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

MAY 23, 1857. If, however, we are to form any opinion from the expressions of those who are called the leading re formers of the day, we are to have a new Reform Bill, which is not to redress the injustice of 1832, but to aggravate it. In order to convince you that the instances I have quoted are not isolated, but only samples of what prevails throughout the whole arrangements of 1832, let me give you one or two further illustrations. East Norfolk, containing a population of 250,000, returns two members, while the town population of Norwich and Yarmouth, num bering 100,000, returns four. Then there is the case of Yorkshire. The East Riding contains a total population of 220,000. Hull and another town, with 04,000 inhabitants between them, are repre sented by four members, while the remaining 120,060 of rural population have but two members. The great West Riding has a population of 1,300,000 ; its nine great towns, with a population of 500,000, have sixteen members, while the rural population of 800,000 is represented, as usual, by two members. What I want the agricultural classes to do at the present day is, not to place themselves in the unfavourable position of saying on this or on any other great public question that they are opposed to all change. That is always a difficult position to occupy under any oiroumstances, but it is an impos sible position when the Government of the country come forward as the advocates of change, and on their responsibility, which ought to be deeper than that of any common man, and with their knowledge of the facts of the case, which ought to be more accurate than that of any common man, tell you that a great change in the representation of the country is required, and that they are prepared to propose it. Do not put yourselves in the position of opposing abstractedly every reform thus introduced, but make yourselves masters of your case, and lay it down as a condition that, before you assent to it, the ohange shall be founded on principles of justice. (Cheers.) I am convinced that if you conduct yourselves in that manner, and are supported by correct informa tion, you may safely appeal to that sense of fairness which pervades the great bulk of the people of this country; and you may be sure that no change will take place in the parliamentary constitution of Eng land, which is conceived in such a spirit of hostility to the landed interest as the measure of 1832. I know it will be said that there is a fallacy in the observations that I have addressed to you, and it is not impossible that the words uttered in this room may be the subject of cavil and criticism. Now, so far as lam concerned, I speak to court criticism. I do not come down to meet you, my best and earliest friends, merely for the pleasure of seeing you here, but that I may do something to maintain your in terests and support your rights. lam prepared for this answer to my observations, and I am going to discount it, as it were, before it is made. It will be said that I have merely taken the population repre sented by the towns, and that, on an hypothesis that is perfectly unjustifiable, have assumed that the rest of the population is a rural and county population, whereas there is an immense number of people who live in towns who are not represented. It will bs said that I have included these persons in the figures that I have given in order to delude my constituents of Newport Pagnell. I will meet that answer—the only answer that can be given to the statistics which I have laid before you, and which are taken from the authentic and authoritative tables of the public census. I have taken the trouble to investigate the number of inhabitants of this country who live in the unrepresented towns, and I shall place before you one of the shortest and most pregnant docu ments ever read on this all-important subject to a body of Englishmen. I have taken England proper as the subject of my illustration for the obvious sake of simplicity. In Ireland, Scotland, and even in Wales, there are varieties of franchise and diverse arrangements respecting the boroughs, whereas throughout England the franchise is similar and the political incidents of the boroughs are exactly the same. The example I shall give is on a scale SO THE PRESS. extensive as to be perfectly oonolusive on the general question. There are 144 county members in England, and they represent a population of 9,777,000, which gives one member of Parliament for every 67,883 4 inhab itants. There are 319 borough members, represent- Mg a population of 7,144,000, which gives one member for every 22,381. I shall deduct the population of the unrepresented towns, which: are supposed to be represented by the county members. Their popula tion is exactly 1,000,000. Therefore the 144 county members will represent 8,777,000, which gives one member for every 60,860 persons ; while the 319 borough members will represent a population of 8,141,678, giving one member for every 25,535. So that when I have rectified the balance and thrown into the boroughs what they have no right to have, the case stands thus—that you have one member in the counties for every 61,000, and one in the boroughs for every 25,000. Are not these important facts" And when we are told that there are to be new reform bills framed ac cording to the opinions of the leading reformers of the country, with a view to diminish what they call the undue preponderance of the landed interest, are we to take no steps to make our position known? And when England may be called upon to decide in some moment of passion on some Parliamentary Reform, brought forward perhaps for the purpose of confirming a party in power, ought not these facts to be well driven into the convictions and conscience of the political mind of England? (Hear, bear.) You would be acting a suicidal part if, knowing quite well that a Reform Bill was to be introduced in deference to the opinions of those who think that the classes connected with the land have too much political power, you were not to awaken the country to the real state of the case as 1 have revealed it to you. (Hear, hear.) Indisposed, therefore, as I am to disturb the settlement of 1832, still, if a great politi cal change is contemplated and introduced on the responsibility of the Minister of the Crown, I shall give his proposition a dispassionate consideration, and endeavour to vindicate the interests which I think have been so long injured. (Hear, hear.) I have only one remark to add on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. So coolly is it assumed by Parliamentary Reformers that any change in our re presentative system must diminish the influence of the landed interest that you meet persons every day, and persons, too, r:garding themselves as by no means violent reformers, who want to alter the county fran chise. They are for adopting a reduced franchise that will curtail the legitimate influence of the landed interest by admitting into the county constituencies persons unconnected with that interest. That, I think, would be a most impolitic course. Whatever plans of parliamentary reconstruction may be pro posed, we ought to adhere to the great distinction which has always prevailed in our constitution, and which was adopted after grave consultation in 1832 namely, that we should acknowledge the franchise of the towns to arise out of occupation, and that of the counties out of the ownership and cultivation of the soil. It is impossible that any sane man can conceive the project to increase the county constituencies, which have already fewer members and a larger population than the boroughs, and at the same time not to deal with the borough constituencies. Than such a proposal nothing could be more monstrous or unsatisfactory. It aggravates the injustice and increases the very political evil which ought to be redressed. If there is to be a change in the electoral body, it ought to be an increase in the constituencies of the boroughs. If, therefore, you calmly consider this question with especial reference to the position and influence of the land, nothing could be more unjust, absurd, and anomalous than the schemes of reform hitherto propounded. (Cheers.) I shall now leave that which hi put forward as the question of the day. It is hardly necessary for me to trouble you at any length upon other topics. There is one subject, however, upon which I think the people of this country ought to be prepared to come to a definite opinion, and that is as to the position whieh the Established Church is to maintain in their constitution. (Hear, hear.) Ido not mean to War into the controversy which has arisen with rasp* to the parties which exist in the Church of England. There never was a period when these parties did not more or less prevail, and although one thing cannot be denied—namely, that there never was a time when one of these parties was predominant that its pre dominance was not injurious ,to the Church—it must still be candidly admitted by all dispassionate men that the competition, if I may use the expres sion, between the two parties which, have now pre• veiled in the Church for more than two centuries has on the whole been beneficial to this country. While, on the one hand, what we familiarly call " Low Church " has checked the advance of priestly domi nation, on the other hand, what we call " High Church" has saved us from the consequences of latitudinarian practices. lam myself in favour of that via media which the most eminent prelates of the country have ever since the Reformation main tained and upheld. (Cheers.) I desire to see a full and complete ecclesiastical establishment on the basis of a true Protestant feeling ; but, at the same time, I wish to see our ecclesiastical polity main tained in its spirit and truth. The question, how ever, which is now rapidly advancing, and which the people of this country will be called upon to decide —I believe even in this Parliament—is not whether you shall have what is called " High Church " or "Low Church," but whether you ball have a Na tional Church established in this realm, forming an important part of its political constitution. This question you will very speedily be called upon to decide when the subject of church rates is brought before you—a question the discussion of which it has for many years been convenient to evade, but which, you may depend upon it, before twelvemonths have passed will in the consequences of its settle ment be one of the utmost importance to this country. I have brought to this subject, I believe, as calm a consideration as any man can well com mend, but I cannot conceal from myself that the movement against church rates is a political move ment. I have arrived at that conclusion from facts which are before us. They are these :—By the la* of England, as it at present stands, no church rate can be levied without the consent of a majority of the ratepayers, and I should suppose that it is a dis tinguishing characteristic of Englishmen to defer always to the sense of a majority. It is therefore clear that a church rate cannot be levied in any triot unless there is a predominant opinion in its favour. Now, how do we find that the law practi. cally acts? We have before us returns from the 12,000 parishes into which England is divided. In how many parishes do you suppose, according to the last returns, church rates have been refused° Why, only in 600 out of the whole 12,000. (Hear, hear.) When then we find, under a law so liberal in its con. ception that the opinion of the majority absolutely decides the question of assessment, that only five per cent. of the 12,000 parishes—and those, of course, situated in large towns—have availed themselves of the privilege of withholding a church rate, it is im possible for me to accept as a grave conclusion that this institution, if I may so call it, as it now exists is opposed to the feelings and convictions of the people. (Cheers.) It is, however, impossible to deny that in this question, left as it is—and perhaps wisely—to the decision of the majority, is involved the whole ques tion of a ehurch establishment. Even if the majority had a conscientious objection to the payment of church rates, and you were called upon to terminate them, you would have to decide the great question whether you would maintain an establishment or not. Circumstances, however, have not come to such a point as to place us under the painful neces sity of weighing the advantages of an Established Church against the general convictions and senti ments of the community. It is clear, however, that every objection urged against church rates might be equally urged against tithes, and might even be car ried to a greater length. If the conscientious objec- t t ; .• , If, 11 expres former Bill, ve but to the in! only se arrange furthez popula the toe bering CASO tote! pi with sonted 120,00 The g 1,300,C of 500 popula two ME to do a in the any Ott to all o occupy sible pc come f( their rl that of of the accurat a great is regal Do not abstrac yoursel a oondi shall bl I am c that mi tion, ya which countrj take pl land, hoatilil of 183 I kn obaery not its may be far as ' do not friends but till teresta this at discos said th rented is perfi of the wheree live in said th that I of Ne , only a I have authei censu! nnmbE the ui you on ments body o as the of sin Wales, arrang throng politic( same.