Page images
PDF
EPUB

and the question I ask is thiswhy are the people of England forced to find leaders among these persons? Their proper leaders are the gentry of England; and if they are not the leaders of the people, it is because the gentlemen of England have been so negligent of their duties and so unmindful of their station, that this system of professional agitation, so ruinous to the best interests of the country, has arisen in England."

The debate was then adjourned. It was resumed on the 6th July, the first speaker being Mr. B. Osborne, who advocated a residential test as a means of enfranchising the best educated mechanics. The claims of this class had, he showed, been supported by statesmen of every age, from Serjeant Glanville, in the time of Charles I., to Sir J. Hobhouse, a member of the present Government. The existing franchise was, he contended, neither a right nor a privilege, but a perqui site, which would not be perverted if extended to the householders of the country. He remarked upon the anomalies which the small boroughs presented, with the view of showing the advantages of electoral districts; advocated the practice of voting by ballot, and short ening the duration of Parliaments; and quoted Dod's Parliamentary Companion in reply to Lord John Russell's assertion that the House of Commons was not an aristocratic institution, and that Government was not carried on for the benefit of the aristocracy. The Russells, the Greys, and other scions of great families, monopolized every place, to the exclusion of men of practical experience, who would do the business of the country much better. He upheld the middle classes against the gentry, and concluded

by declaring that he should vote with Mr. Hume.

Mr. Serjeant Talfourd objected to further railroad progress in the path of reform, and, after an able analysis of Mr. Hume's proposition, declared that, either as a settlement or an instalment, it would be equally unsatisfactory. It was founded on no principle, attained no end, and was but an instance of delusive and mischievous quackery.

Mr. Cobden said, the division in favour of this motion might not be large, but the list would show that all those Members who represented large 10. constituencies, where the people had the free power of giving their votes, would be in the number of those who supported the motion. He appealed to that fact as a proof that the middle classes were anxious to open the portals of the constitution to those who were anxious to come within them. There had as yet been no organization in favour of this movement, but it had already made great way; 130 meetings had been held in its favour within the last five weeks, and it had already excited as much feeling in its support as had been acquired by the Corn Law League after five years' agitation. The present representative system was a sham, but, if it were amended as Mr. Hume proposed, it would once more be a reality. He defended, at some length, Mr. Hume's scheme of household suffrage, contending that it would not create a change in the Government, but would only bring the Legislature into harmony with the wants of the people. He also advocated it, as likely to produce economy and retrenchment, and a fair and equitable appropriation and imposition

of the public taxation. He then defended the proposed plan for a new division of electoral districts. The constituencies of London were as much too large as the constituencies of the country were too small. He thought it would be better to divide such constituencies into wards, and to give each of them the power of electing a Member, instead of giving all of them the power of electing a great number. He was convinced that this country could not be governed peaceably, whilst the bulk of the people was excluded from the representation. He did not want to increase the number of representatives in that House; but, if this Motion were assented to, they must increase the number of representatives in some districts, and must diminish it in others. He would not say much on the ballot, for it was one of those questions which had the greatest strength in that House, and among the middling classes. The farmers, to a man, were in favour of it. Having declared himself favourable to triennial Parliaments, he recom mended the House, if it wanted to put an end to agitation, to allow the power of the people to be felt within it. He wished to bring the virtues, and talents, and frugality of the industrial classes into the public service; for he told those who talked of the aristocracy and traditionary influences, that it was not to the gentry, but to the middle classes, that all the great triumphs of the British name, all its improvements in arts, literature, manufactures, and commerce, were mainly attributable.

Mr. Urquhart, after dilating on the failure of the Reform Act, and after denouncing the present agitation in favour of a new Reform

Act as a bastard agitation when compared with that which preceded it, moved as an amendment, that "experience had shown that change in the constitution of Parliament had failed to obtain the ends for which it was desirable, and with which it was originally conjoined, viz., non-interference and retrenchment."

Mr. C. Anstey seconded the amendment.

Mr. Locke King said that whatever grounds for complaint existed in 1832 existed at present in as great force. We had profited by the French Revolution of 1830, and had gained the Reform Act of 1832, and other great and beneficial measures. France had then made a great change in its government which had proved merely nominal. It had been stationary, whilst we had been safely and steadily progressing. Again we must make a step in advance, and that step must be by adding another Schedule A to another Reform Bill.

Mr. O'Connor denied that the principle of Mr. Hume's motion had ever been adopted by a majority of the working classes. They were in favour of the principles of the People's Charter, and would not be content with less. He expressed himself strongly in support of annual Parliaments, and said that he would rather have household suffrage with annual, than universal suffrage with septennial Parliaments. He was glad to find that Lord J. Russell preferred the People's Charter to Mr. Hume's nostrum of reform. He would vote, however, for that nostrum as the least of the two evils which Mr. Hume and Mr. Urquhart had conjointly brought before the House. If the Motion were passed, it would not be a

settlement of the question; for he should argue as energetically, as enthusiastically, and as forcibly for the People's Charter as he had done before.

Mr. M. Milnes did not think that the ballot would produce any great change in the composition of that House; but the division of Great Britain into new electoral districts would introduce a very portentous change. It would subtract from the influence of the country, and add to the influence of the towns; and at present the towns had no right to complain of their want of influence, as they had carried Free Trade and the Repeal of the Corn Laws against the wishes and the resistance of the agricultural interest. He should, therefore, vote against the motion. There was no immediate grievance which called for it; but the great events which had recently occurred in Europe must naturally find an echo here. If every Frenchman, German, and Italian had his share in the political arrangements of his country, a claim for similar power would be heard here, and we must be prepared to meet it.

Mr. S. Herbert did not think the present scheme of representation to be perfect, and was therefore delighted to hear that Lord John Russell had given up the doctrine of finality. He had likewise heard with pleasure his lordship's admission that the uniformity of the franchise established by the Reform Act was one of its greatest faults. Mr. Cobden had said that a reform of Parliament would bring in its train a reduction of establishments and taxation; but had that been the result of the labours of the representative body recently elected in France under universal suffrage? Quite the re

verse. The result was seen in the increase of its standing army, before too large-in the increase of its taxation-in the domination of a many-headed tyranny-and in an immense increase of secret service money. Such being the case in Prussia, as well as in France, he felt himself justified in declaring that, if the Members of the House of Commons performed their duties, there was nothing in their principles or their practice to deprive them of the respect of their country. In some instances their course of late had not been such as to conciliate public estimation, and the cause of it was their inconsistency in regard to cases of corruption, their incapacity to get rapidly through business from their indulgence in unnecessary discussion, and their dealing in ungenerous and unhandsome imputations on each other. These were faults which might be easily amended, and, when that was done, the amendment would cause the House to stand higher in public estimation.

Lord D. Stuart, in a short speech, declared himself friendly to the motion.

Mr. Muntz observed, that the real question before the House had been completely shirked by all parties who had spoken that evening. The question was-first, did the House fairly represent the country; and, secondly, if it did not, was Mr. Hume's plan the best mode of remedying the defects in its composition? the people were of opinion that the House did not fairly represent the country, and had formed that opinion in consequence of the conduct of the House this session on the property-tax, the "gagging" Bill, and the currency;

Now,

[blocks in formation]

CHAPTER VI.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS:-Diplomatic Relations with Rome-Negotiations opened at Rome by the Earl of Minto for this object-Bill brought in by the Marquis of Lansdowne to legalise such relations-Debate on the Second Reading-Objections raised by the Duke of Newcastle, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Exeter, and the Earl of EldonThe Bishop of St. David's, Earl St. Germans, Earl Grey, and Lord Stanley support the Second Reading, which is carried-Amendments are made in the Bill in Committee-The Second Reading is moved by Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons, on the 17th of AugustMr. C. Anstey, Mr. Urquhart, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Law, Mr. R. Palmer, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Newdegate oppose the Second Reading, which is supported by Lord John Russell, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, Mr. M. J. O'Connell, the Earl of Arundel, Mr. Moore, and other Members-The Bill is read a Second Time, a majority of 79 voting in its favour-Further opposition in Committee, and on the Third Reading -The Bill is passed. AFFAIRS OF ITALY AND SICILY:-Lord Stanley brings forward a Motion in the House of Lords respecting the intervention of the British Government in the Sicilian Insurrection-The Marquis of Lansdowne answers the charge on the part of the Government-Observations of the Earl of Minto, the Duke of Argyle, Earl of Malmesbury, and other Peers-Proceedings on the same subject in the House of Commons-Declaration of Lord Palmerston respecting the Intervention of England-Mr. Disraeli, on the 16th August, enters into a full review of the whole field of Italian Politics and British Intervention-Remarks upon Lord Minto's Mission and the real objects of Lord Palmerston's Mediations-Lord Palmerston vindicates his own conduct and policy at great length. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN:-Abrupt dismissal of Sir H. Bulwer, the British Ambassador-Circumstances which led to this event-The subject is brought before the House of Lords by Lord Stanley-His Speech-Answer of the Marquis of Lansdowne-Remarks of Lord Brougham, the Earl of Aberdeen, and other Peers-Mr. Bankes brings the matter before the House of Commons by a Resolution disapproving of the Policy of our GovernmentSpeeches of Mr. Shiel, Lord Mahon, Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Russell, Sir R. Peel, and Lord Palmerston-The Motion is ultimately withdrawn-Close of the Session:-Mr. Disraeli, on the 30th August, reviews the events of the expiring Session in an animated and humorous

« PreviousContinue »