REFORM BILL: THREE-CORNERED CONSTITUENCIES (1867).Source.—Leader’sLife of the Right Hon. J. A. Roebuck, M.P., pp. 313–315. (By permission.) (London: Edward Arnold, 1897.)After the Bill, turned inside out by Liberal effort, and presenting as an Act scarcely any possible resemblance to its original shape, had established household suffrage, Mr. Roebuck at Sheffield further explained and justified his course by saying:“I made a resolution with myself that, having got Lord Derby into power, we would, if it were possible, screw out of him a real reform of Parliament. It always appeared to me that the Whigs never could carry a second Reform Bill. I stated so in 1859. I was hooted and yelled at in this very town because I so stated. Then came Lord Derby again, and then I recollected my old determination. ‘If ever a Reform Bill is carried,’ I said to myself, ‘it will be by those men, and so sure as they bring it in, I will support them.’ I steadily supported that Bill, and what has been the result? We have got a moreLiberal Bill than ever Whig proposed. We have got a Bill that has frightened, I believe, the very persons who proposed it. It has not frightened me. I believe we shall now find what the people of England really mean. I have great confidence in the right-heartedness of my own countrymen. I have no dread of the future.... We have got a great deal more good out of the Tory administration than out of anybody else. This Reform Bill is before us. We have now to work it.... I am sure there can be no harm to England while we have a free Press, a free people; but with that Press and constant inter-communication of thought, it will render the passing of the Reform Bill one of the greatest boons ever conferred upon the people of this country.”On the question of the three-cornered constituencies, Mr. Roebuck subsequently explained his course in the following letter:To a Constituent.19, Ashley Place, S.W.The story of the three members’ constituencies is a simple one and can soon be told. Many attempts to stop and destroy the Reform Bill were made under the guise of liberality. The project respecting the three members was one of them. It was thought that Mr. Disraeli had got to the length of his tether, that his party would go no further, and that if at this time they could be induced to recalcitrate, the Liberals who had hitherto supported the Government must vote with the real enemies of the Bill, that the Government would be put into a minority, must go out, and that the Bill would then be defeated. Mr. Disraeli said in the debate that the Government could not accede to the proposal, and that the defeat of the Government in the motion would seriously endanger the Bill. We knew what this meant—viz., that his party could not be induced to go further in the way of concession. Seeing this we said: “We will not throw away the good we have attained for the purpose of adding six members to large constituencies, and taking away six from small ones. This benefit, if it should be desired, can easily be obtained from the new Parliament when it meets. Inthe meantime we will insure the Bill.” We voted for the Government, put them into a majority, and saved the Bill. But Mr. Disraeli, upon consulting his party again, found that they deemed the trouble of the contest a greater evil than yielding the point, and they yielded so far as four members were concerned. I complained of this, and strove for Sheffield; but I was told that the party of Mr. Disraeli would go no further than four members, and so, according to my own expression, Sheffield was left out in the cold. This is the plain history of the case. It is a story that could be told of many other similar attempts to defeat the Bill, which attempts were defeated by our steady determination to carry the Bill, spite of calumny, spite of threats, spite of abuse. The Bill is now law, and is law because a number of Liberals were more far-sighted, ay, and more disinterested, than those who called themselves leaders of the Liberal party.
REFORM BILL: THREE-CORNERED CONSTITUENCIES (1867).
Source.—Leader’sLife of the Right Hon. J. A. Roebuck, M.P., pp. 313–315. (By permission.) (London: Edward Arnold, 1897.)
After the Bill, turned inside out by Liberal effort, and presenting as an Act scarcely any possible resemblance to its original shape, had established household suffrage, Mr. Roebuck at Sheffield further explained and justified his course by saying:
“I made a resolution with myself that, having got Lord Derby into power, we would, if it were possible, screw out of him a real reform of Parliament. It always appeared to me that the Whigs never could carry a second Reform Bill. I stated so in 1859. I was hooted and yelled at in this very town because I so stated. Then came Lord Derby again, and then I recollected my old determination. ‘If ever a Reform Bill is carried,’ I said to myself, ‘it will be by those men, and so sure as they bring it in, I will support them.’ I steadily supported that Bill, and what has been the result? We have got a moreLiberal Bill than ever Whig proposed. We have got a Bill that has frightened, I believe, the very persons who proposed it. It has not frightened me. I believe we shall now find what the people of England really mean. I have great confidence in the right-heartedness of my own countrymen. I have no dread of the future.... We have got a great deal more good out of the Tory administration than out of anybody else. This Reform Bill is before us. We have now to work it.... I am sure there can be no harm to England while we have a free Press, a free people; but with that Press and constant inter-communication of thought, it will render the passing of the Reform Bill one of the greatest boons ever conferred upon the people of this country.”
On the question of the three-cornered constituencies, Mr. Roebuck subsequently explained his course in the following letter:
To a Constituent.19, Ashley Place, S.W.The story of the three members’ constituencies is a simple one and can soon be told. Many attempts to stop and destroy the Reform Bill were made under the guise of liberality. The project respecting the three members was one of them. It was thought that Mr. Disraeli had got to the length of his tether, that his party would go no further, and that if at this time they could be induced to recalcitrate, the Liberals who had hitherto supported the Government must vote with the real enemies of the Bill, that the Government would be put into a minority, must go out, and that the Bill would then be defeated. Mr. Disraeli said in the debate that the Government could not accede to the proposal, and that the defeat of the Government in the motion would seriously endanger the Bill. We knew what this meant—viz., that his party could not be induced to go further in the way of concession. Seeing this we said: “We will not throw away the good we have attained for the purpose of adding six members to large constituencies, and taking away six from small ones. This benefit, if it should be desired, can easily be obtained from the new Parliament when it meets. Inthe meantime we will insure the Bill.” We voted for the Government, put them into a majority, and saved the Bill. But Mr. Disraeli, upon consulting his party again, found that they deemed the trouble of the contest a greater evil than yielding the point, and they yielded so far as four members were concerned. I complained of this, and strove for Sheffield; but I was told that the party of Mr. Disraeli would go no further than four members, and so, according to my own expression, Sheffield was left out in the cold. This is the plain history of the case. It is a story that could be told of many other similar attempts to defeat the Bill, which attempts were defeated by our steady determination to carry the Bill, spite of calumny, spite of threats, spite of abuse. The Bill is now law, and is law because a number of Liberals were more far-sighted, ay, and more disinterested, than those who called themselves leaders of the Liberal party.
19, Ashley Place, S.W.
The story of the three members’ constituencies is a simple one and can soon be told. Many attempts to stop and destroy the Reform Bill were made under the guise of liberality. The project respecting the three members was one of them. It was thought that Mr. Disraeli had got to the length of his tether, that his party would go no further, and that if at this time they could be induced to recalcitrate, the Liberals who had hitherto supported the Government must vote with the real enemies of the Bill, that the Government would be put into a minority, must go out, and that the Bill would then be defeated. Mr. Disraeli said in the debate that the Government could not accede to the proposal, and that the defeat of the Government in the motion would seriously endanger the Bill. We knew what this meant—viz., that his party could not be induced to go further in the way of concession. Seeing this we said: “We will not throw away the good we have attained for the purpose of adding six members to large constituencies, and taking away six from small ones. This benefit, if it should be desired, can easily be obtained from the new Parliament when it meets. Inthe meantime we will insure the Bill.” We voted for the Government, put them into a majority, and saved the Bill. But Mr. Disraeli, upon consulting his party again, found that they deemed the trouble of the contest a greater evil than yielding the point, and they yielded so far as four members were concerned. I complained of this, and strove for Sheffield; but I was told that the party of Mr. Disraeli would go no further than four members, and so, according to my own expression, Sheffield was left out in the cold. This is the plain history of the case. It is a story that could be told of many other similar attempts to defeat the Bill, which attempts were defeated by our steady determination to carry the Bill, spite of calumny, spite of threats, spite of abuse. The Bill is now law, and is law because a number of Liberals were more far-sighted, ay, and more disinterested, than those who called themselves leaders of the Liberal party.