous; for when a question might come up, you would have them all going to rush into one thing. Our safety-the permanence of our constitution, in my judgment, has depended on the great variety of the constituency. You never have all at one time for one thing. If anything is proposed it gets well ventilated and well considered, and then the truth is found out and the country accepts it. I believe that under an identity of franchise you would lose that great and invaluable safeguard. I now come to the question of my resignation. In the month of December, as my right hon. Friend has told the House, we got a pretty clear inkling of what we should have to consider. I then informed the noble Lord at the head of the Government that I thought-that I apprehended (that was the term I used) that there would be an irreconcilable dif