But, war having been declared, it became the duty
of the government to consider whether it was advisable
to proceed. But the bill doubtless attacked many
interests, and alienated many friends, and they had
to consider the prospect of being able to carry it.
There was indisposition in the house to go on with
it, and it had been met in the country, not with
disapprobation, but with indifference as regarded
its immediate passing, and there had been an almost
entire absence of demonstrations and petitions in its
favour. Its principle was generally approved, but
at present, from inattention to the subject, neither
the house nor the country was qualified to give an
opinion on the details; therefore the government had
thought it unwise, as regarded the general interests of
the country or of reform, to press the second reading.
He saw force in Mr. Disraeli's objection to members
sitting in the house while it was not known whether a
bill for the disfranchisement of their constituents was to
be proceeded with or not. It was inconvenient that
her Majesty should twice have been advised to recommend
parliamentary reform, and that in neither session
had the subject been taken into serious consideration.
He would not accept the excuse that government had
already done its duty in laying the measure before the
house, deeming that under ordinary circumstances they
would be bound to do all in their power to carry it.
But he urged that greater inconvenience would result
from any other course, for they could hardly proceed
with it without intimating that if defeated they would
resign; and they considered that, having just brought
down war messages from the sovereign, they should not
shrink from their post, and decline the responsibility of
carrying on the war. But as regarded the interests of
reform, he said that government held themselves as
bound to measures of reform as when they entered
office, and when the proper opportunity of again
bringing forward the measure should occur, they would
be ready to embrace it, not pledging themselves, of
course, to the same details, which they would be able
to reconsider. His lordship proceeded to say that a
case had not occurred in our constitutional history of
ministers undertaking a great war and at the same time
initiating a reform measure of magnitude. He expected
that the course he had announced would be exposed to the
taunts and sarcasms which were the legitimate weapons
of opposition, and of these he would not complain;
but, he said, as regarded the real friends of reform—
[At this point Lord John's feelings overcame him,
and as he used the word "suspicion" in reference
to his motives, his utterance was choked, and
the sentences which he struggled to pronounce were
evidently given through tears. As soon as this
was perceived, loud and cordial cheers, renewed
and repeated, broke out from nearly all points]—
Lord John proceeded to say, that if he had done any
good to the cause of reform, he deserved some confidence,
and if he had not that confidence, he could be of no use
to the country, and could not retain office. He had,
however, taken the course which he had thought the
right one, and he expressed a hope that he should be
supported. Lord John, speaking to the last under strong
emotion, resumed his seat amid renewed cheering.—Sir
E. Dering said that the house was under the deepest
obligation to the noble lord for having extricated them
from a position of difficulty. The house and the country
would do full justice to his lordship's motives in
introducing the bill, and not less to the sacrifice he had made,
and the moral courage he had shown, in withdrawing it
—Mr. Hume expressed sympathy with the feelings of
Lord J. Russell, and perfect conviction of his sincerity.
He denied, however, that there was any indifference on
the subject in the country, and asserted that the absence
of demonstration arose from the confidence felt in the
government. On review of the objections to any other
course, he reluctantly gave his consent to that now
proposed, and added that he was perfectly satisfied with
the assurance Lord J. Russell had given as to the
reintroduction of the measure.—Mr. Bright, after some
rather irregular comments on former debates on the
subject, said that Lord J. Russell was not bound to be
a political Samson, and perform impossibilities. He
repudiated the war policy which had necessitated this
course, but the house was precluded from making any
objections to it. As regarded the alleged indifference of
the country, he endeavoured to show that the country
had seen no apparent earnestness on the subject; the
newspapers and reviews had dealt in various ways with
the bill, and Lord Palmerston's resignation and
return, in connection with the measure, still further
perplexed the question, and the bill was looked on
as a political conundrum. He took that opportunity
of examining and censuring various features in the bill,
and ended by warning the opposition against supposing
that the people did not demand reform, for war taxation
would make their demand still more urgent, and he
counselled Lord J. Russell to give them a simple and a
generous measure.—Mr. Labouchere, Lord Jocelyn,
and Sir H. Vane approved of the course taken by the
government.—Mr. Disraeli thought that the government
had arrived at a sound and satisfactory conclusion,
and that the country was to be congratulated thereon,
and said that he should indulge in none of the taunts
and sarcasms which had been anticipated, for, after the
address of Lord John Russell, no acerbity could be
manifested. After an expression of great respect for
his lordship, whose character and conduct were precious
possessions of the house, he said that the mode in which
Lord J. Russell had announced an evidently painful
determination was in every way worthy of him. But
while entirely satisfied with the course which was to be
adopted, he proceeded to demand how, as the influences
to which Lord J. Russell had adverted had existed all
through the session, ministers had felt justified in
introducing this measure? Parliamentary reform was
virtually the changing of the depository of power in the
state, and when such a measure was introduced by a
minister, every person who was told that he had not,
and ought to have, the franchise, became aggrieved if
the measure were not proceeded with, and thus a
dissaffected class was produced, while dislike was
created among those who were to be disfranchised, and
thus our authorities and institutions were weakened.
And this was done on the eve of war. Examining the
arguments of Lord J. Russell, he asked how his lordship
arrived at the fact that the house was unwilling to
discuss the subject, when no opportunity had ever
been given for such discussion? Was the indisposition
on Lord J. Russell's own benches—he would
not say his own bench, as they must not approach
a taunt; and now they had an assurance that the
cabinet was a reforming one? The indisposition was
entirely on his own side. Mr. Disraeli then urged that
at their accession to office the government were making
warlike preparations against France, and he charged
them with having formed their administration on reform
principles, and having given reform pledges at a time
when our foreign relations were even more perilous than
now. The moral he deduced was, that too much levity
had been displayed, for party purposes, in dealing with
questions of organic change. Parliament seemed pretty
well agreed to help government out of an awkward
predicament, and he hoped there would be found more
caution in giving pledges for the future, that the course
of postponement which had been intimated tonight
would not be adopted, and that the subject would
altogether be allowed to drop. Statesmen's pledges, he
reminded the reformers, did not bring reform any nearer,
for it could not be obtained without the sanction of the
country. He thought it would have been more
statesmanlike not to have embarrassed the government with
any new pledges on the subject for party purposes, and
to animate followers.—Sir G. Grey, after a warm
tribute to Lord J. Russell, said that he had not understood
any new pledge to be given by that nobleman,
who had only amply vindicated the sincerity of the
government in their effort to redeem the pledge which
had obtained for them the confidence of the country.
—The Secretary-at-War said that Mr. Disraeli had
misrepresented Lord J. Russell, and he denied
that the condition of the country, at the time of
the accession of government to office, did not
materially differ from what it now was. In further
reply to Mr. Disraeli, he said that tranquillity was one
thing and apathy another, and that the mind of the
country was not capable of taking in two great excitements