The Press. — London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

Lion of individuals is to be allowed to prevail against the maintenance of a national institution, I am at a loss to understand bow any national institution of this country is to be upheld. It has so happened that by negligence in the public mind, and its failing to see what important questions were involved in that of church rates, the subject has assumed an impor tance which cannot be exaggerated, and it is one that must be brought to a public and parliamentary solution. It is not possible that, during the present Parliament, the opinion of the house and of the Government should not be taken on that subject, and therefore it becomes you upon this question, no less than upon that of Parliamentary Reform, to make up your minds as to what you will change and what you will maintain. You cannot allow this matter to go on any longer as it is. If you wish to uphold the institutions of your country you must take your side upon this subject, for, although he was attacked for it by his supporters, Lord John Russell never spoke more soundly than when he said that all our institutions were at stake in the settlement of this question. (Hear, hear.) One word upon the institutions of our country. I am in favour of progress,—in favour of the political, social, and intellectual progress of this country. I think that any man who is the Minister of England ought to pursue the policy which, in his opinion, will make the people of England the freest, happiest, and most enlightened people in the world ; but I am also, and have always been, of opinion that this result can only be obtained by maintaining and deferring to our ancient institutions. There are many well-meaning men who are enamoured of the American institutions and of those of our great colonies. They say that results of great value ara obtained without the influence of the institutions of this country of which we are so proud, and to which I hope we may still remain devoted. There is, however, this difference between our country and those to which I have referred. In the old countries of Europe, and especially in what we are proud to call " Old England," you cannot make any great change without destroying, whereas in Australia or America nothing is destroyed, but everything is created. What would be the con sequence of destroying our ancient institutions ? There have been old countries of Europe which have tried that experiment, and what is the result of their experience ? Destroy a monarchy, and you will have a Royalist party in the country. Change a dynasty, and yon will have a Legitimist party. Subvert a church, and you will have an ecclesiastical party. Put an end to an hereditary nobility, and you will have a large body of proprietors discontented with the state of affairs. (Cheers.) What are the con sequences of this? Civil war and constant revolu. tions. England cannot afford to have a civil war; England cannot afford constant revolutions. If an old country like this, with a system of credit like ours, lost a period of her history in internal struggle or revolution, would she not, when she again became tranquil, find that other countries—such as that on the other side of the Atlantic—had outstripped her in the race? As long as we are faithful to ourselves, — as long as we improve but do not destroy, it is impos sible to predict to what height of pride and power England may attain. I will not refer to the thirty years' war of the Roses, the like of which may never again occur in England,—l will take the war of the great rebellion. If we underwent political revolu tions such as some of our neighbours have expe rienced during the last fifty years, the position of Eng land at their termination would not be that which she at present occupies. (Cheers.) She might become tranquil, the people might find themselves free and in the possession of much physical enjoyment, but she would no longer be, as at present, a first-rate State. Sbe would not be the leading Power of Europe. She would become what Sweden and the other Scandina vian States are at the present day, and the result of improvement effected by destruction would be to THE PRESS. party man, and I believe every man here is a party man, because in a free country it is the duty of every subject to have definite ideas on all the great clues. tions of the day. Party politics are, however, much suspended for the moment by accident, and it is only when the great questions to which I have adverted shall be brought forward for determination in the House of Commons that parties will again appear to assert what are on either lido the opinions of the great body of their followers. With regard to purty politics I will only venture to say that I made two predictions at the time of the elections which hare been realised, although the first of them was mu c h questioned when I expressed my opinion that a year of legislative progress would be wasted. It is, how. ever. now pretty evident that nothing will be done during the present year. I also made a reference to the future. I said that I looked forward with no dissatisfaction to the dissolution of Parliament coun selled by Lord Palmerston, because I felt that it would at least have this beneficial influence —that it would tend to bring about in the House of Com mons that wholesome state of the two great constitu tional parties with distinctive principles and ideas which I thought was necessary to the right action of our Constitution, and the want of which during the last ten years has been conducive to so much die. satisfaction and disaster. I think that a great step has already been taken in that direction. I look forward myself to the late appeal to the people without any apprehension. I wish to speak of all those who for a long time sat in the House of Com mons with due respect, but unquestionably we bad there sections of men and individuals self-satisfied with their own power. which everybody was willing to a certain degree to acknowledge, but who would neither govern themselves nor allow any one else to do so. (" Hear, bear," and a laugh.) It is greatly to the public advantage that although they were men highly gifted, and great ornaments of that assembly, they no longer hold seats in it. The public busi ness will be carried on more efficiently ; for, in the exact proportion that party distinctions are not respected in the House of Commons, that house will fall in the esteem of the people. As long as yon have two great organised parties of men acting upon distinct principles and avowed policies, parliamen tary government, especially for this country, is the best government that can be devised. But an assembly of 651 gentlemen, with no political con nection or discipline, each willing to follow his own conceits and to gratify his own ambition, would soon subside into the most inefficient and corrupt assembly in the world. (Hear, hear.) We may not have obtained all that we desire, but at any rate we have now a House of Commons free from those anomalies, and I have no doubt that if public opinion is as enlightened as I believe it will be before the impending changes are proposed, you will have it declared that such a policy as I have in timated to you will be pursued —a policy that will maintain the institutions of England. I hardly know how I may venture to describe this policy. We live in an age of a novel nomenclature of parties; but I am sure you will bear with me—for it is an ancient weakness—if I say that these great princi ples—principles which would promote the prosperity and greatness of England through the preservation of her institutions —are, in my mind, Tory principles. (Cheers.) They are principles which I think will yet triumph in this country ; but they can only triumph by discussion, which they do not fear ; by the circulation among the people of accurate information on the great questions of the day; and by that sympathy from public opinion without which in the present age no political organisation can endure. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman concluded amid vociferous and prolonged cheers. lower the influence of our country instead of to ae complish, as might be done by deference to, and through the agency of, our present institutions, the maintenance and elevation of our present position. (Hear, hear.) T have thought that the eminent person who asked me what I should say to my constituents should with your indulgence receive an answer, and I hope that what I have said may be productive of some advan tage, and may at least lead my constituents and others of the people of England to ponder well on the aspect of affairs during the interval which shall elapse before the changes with which we are threatened are proposed. I want to induce what in old days was called "the landed interest "—I do not mean merely or mainly the 'squires, but the occupiers and cultivators of the soil—dispassionately to review their position. We live in a period when those who wish to be respected must respect themselves. You will not have your rights conceded, you will not have your fair and legitimate privileges maintained, if yon yourselves, not knowing your own case, are silent and prepared to submit to any unjust arrangement that may be proposed Men suffer injustice, not only from the ignorance of those who injure them, but also from neglect of their own interests. lam quite sure that if the case of the land had been fairly put before the Parliament of 1832, it is so strong and so full of elements which command the interest of Englishmen that a very different arrangement would have been made. Understand that lam not for a moment attempt ing to revive a quarrel, now long forgotten, between ourselves and the great centres of manufacturing and commercial industry. Ido not grudge Manchester, Liverpool, or Bradford, or the great towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, their representatives. I am glad to see them in the House of Commons. I am quite willing to admit that if they can establish a claim it ought to be recognised in any great changes which may take place. (Hear, hear.) I now offer no argument, I pat forward no scheme, I give to the country facts—facts collected from authentic and authoritative documents—and if any one cm contra. diet or refute them they will have ample opportunity to do so before the next session of Parliament. If they show that four towns having but one-third of the population of the county ought to be represented by eight members, while the county itself has but two, let them offer their arguments to the fair and impar tial judgment of the people of England. (Cheers.) If they can deny that, taking population as the element of representation—which, by-the-bye, is a great concession ; it is a test which many refuse to take, but it is their own test—if they can deny tha► one-half of the population of this kingdom is repre sented by 140 members, and less than the other moiety by .120, and that because they live in towns, let them go to the market-place of every town and prove that what I am stating is "romance " and mere imagination. As long, however, as we have public records, and ar, long as those documents are, by means of a free press, accessible to the whole people, I do not believe that these statements can be refuted or denied. It is only as facts that I offer them ; I leave it to the people of England to draw from them their own conclusions. (Hear, hear.) If there is to be a political change, it ought to be one devised and carried out for the advantage of no party whatever. (Cheers.) It is to calm, comprehensive public opinion that I address myself. If the question is fully and fairly considered, if the due influence of the landed interest in all its ramifications is recognised, I care not bow you reconstruct your Parliament, I care not how you adjust: your franchise, I believe that the institutions of this country will be main tained, and maintained because they answer the wants and wishes of the people. (Cheers.) I thank you for the kind manner in which you have received me today. I have not entered int o party polities. Ido not depreciate parties. I am a London : Printed and Published by AT.FIII3) Ire, at the Office, 1)0, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, on Saturday, the 23rd day of May, 1m57. [SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1857.