[Source: Hansard, 3/XXXIX/68-71. Added by Marjie Bloy Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, National University of Singapore.]
Lord John Russell made this speech as part of his Address at the meeting of the first parliament of Queen Victoria's reign. As was customary on the accession of a new monarch, there had been a general election: this was one of a succession of general elections while the Whigs held office. Thomas Wakley, the MP for Finsbury, had proposed that the Reform Act of 1832 should be amended to include a further extension of the franchise, the introduction of a secret ballot and the repeal of the Septennial Act that required a general election to be held every seven years. Russell opposed these changes and it is from this speech that he acquired the nickname "Finality Jack".
The hon. Member [Wakley] who moved the amendment has brought forward questions
which have also been dwelt upon by other Members, and he has asked me whether
I will support them. He has mentioned the question of the ballot — he has mentioned
the question of the extension of the suffrage, and the question of triennial
parliaments. These he has brought forward in three separate amendments, all
forming parts of the same measure. He has put his powders into three separate
papers, as portions of the same medicine. I am not going now to enter into the
reasons and arguments with which each of these measures may be supported or
opposed, — I will not enter into the discussions of the question generally,
but I am bound to give some explanation of my views with regard tot he Reform
Act in relation to my present position. I cannot conceal the disadvantages and
the injuries to which the Reform Act is subject. I admit that at the late elections
corruption and intimidation prevailed to a very lamentable extent. I admit that
some parts of the Reform Act are the means of making it a source of great vexation
to the real and bona fide voter. I admit that with respect to the registration
of voters in particular, great amendments may be made. But these are questions
upon which I consider Parliament should always feel bound to be alive and attentive
to see that the Act suffers no essential injury, and that any errors in the
details which might be made in the commencement might be afterwards remedied.
But these are questions which are totally different from those now brought forward,
such as the question of the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and triennial
parliaments, which are, taken together, nothing else, but a repeal of the Reform
Act, and placing the representation on a different footing. Am I then prepared
to do this? I say certainly not. With respect to the question of the registration,
I am ready to bring forward some measures to amend it, or rather my hon. and
learned Friend, the Attorney General, will bring forward such a measure. The
matter has been frequently under discussion in this House. I proposed some amendments
myself last year, and if any further facilities can be given by me I shall feel
it my duty to afford them, and more particularly upon the subject on which I
introduced the Bill of last year, namely, the payment of rates. But I do say
that having now only five years ago reformed the representation, having placed
it on a new basis, it would be a most unwise and unsound experiment now to begin
the process again, to form a new suffrage, to make an alteration in the manner
of voting, and to look for other and new securities for the representation of
the people. I say at least for myself, that I can take no share in such an experiment,
though I may be, and indeed must be, liable to the somewhat harsh term of the
hon. Member for Kilkenny [Joseph Hume]. I must explain, however, in what sense
I consider myself bound with regard to the Reform Act. When I brought forward
that measure it will be recollected that the cry was that it was too large,
that it was too extensive; and those who were Radical Reformers were upon the
whole much better pleased with it than those who were moderate Reformers. But
it was the opinion of Earl Grey, an opinion stated
by him in the House of Lords, and an opinion stated repeatedly by Lord Althorp
in the House of Commons, that it was safer to make a large and extensive measure
of reform, than a small measure of reform, for this reason, that in bringing
forward the extensive measure we might be assured that we were bringing forward
one which might have a prospect of being a final measure. Do I then say that
the measure is in all respects final? I say no such nonsense. Do I say that
the people of England are deprived of the right of re-considering the provisions
of that Act? I say no such folly. I maintain that the people of England are
fully entitled to do so, if to the people of England is shall so seem fit. But
I am not myself going to do so. I think that the entering again into this question
of the construction of the representation so soon would destroy the stability
of our institutions. It is quite impossible for me, having been one who brought
forward the measure of reform, who feel bound by the declarations then made,
to take any part in these large measures of reconstruction, or to consent to
the repeal of the Reform Act, without being guilty of what I think would be
a breach of faith towards those with whom I was then acting. If the people of
England are not of that mind they may reject me. They can prevent me from taking
part either in the Legislature or in the councils of the Sovereign; they can
place others there who may have wider and more extended, more enlarged, and
enlightened views, but they must not expect me to entertain these views. They
may place others in my situation, but they must not call upon me to do that
which I do not only consider unwise, but which I should not feel myself justified,
without a breach of faith and honour, in proposing.
Last modified 29 June 2002