The Press. — London, England, 1858-11-27 00:00:00

THE PRESS, NOVEMBER 27, 1858. 1152 in Birmingham, who vote on account of qualifications of this description. These voters are therefore doubly repre sented. If, however, a voter's house stands one foot beyond the precincts of the borough, he cannot vote for the borough members, although voters immediately on the other side of the line can vote both for the county and the borough members. Now look at the general results which Mr. Bright has endeavoured to avoid by picking out particular instances. The whole county constituencies, in round numbers, amount to 500,000 electors; 95,000 county voters have qualifications within boroughs ; and I believe that one•sixth of those represented by borough members claim, and validly, to be repre sented also by the small minority in the House of Com mons which the county members constitute; and I may add that this disproportion not orly exists, but it exists to the detriment, I may say, of the majority of the people of this country. Take the test of the property represented by the small minority of county members of England aud Wales, and you will find that we represent one-half of the real property. Take the test of the number of houses there are within the counties beyond the pre cincts of the boroughs and you will find that within boroughs there are 1,383,300 houses, and within counties and beyond the boundaries of the boroughs '2,053,998. Now, I ask whether you would expect a man who appeals to the doctrine of representation by numbers and arith metic, would be desirous to continue and increase that disproportiou which I have shown to exist according to his own principle. (Cheers.) I say that Mr. Bright has proposed to perpetuate and increase a job which was perpetrated on the division of the constituencies in 1832 —a job which has even so operated on my mind that I have withstood the parties with whom I am connected (as my hon. colleague can bear witness) on this subject, and 1 ant determined to offer a point blank resist ance to any measure of reform which does not correct so gross an abuse. I don't adopt Mr. Bright's theory that the number of the population should be the sole test by which a measure of reform is to be tried. Ido not see why all the small boroughs should be abolished without a substitute, because I know that men of the highest talent—of the deepest research—many men whose services would be invaluable to the Government of so extended an empire as that of our most gracious Majesty—who have not the peculiar facilities and tact, and would not lend themselves to the acts which are requisite to command large and popular constituencies—should have an opportunity of entering Parliament. Depend upon it, no greater mistike could be made than to cat the country up iu squaws—to use a familiar phrase, to Ame ricanize the House of Commons, to provide that none should be returned to Parliament but those who, by local influence, by particular tact, ray special aptitude, or by exertion, can conciliate the opinions of a large eonstituency. I believe no greater misfortune could occur, and if a serious reform be introduced, unless there is some direct representation of classes, such as those who pass the test of examination for masters of art, or doctors of physic, and those who have obtained licences to practise as apothe caries, as well as officers of the army and navy an.l mem bers of the legal profession, nothing can compensate this eonutry, which is the centre of an empire, not a tight little island, as Mr. Bright has expressed it—i hear, hear) —for the loss of these intellects which, during many suc cessive generations, many small constituencies have re turned. (Cheers.) But I wish to disabuse the minds of the labouring classes of the belief that we. the country gentlemen--Mat we, the county members—lo not repre sent the population of this country. Seeing how largely the IN. county franchise enters into the represen tation, I am justified in saying that we do represent the majority of the population. In this division of Warwick shire, and in Middlesex, Yorkshire, Lancashire, and many other comities, that franchise is more popular, and is virtually lower than it is in the boroughs; and in opposi tion to Mr. 13641 it's scheme, I contend that, in the event of Parliament considering the redistribution of the seats of members, this one great fact should be borne in mind, that although the county members are not half the members for England, they yet represent the majority of the p tpaLetion. (Cheers.) I don't know whether you have seen the newspapers Of to-day, but they announce that Count Montalembert, a statesman, a politician, a man of letters in France, has been convicted by a French tribunal of an offence against the laws of that country, because he published a certain pamphlet—l believe it appeared first in the form of an article in the Correspond apse newspaper—but a particular article in which he spoke in praise of the institutions of England, and made a compa rison unfavourable to those of France. Now, gentlemen, you will, perhaps, ask why I bring before your notice Count Montalembert. I should not deem it inappropriate to do so, because he is a distinguished man, the leader, perhaps, of an important section of what was the Parlia ment of France while France was free. Rot it litq.nened that in one of the last debates on the Jew Bill in the House of Commons i alluded to Count Montalembert as one of those who, by the application of his literary talent and by his advocacy, had advance!, under the plea of promoting civil and religious liberty, the institutions and interests of the Jesuits and other priests of the Church of Rome; and in the pamphlet to which I have alluded Count Montalem bert says that he saw me on the course at Epsom on the Derby-day closely watching the movements of Toxophilite, and that he recognized me as an Anglican of the old rock, and that iu my anxiety that Toxophilite should win I totally forgot the dangers of the Church and State of England. of which I was su earnest a defender. He afterwards describ es me as accusing him of advocating free institutions for the purpose of extending through their agency the power of the Jesuits, who are the most powerful organs of the Church of Rome. Now, I regret, perhaps more sincerely than any Radical, that intellect should be so fettered in France— The CHAIRMAN I never was there. ( Leughter.) Ma. NICWDEGATE : I have been there frequently, and the more I have seen of it the more I have regretted that so noble a people should find themselves so incapable of self-government as to make it necessary that they should submit themselves to a despotism. lament that Count Montalembert has committed an error, that ha has been guilty of a grave mistake. And the reason I mentioned him in the House of Commons was that I believed he was by blood half an Englishman, and that he took a deep interest in oar institutions. He lauds them; but he wrote a work called " The Political Future of England," and in that he praises the institutions of England, because, he says, they are advancing the interests of Papacy throughout the world, and he prophecies that those clergymen who have left the Church of England are only the forerunners of the general conversion of the people— an object which he deems most desirable in a country capable of so much exertion as England has proved her self, and which influenced so much the rest of the world. I said before that Count Montalembert has committed an error. If he wished to land England—and England would have responded in a moment to so eminent a man as himself—why did he not publish his pamphlet in London, Brussels, or Frankfort, or in any place, in feet, except Paris, where he knows the law is such that political discussion is not free, and therefore by bringing his pamphlet into collision with the law he endangers the good understanding between the two countries? But he is guilty of the great mistake—and I fear it is a mistake participated in by many of the higher classes in this country—that England or any other country can be really free while she is subject to the domination of Rome and the influence of the Jesuits. Now, it is not for me to read the history of France for Count Montalembert, but I know the history of my own country, and I know that if England had not cast off the domination of the Church of if she had not freed herself from the intrigues and influence of the Jesuits, we never should have enjoyed that political freedom which Count Montalembert so highly lauds. (Cheers.) Has he, who is now, I regret to say, suffering a penalty under the despotism of France, so read the history of his country, that he does not know that her subjection to the Church of Rome and the influence of the Jesuit body have corrupted society in France, until the people have, according to his own avowal, become incapa ble of freedom? Gentlemen, I have adverted to this work of Count Montalembert with no evil disposition towards one whose praise of Er-gland enlists her sympathy, if it does not command her judgment; but I say to Count Montalembert, now that he is held tip as a victim and a hero, owing to his being subject to the laws of France— against, I admit, the freedom of political discussion—that he who advocates the domination of the Church of Rome sins against free institutions. According to all the records of the history of England—l will answer for it Count Montalembert understands the history of France—that is the conclusion at which we must arrive. I would say to Count Montalembert," Read our statute book ; look at the record of our laws, against the domination of the Church of Route, against the seminaries of her orders, and against the Jesuits, and you will find testimony to the struggles of the tree people of England against that tyranny ; and it is only by their success that we have attained the free. dom which you, Count Montalembert, desires for France." (Cheers.) And when be asks you again to submit to the yoke of Rome, I tell him, and everyone who is persuaded by him, that they seek two incompatible objects—the supremacy of Rome and the advancement of free institu tions—which have n yet, in the history of mankind, been known to flourish together. (Cheers.) And if I have expressed a want of confidence in Count Montaletn bert, it is because he has asked England to remain free, and yet to submit herself again to that despotism from which, by long suffering, by bloodshed, by great exertions, and by convulsions, she has succeeded in liberating her self. (Cheers.) These, gentlemen, are the principles which I have advocated in the House of Commons, not withstanding the denunciations of Mr. Bright. I still believe that the first condition for the preservation of the freedom of England is the maintenance of her Protes tantism in Church and State. True it is that the opinions I represent have received a heavy blow and a great dia. ccuragement by the passage of the bill which infringes the Christian character of Parliament ; but if it be your pleasure that I shall serve you hereafter as I have done for the last fourteen yeats I have had the honour of representing you, you will find me still staunch as an advocate of Protestant Christianity, believing that upon that foundation alone-- upon that, the basis of the belief of the English people— can be raised add maintained a superstructure which shall in future generations ,defend the freedom of our country. (Land cheers.) Mr. SPOONER also responded to the toast. His hon. colleague said that last session of Parliament occasioned him more pain than any other session in which he had served; but what had passed there that evening had put him (Mr. Spooner) in a very painful position. His hon. colleague s►id that when the Conspiracy Bill was brought in by Lord Pal merston—a bill which in his . (Mr. Spooner's) humble judgment was a good and proper one—he voted for the first reading, but on the second reading the circumstances were so changed that he voted against it. He (Mr. Spooner) came to an entirely different conclusion. He did not think the circum stances of the case were so altered as to justify him negativing the vote which he gave on a former night. He respected the opinions of his hon. friend, but he respected his own conscience more, and he would not surrender it to his colleague, notwithstanding the high esteem in which lie held him. Mr. Newdegate had alluded to the speech of a Mr. Bright with regard to the reform of Parliament. ( Laughter). He would not now touch on that subj ec t, as Mr. Newdegate had so thoroughly dissected Mr. Bright's scheme ; he had set it up, taken a cock-shy at it, and completely knocked it to pieces—(laughter)—and he was therefore disposed to leave the question of the Reform Bill exactly where his friend had left it. 1-1 might be mistaken, but the little he did know of 11: Bright led him to the conclusion that he wished to bring every person to his own level, but took care to lift up no one. (Laughter.) If he understood the people of England, they were not inclined to do away with the aristocracy, and give over the country to Mr. Bright and his friends. Mr. Bright might be a n exceedingly clever man ; but he should endeavour to understand the constitution of his country better before he triad to cobble it—before he attempted to pull down that on which the happiness of the country was based, or to provide a quack doctor remedy for that which he did not fully oom. prehend. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Spooner next said that nothing ever gave him more pain than the fact of the House of Lords sending down a bill to the House of Commons, authorising them to admit of their own will or pleasure, without any interference either by the Lords or the Crown, persons who, by the rejection of another bill, they declared to be totally unlit and unworthy members of the Legisla ture of a Christian country. That proceeding was more calculated to bring contempt on public men than an} thing which had occurred since he had been in Parliament. (Cheers.) They were now in great danger of having the Protestant character of the country seriously damaged; but if they bestirred themselves, and acted upon the maxim that to be forewarned VIPS to be forearmed, he believed the Protestant cause would in the end be victorious. (Cheers.) Parties were now so broken up, that if he were asked to which party he belonged he could not tell. (Laughter.) He could only say that the party to which he belonged was that of the country, of which his constituency formed so large and premi. nent a portion. To that party he could claim to be attached, and they should have his best services so long as God blessed him with health and strength. (Cheers.) After some other toasts were drank, the company separated. SIR CHARLES NAPIER, M.P., ON POLITICS. AT a meeting of the electors of Southwark, on Tuesday, which was attended by both representatives, Sir Charles Napier made a speech in reference to political events. Having eulogized Lord Palmeri. ton's " vigorous policy " on the Chinese questim, the gallant admiral observel that three distinguished statesmen—Lord J. Russell, Mr. Bright, and Lud Derby—were pledged to introduce a measure on t h e subject, and as he was perfectly indepeudeot of all parties he claimed for himself the right to examine all the propositions, pledging himself to supp.ut the best, without caring one straw whence it emanated : At the commencement of NM Lord Palmerston stool in the House of Commons backed by one of the largest majorities that a Minister ever had. He was extremely popular, and all expected that he would have a long and prosperous reign, notwithstanding the shake which he gave to himself by a very unpopular appointment. h was no use mentioning names, but it seemed to him the Government of the day utterly lost their senses. The majority which they had led them to despise not only their friends but their foes, and they made use of such language that the Liberal party in the House of Commous thought it high time to give them a lesson. - • After referring to the introduction of the Conspiracy Bill by Lord Palm erbton's Government, and w Mt. Milner Gibson's motion which resulted in the defeat of the Government, being supported WI it was by many of the Liberal party as well as by the Con servatives, be proceeded to describe the attempt which was made at the instance of Mr. Cardwell to oust the Derby Cabinet soon after its accession to office. He said that— - • ' .-- For himself he saw no harm in the reprimand which was addressed by the Earl of Elleuborough to Lord Canning on account of his proclamation contlacating a whole kingdom ; but there was great harm in pablishing that reprimand at a time when Lord Canning was en• deavounng to repress a mighty rebellion, and when it Rai necessary that his authority should be respected ma maintained. The Earl of Ellenborough , however, by his retirement from the Cabinet, made the amend:" hoop able, and he (the gallant admiral) thought that they ought not to blame the tio7ernrnent for the fault of one of tta members, who had acknowledged his error and hat retired from office. Sir Charles, in allusion to the visit of the House of C3MMOUS to Cherbourg, taking credit to himself for " having bad something to do with advising them to go there," proceeded to say : Since then the public had heard Mr. Ayrton s p eak ant, they had heard Mr. Roebuck speak out, they had heard Mr. Baxter in the north also, and Mr. Conic g ham at Brighton , all deploring the deficiency of oar means o f nationationalJr. fence. He had long thought that our means of detence were not sufficient. Ho had said so for years, arid he had stated it at meetings where the opinion w an not popular. owing to the fear of increased taxation ; and at lait Lon' Hardwicke had spoken out, and had state d that t country was not in a proper state of defence. lie ' o . t not find fault w'th Louis Napoleon for increasing na g . or his harbours whenever he thought proper. u h le e h ad a! just as much right to build ships and to open d t