DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16877#0005
VOLUME L.
TkV£
♦
JANUARY TO JUNE, 1866.
THE RUSSELL CABINET.—1866.
First Lord of the Treasury
Lord Chancellor .
Chancellor of the Exchequer
President of the Council
Lord Privy Seal
Home Office
Foreign Office.
Colonial Office
War Secretary
India Secretary .
Admiralty .....
Postmaster-General
President of the Board of Trade
President of the Poor Law Board
Chancellor of the Duchv of Lancaster
Paul Russell.
Lord Ckanworth.
Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.
Earl Granville.
Duke of Argyll.
Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart.
Earl of Clarendon.
Right Hon. E. Cardwell.
Earl de Grey and Ripon (succeeded by
Marquis of Haiitington.)
Sir Charles Wood, Bart, (succeeded by
Eaiil de Grey and Ripon.)
Duke of Somerset.
Lord Stanley of Alijerley.
Right Hon. T. Milner Gibson.
Right Hon. Charles P. Yilliers.
Right Hon. G. J. Goschen.
THE new Parliament elected in the summer of 1865,
before the death of Lord Palmerston (whom Earl
Bussell succeeded as Premier), assembled on the 6th of
February, the Queen, for the first time since the death of
the Prince Consort, opening the Session in person.
The ono great absorbing question which mainly occupied
the House of Commons from March to June was Parlia-
mentary Reform.
In the Royal Speech this subject was introduced, in the
following terms:—
“ I Lave directed that information sheuld be procured in reference to the
rights of voting in the election of members to sorve in Parliament for
counties, cities, and boroughs. When that information is complete, the
attention of Parliament will be called to the result thus obtained, with a
view to such improvements in the laws which regulate the lights of voting
in the election of members of the House of Commons as may tend to
strengthen our free institutions, and conduce to the public welfare. ”
The charge of the New Reform Bill fell to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), as the leader of the
Ministry in the Lower House, and ou the 12th of March,
voluminous statistics on the subject having been previously
laid on the table, he introduced the measure. As it failed
to pass into a law—the long debates and close divisions which
it occasioned, finally ending in the defeat and consequent
resignation of the Ministry—the provisions of the Bill,
which will be found in the “ Essence of Parliament,” need
not be repeated here. But it seems necessary to mention
that it was confined to alterations in the franchise in
England and Wales (Scotland and Ireland being reserved
for separate legislation), and that it did not touch the ques-
tion of Redistribution of Seats.
PjLQE
One circumstance should be noticed as contributing
largely to the ultimate defeat of the Bill—the opposition
offered to it by a section of the Liberal party, including
such prominent members as Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman,
who were under the impression that the Bill owed much to
the influence of Mr. Bright, and who looked on its pro-
visions as having a democratic and therefore a dangerous
tendency.
Another objection taken to the Bill was its fragmentary
character, and this was embodied iu an amendment moved
by Earl Grosvenor (another of the seceding supporters of
Government) on the second reading—to the effect that it
was inexpedient to consider the Bill for the reduction of the
Franchise until the House had before it the whole scheme
of the Government for the amendment of the representation
of the people. The debate on the second reading began on
the 12th of April, lasted eight nights, and ended in Govern-
ment having a bare majority of five in a house of 631
members. The Ministry neither withdrew the Bill nor
resigned, but announced their intention of at once bringing
forward their redistribution scheme, and the Bills for Scot-
land and Ireland.
Accordingly the Redistribution Bill was brought in on
the 7th of May, and was read a second time after a debate,
but without a division. The Scotch and Irish Bills fol-
lowed. Before going into Committee, the Government con-
sented, at the instance of Mr. Bouverie, to the fusion of
the two Bills—the Franchise and Redistribution—into one
measure ; and they sustained a defeat in opposing Sir R.
Knightley’s motion, that it be an instruction to the Com-
POLITICAL SUMMARY.
TkV£
♦
JANUARY TO JUNE, 1866.
THE RUSSELL CABINET.—1866.
First Lord of the Treasury
Lord Chancellor .
Chancellor of the Exchequer
President of the Council
Lord Privy Seal
Home Office
Foreign Office.
Colonial Office
War Secretary
India Secretary .
Admiralty .....
Postmaster-General
President of the Board of Trade
President of the Poor Law Board
Chancellor of the Duchv of Lancaster
Paul Russell.
Lord Ckanworth.
Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.
Earl Granville.
Duke of Argyll.
Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart.
Earl of Clarendon.
Right Hon. E. Cardwell.
Earl de Grey and Ripon (succeeded by
Marquis of Haiitington.)
Sir Charles Wood, Bart, (succeeded by
Eaiil de Grey and Ripon.)
Duke of Somerset.
Lord Stanley of Alijerley.
Right Hon. T. Milner Gibson.
Right Hon. Charles P. Yilliers.
Right Hon. G. J. Goschen.
THE new Parliament elected in the summer of 1865,
before the death of Lord Palmerston (whom Earl
Bussell succeeded as Premier), assembled on the 6th of
February, the Queen, for the first time since the death of
the Prince Consort, opening the Session in person.
The ono great absorbing question which mainly occupied
the House of Commons from March to June was Parlia-
mentary Reform.
In the Royal Speech this subject was introduced, in the
following terms:—
“ I Lave directed that information sheuld be procured in reference to the
rights of voting in the election of members to sorve in Parliament for
counties, cities, and boroughs. When that information is complete, the
attention of Parliament will be called to the result thus obtained, with a
view to such improvements in the laws which regulate the lights of voting
in the election of members of the House of Commons as may tend to
strengthen our free institutions, and conduce to the public welfare. ”
The charge of the New Reform Bill fell to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), as the leader of the
Ministry in the Lower House, and ou the 12th of March,
voluminous statistics on the subject having been previously
laid on the table, he introduced the measure. As it failed
to pass into a law—the long debates and close divisions which
it occasioned, finally ending in the defeat and consequent
resignation of the Ministry—the provisions of the Bill,
which will be found in the “ Essence of Parliament,” need
not be repeated here. But it seems necessary to mention
that it was confined to alterations in the franchise in
England and Wales (Scotland and Ireland being reserved
for separate legislation), and that it did not touch the ques-
tion of Redistribution of Seats.
PjLQE
One circumstance should be noticed as contributing
largely to the ultimate defeat of the Bill—the opposition
offered to it by a section of the Liberal party, including
such prominent members as Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman,
who were under the impression that the Bill owed much to
the influence of Mr. Bright, and who looked on its pro-
visions as having a democratic and therefore a dangerous
tendency.
Another objection taken to the Bill was its fragmentary
character, and this was embodied iu an amendment moved
by Earl Grosvenor (another of the seceding supporters of
Government) on the second reading—to the effect that it
was inexpedient to consider the Bill for the reduction of the
Franchise until the House had before it the whole scheme
of the Government for the amendment of the representation
of the people. The debate on the second reading began on
the 12th of April, lasted eight nights, and ended in Govern-
ment having a bare majority of five in a house of 631
members. The Ministry neither withdrew the Bill nor
resigned, but announced their intention of at once bringing
forward their redistribution scheme, and the Bills for Scot-
land and Ireland.
Accordingly the Redistribution Bill was brought in on
the 7th of May, and was read a second time after a debate,
but without a division. The Scotch and Irish Bills fol-
lowed. Before going into Committee, the Government con-
sented, at the instance of Mr. Bouverie, to the fusion of
the two Bills—the Franchise and Redistribution—into one
measure ; and they sustained a defeat in opposing Sir R.
Knightley’s motion, that it be an instruction to the Com-
POLITICAL SUMMARY.