The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-30 00:00:00

1050 one of your representatives to the House of Commons. I am not sufficiently master of the English language to dis cover words that shall express what I then felt and what I feel now to yeti for what you did then and for the reception which you have given mo to-night. I never imagined for a moment that you were prepared to endorse all my opinions or to sanction every political act with which I was con nected ; but I accepted your resolution in choosing me as meaning this—that you had watched my political career; that you believed it had been an honest one ; that you were satisfied I had not swerved knowingly to the right hand or to the left; that the attractions of power had not turned me aside ; that I had not changed my course from any view of courting a fleeting popularity ; and, further, that you were of this opinion —an opinion which I religiously hold—that the man whose political carter is on a line with his conscientious convictions can never be unfaithful to his constituents or to his country. At the time of my election you will remember that some newspapers which commented upon it took the liberty of saying that I bad had a good deal of time for reflection, that I had been taught a wholesome lesson, and that I had changed or modified my views with respect to recent public policy. I have had no proper opportunity before to-night to refer to that statement, and I beg leave to tell those gentlemen that they were and are, if they still hold the same opinions, entirely mistaken ; that whether I was wrong or right I acted according to what I believed to be right, and that all the facts and all the information which I have since re ceived have only served to confirm me in the opinions which I had previously expressed. I wish now, too—and all this is rather preliminary—to refer to one ingenious . . misrepresentation which it was of no use attempting to meet when passion was at its height, and when public clamour prevented any calm argument upon the question then before the country. All who read the newspapers at the time will recollect that it was said of me, and of others who thought and acted with me—bat more of me than of any other person—that my opinion upon such a question as any particular war in which the country might be en gaged was, after all, of no kind of value, because, whatever was the war, whatever were the circumstances, I should have taken exactly the same coarse, and therefore that argument upon a particular war was of no avail and was totally unnecessary. Now, I beg leave to say that that was a misrepreentation which no person had a right to make. I shall not trouble you more than a moment or two on this point, but permit ins to say that the first time I spoke in the House of Commons on the subject of the Russian war was on the 3lst of Mara), 1854, when a message from the Crown came down announcing that the calamity of war was about to befall the country. In the very opening of my speech were these short sentences, which, if you will allow me, I will read to you. I stud : I am not going to enter into a discussion as to the opinion Of those who contend for pease at any price and those who support peace on religious grounds alone; but I am merely going to inquire on the present occasion as to the absolute necessity of the war; to create which necessity we must show that the objects to be attained by the war at a proper, and iu some degree worthy the cost and sacrifices we made to attain them And went on to say that I hoped if a noble lord, who was then a member of the Government, rose to make any reply to my observations, he would not ran sway from the subject before the house, but would meet me as having discussed the question in that way and that way only. Well I now tell you, what it ought not to be necessary to say, that from that time until the time when I last spoke ou the subject of the Russian war I confined myself en tirely to those points ; my facts, my arguments, and my case were drawn from the despatches and blue-books which the Government for their justification laid before Parliament ; and therefore I repeat it was not open to any one who opposed me to oppose me on the ground that my opinion on the Russian war was worth nothing ; because, whatever might have been the cause of war, I should have held exactly the same language. Now, after all is over except the tax-gatherer, and the sorrows of those who have lost their friends in war, I will just in one sentence say that I am still unable to discover what compensation England has for the hundred millions of money she has expended, or what compensation Europe has for the three hundred millions squandered by all the parties engaged in that frightful contest. It is not easy to say how much, but of this we may be sure, that the squandering of 300,000,0001. sterling by the nations of Europe in that struggle has had a great influence on the enhanced price of money during the last few years, and greatly aggravated the pressure of the panic through which we passed twelve months ago. The 40,009 lives which we lost in the Rus sian war some persons hold cheap. I do not. I think that the grown men of Birmingham from eighteen years of age to fifty—and there are, probably, not more than 40,000 of them—are something worth looking at by the statesman and the Christian, and I say that the 40,000 lives which were lost to Europe deserved to be considered before we rushed blindly into a war with Russia. For myself, therefore, all I wish to point out to you is this, that the man who hesitates before he squanders so much blood and so much treasure has at least a right to be received with a moderate amount of tolerance and for bearance. I intend to take an early opportunity of going into the general question of foreign policy a little more at length than would be proper this evening. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. In alluding to the present aspect of this question, Mr. Bright proceeded to say : I now see before me, I am afraid to say how many persons, who are by the present constitution of ibis country shut out from any participation in political power. I shall take this opportunity of discussing, and, as far as I am able, with brevity and distinctness, what I think we ought to aim at this moment, when the great qnestion of parliamentary reform is before the country. I think we may fairly say that that question occupies now something Eke a trium pliant position, and at the same time a position of grea THE PRESS, OCTOBEt 30, 1858. peril,—triumphant, inasmuch as it has now no open ene mies—perilous, inasmuch as, fur the moment, it is taken up by those who, up to this hour, have been for the most part the uncompromising opponents of reform. We have had four Governments pledged to parliamentary re form within the last few years. Lord J. Russell, as Prime Minister, introduced a Reform Bill, and afterwards, in the Government of Lord Aberdeen, Lord J. Russell in troduced another Reform Bill, and the least said of these two hills, especially the latter, the better. The Govern ment which has recently been overthrown pledged itself to the country and the House of Commons to bring in a Reform Bill, but at the time when It came to an unex pected, but a not undeserved, end, no bill had been prepared, so that we know nothing of the particulars of what it was to be composed. We have now a Govern ment under the chieftainship of Lord Derby, who, during his short term of office in P 452, stated, if I remember right, that one of the chief objects of his Government would be to stem the tide of democracy. Now, it may be that Lord Derby has entirely c'nanged his mind, that he is as much converted to parliamentary reform as Sir It. Peel in 18-16 was converted to corn-law repeal. If ne is, then our question may be in good !Ands, but if he is not —and he has never yet acknowledged his conversion— then I think it is but reasonable of us to view his course with some suspicion, and to look upon the position of the question in his hands with some alarm. They all pretend now to be very fond of the question of reform, but still they don't tell us much about it. They remind me, in the few speeches which they have made upon the question, of the condition of that deplorable American cable, of which I read the other day in the papers that " the currents were visible, but the signal wholly indistinct." PRESENT PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. Mr. Bright then adverted to the present constitu tion of the House of Commons : Bat having admitted that parliamentary reform is neces sary, they thereby admit that the present House of Commons does not satisfactorily represent the nation—and it is one step in advance to receive that admission from all those persons from among whom it has hitherto been supposed that Governments could alone be formed in this country. Now, I do not believe that the Parliament, as at present constituted, does fairly represent the nation, and I think it is capable of must distinct proof that it does not. Before I proceed to figures I will mention one or two general proofs of that assertion. In the year 1816, when the great question of the repeal of the corn laws was under discus sion, it required an earthquake to allow the people to buy their bread in the earth's markets; it required a famine in Ireland—which from 1811 to 18-51 lessened the popu lation of that country by 3,oo',ooo—tt required the con version of a great Minister, the break up of a great party, the "endangering of the Constitution," and all those mysterious evils which official statesmen discovered when the poor artizan of Birmingham or Manchester, or the poor half-starved labourer, asked this only—that where bread could be bad best and cheapest in return for his labour he might be permitted to buy it. But coming down to 1852, when Lord Derby was in office, he went to a disso lution, and the great question proposed to the consti tuencies was protection. Parliament reassembled, and protection and Lord Derby were defeated by a majority of nineteen ; but when you had only a majority of nineteen in the House of Commons against the re-establishment of protection, nineteen-twentieths of the people of England were determined that they never would have anything of the sort again. Take, again, the questions which affect the Established Church. Probably many persons in this meeting are not aware that according to the return of the Registrar-General only one-third of the people of this country have any connection with the Established Church. In Scotland one-third only of the population are connected with the Establishment; in Ireland five out of six, in Wales eight out of ten, have no connection at all with it. And yet the Established Church is paramount in both houses. If the House of Commons fairly represented all the people of the United Kingdom, the Established Church —it is as a political institution that I speak of it, I say nothing of it as a religious institution—would be much more modest, and we should probably get some changes much more readily than we have ever got any before. Again, you are aware, probably, that up to 1853 if a man received landed property by inheritance, if it were left to him by will or came to him as heir-at-law, it paid no legacy duty—l speak of freehold property. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone, by an effort which was considered surerhuman, prevailed upon the House of Commons to pass a law to impose a succession tax, as it was called, or a legacy duty on real property. I will tell you how they did it. You know that if a man in Birmingham comes into possession of leasehold houses, or machinery, or shares in the North- Western Railway, or shipping, or any other property not called real property—though, by the way, when a man gets hold of it it is surprising how real lie finds it—if he be no relation to the person who left it to him, he has to pay a legacy duty of ten per cent., and a different degree of per-centage according to the degree of relationship in which he may stand to the testator. In the case of land— the heat of all property, with regard to its durability and certainty, for a man to hate left to him or to possess—the law is of a different kind. A friend of mine, a member of the House of Commons, was fortunate enough to have left to him by a person who was in no way related to him a landed estate of about 7001. a year. This was worth in the market thirty years' purchase, or 21,0001. There was timber on the estate to the value of 11,0001., which, added to 21,0001., made the whole bequest 32,0001. If it had been leasehold houses, or stock-in-trade, or machinery, or shares, or shipping, or in the funds, my friend would have had to pay 101. per cent. on it, that is to say 3,2001. But what did he pay? that is the question, for if we had all estates left us alike it would not so much matter. The calculation was this :—My friend is of a certain age— I don't know what, and it's not material; the tax. gatherer or the people at Somerset•house look into a table, which shows the probable length of life of a man of that particular age, and instead of paying 101. p er cent. on 82,0001., he is taxed upon the annual incom e of the estate multiplied by the number of years which according to the tables he may be expected to live I t ended in this way, that instead of paying 3,2001. to the State, to bear your burdens and to pay fur your wars, he paid 7001., or rather leas than one quarter. Do you think that if the House of Commons fairly represented the lawyers, merchants, manufacturers, shopkeepers, artizans, and all the rest of the population, such an act as that could have passed that house, or that if it had existed it could continue to exist for a single session ? I could show you inequalities as grant and scandalous in the manner in which the income tax, so grievously felt by owners of certain property in Birmingham, presses and is imposed upon the owners of the soil and those engaged is professions and trades chiefly carried on in towns, but I will not enter int.) that matter. Your own experience most have shown you how unequal that tax is. You know bow entirely every Government has swept aside all pro posals to make it more equal and just. And now we come to the question of figures. I think it is very easy to show that if the present House of Commons equitably or at all honestly represents the population of the country figures are of no avail in this discussion, for the figures prove conclusively that such is not the case. INEQUALITIES OF THE REPRESENTATION. In dealing with this subject Mr. Bright supplied the statistics bearing on the case : I will not trouble you with a heap of statistics which yon cannot remember, but will give you as a proof one or two cases. fake the greatest county in England. Yorkshire shows you an existing inequality which is absolutely fatal to all fair representation. There are in Yorkshire 10 small boroughs which return to Parliament 16 members— there are 8 other boroughs in Yorkshire whose members altogether are 14. Now, the 10 boroughs returning the 16 members have not niore than 80,000 of a population, while the 8 boroughs with the 11 members have a popu lation of 620,000. Now, whether you take the amount of population, the number of houses, the sum at which they are rated to the income tax, or the number of electors, the proportion is in the same way,—the large boroughs with the smaller number of members have seven times the popu lation, seven times the number of houses, seven times the amount of income tax to pay, and seven times the number of electors. I must ask your attention to one other comparison, and it telatea to your own town. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, you know, represents the county of Bucks. That county has a population of 164,000, which is not much more than half the population of Birmingham, and yet Bucks with its boroughs has not less than 11 members in the House of Commons : 164 persona in Bucks return 11 members, while Birmingham, of not less than 250,000 and probably much more, only returns '2 members. I will give you another illustration, which refers to your own town. In the counties of Dorset shire, Devonshire, and Wiltshire there are 22 holoughe, which return 31 members to Parliament. Compare the population and political power of those 22 boroughs, le turning 31 members to Parliament, with the population and political power of Birmingham. You have nearly twice the population, but you have only two members to represent you in Parliament. I could furnish you with pages of illustrations of this kind to show you that our whole system of representation is unequal and dishonest. But one more proof only, and then I will quit the figures, for I think the cave will be sufficiently clear. There are in the House of Commons at present 330 members ( more than half, whose whole number of constituents do not amount to more than 180,000, and there are at the same time in Parliament 24 members whose constituents are upwards of 200,000 in number, and, while the consti tuents of the 330 members are assessed to the property tax at 15,000,000/., the constituents of the 21 members are assessed to the same tax at more than 21,000,000/. There is besides this great significant fact, that wherever you Ito in Great Britain and Ireland five out of every siz men you meet have no vote. The Reform Bill, which I am not about to depreciate, since I know what it cost to get, and 1 know something of what it has done, was so drawn as purposely to exclude from the list of electors the great body of the working classes of this kingdom. But sup posing that out of the 6,000,000 of grown-up men in the United Kingdom 1,000,000 have the suffrage, as is now the case, and supposing that that 1,00J,000 returned the House of Commons by a fair distribution of members according to numbers, there would, in all probability, be a fair represen tation of the opinions of the 6,:100,000, because the opinions of the 1,000,000 would to a considerable eztent reflect and represent the opinions of their fellow countrymen. But that is not the case. The law has selected 1,000,000 to be the electors of members of Parliament, but, having got that 1,000,000, they have contrived, partly by accident it may be, but very much by arguments and intention, et; that the political power of the majority of that 1,000,0 0 t is frittered away and fraudulently disposed and destroyed by the manner in which members are distributed among the 1,000,000 electors composing the electoral body. Now,. wish to ask this meeting—and let us try to take a judicial and dispassionate view of the question when we t a lk of reform—what is it that we really want ? I bold it to be this—that we want to substitute a real honest represen tation of the people for that fraudulent thing which we call a representation now. But there is a very serious question to be decided before we can almost take a step. When you are about to reform the House of Comirons, are your eyes to be turned to the House of Peers, or to the great body of the nation ? The House of Peers, as you . know, does not travel very fast,—even what is called a per liamentary train is too fast for its nerves; in fact, it never travels at all unless somebody shoves it. If any wan -4 1