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

THE PRESS, NOVEMBER 27, 1858

to IV a visit to her loyal subjects in Canada, a
short interval only will elapse before one of the young
Princes will go there.
THE PRINCESS FREDERICK WILLIAM OF PRUSSIA'S
eighteenth birthday, the first she has passed in
press* was celebrated on Sunday, at Berlin, with
extraordinary rejoicings. The members of the
reassign royal family arrived before no.m, and at
twelve o'clock the whole party entered the Chapel
Royal, where an impressive service was performed in
the German language. After this ceremony all the
members of the royal family withdrew to partake of a
breakfast prepared for them in one of the principal
drawing-rooms. The company retired about half-
oast three o'clock. His Royal Highness the Prince
of Wales, who is on a visit to his sister, wore the
uniform of a colonel in the Guards. In the evening
a few of the public offices were illuminated, and some
of the theatres had sp-!cial performances in honour
of the day. Her Royal Highness, although somewhat
pale, looked remarkably animated and happy.
Daring the day her Royal Highness received a number
of costly presents. The Princess, it is said, antici-
pates her confinement early in the ensuing year. It
would be impossible to describe the enthusiasm with
which this event is looked forward to by all daises of
society in Berlin.

THE YOUNG COUNT DE CH ARTRES, second SOD of
the late Duchess d'Orleans, having entered a Pied-
montese regiment, his brother, Count de Paris, has
gone to Turin to visit bim, and thence goes on a
visit to his uncle, the Duke de Montpensier, at
Madrid.

THE MARRIAGE of the Hon. Louisa Theodosia
Pennington, sister of Lord Muncaster, with Mr.
Edgar Atheling Drummond, son of Mr. and Lady
Elizabeth Drummond, was solemnized yesterday at
St. James's Church, Piccadilly.

_ . •
A MARRIAGE as arranged and will shortly take place
before the Hon. and Rev. George Wingfield Bourke,
fourth son of the Earl of Mayo, and Miss Longley,
eldest daughter of the Bishop of Durham.
A MARRIAGE is arranged and will shortly take
place between the Hon. and Rev. George Wingfield
Bourke, fourth son of the Earl of Mayo, and Miss
Longley, eldest daughter of the Bishop of Durham.

Volitual.

MR. NEWDEGATE AND MR. SPOONER AT

RUGBY.
THE annual gathering of the Rugby and Dunchurch
Conservative and Agricultural Association took place
on Thursday at Rugby.
The show of stock was rather limited, but there
were some very fine specimens of cattle.
The event was celebrated by a dinner at the Eagle
Tavern in the afternoon—Mr. C. M. Caldecott pre-
siding in the absence of Lord John Scott, who was
prevented attending in consequence of the death of
his relative, Lord Courtown. He was supported by
Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Spooner, the two members
for the northern division of Warwickshire.

After the usual loyal and constitutional toasts bad
been disposed of, and the various prizes awarded by
the society to farm servants and labourers been dis.
Mimed,

The CHAIRMLN proposed the health of the two
members for the northern division of the county-9
toast which was drunk with much enthusiasm.

Mr. NEWDEGATE, who was very warmly greeted,
then rose to return thanks. He said :
Mr. President and Gentlemen,—You have again extended
to me that reward to which 1 am proud to say the class to
which I belong aspire, as that which will recompense them
for the performance of their duties. I rejoice you have
deemed it well that our health' should follow those of the
labourers, whom you have just honoured. I trust that in
the course of the years during which, through your kind-
-sess, I have represented you, I have not failed to show that
I consider the office of representing North Warwickshire
ao sinecure, and that I have endeavoured to discharge the
duties which, when you first elected me, I thought 1 under-
took. (Cheers.) This is one of those meetings in which
we have long claimed for ourselves that liberty of speech
which is the highest privilege of Englishmen. The Speaker
at the commencement of each Parliament claims it for the
Collective body of which I am a humble member, and I
mono* to see that throughout the country those artificial
bars which prevented the free expression of opinion on
Pvliucal suljects have been removed, and that Englishmen
speak everywhere more freely than they did. This is a
recognition of the fact that political affairs concern every
Englishman of every grade, and in every line of life, and
circumstances make us still more rejoice that it is our
Ptoild privilege that we have provided institutions under
which, trusting to the prudence and other qualities
of the People, we dare discuss the highest questions, and
those which affect us most intimately, unreservedly and
without damage to the form of government under
which we live. I never considered myself a delegate;
but acting on the true principles, as I understand them,
`2.1 the Constitution, I felt that when you sent me to
Farliatnera, understanding the principles on which I in•

tended to act, you confided to my discretion the mode in
which I should apply the power you intrusted to my
charge. (Cheers.) Still, I rejoice at being able to explain
to you the reasons which have actuated me in many im-
portant crises ; and I now beg to be allowed to touch upon
one or two matter& which occurred during the last session
of Parliament. To me that session has been the moat
painful which I have ever experienced in your service.
You well know that for eleven years I have humbly but
earnestly striven in defence of the Christian character of
Parliament. (Cheers.) I believe I did so with your full
assent; and it was with deep regret I saw that great
principle of the Constitution infringed for the sake of ad-
mitting to the House of Commons a man of great sealth,
and, for aught 1 know, of great attainments, but ono who
could not profess the true faith of a Christian. Such has
been the circumstance which occurred last session, one
painful to myself; but before I allude to other subjects I
wish to explain why, after refusing at the last election to
support Lord Palmerston, I avoided taking a part in a
division the effect of which was to expel him from office.
You remember the vile attempt made on the life of the
Emperor of the French—an attempt at assassination, the
crime most abhorrent to the people of this country. Certain
parties—most of whom have paid the penalty of their
guilt—were implicated in it during their residence in this
country, enjoying the hospitality which it extends to all
foreigners ; and at the commencement of the session the
Conspiracy Bill was introduced. I voted for the first
reading of that bill; but on the table of the
House of Commons there was afterwards laid a
despatch from Count Walewski, impugning the
laws and thel Administration of England. I was
then content to know what had been said by the Govern•
ment of France. That despatch was unanswered ; but I
concluded it was owing to the press of other Government
business, or to some accidental circumstance ; but before
the second reading of that bill another despatch from
the Government of France was laid on the table of the
House of Commons. This I found was also unanswered;
and when I understood Lord Palmerston meant the
House of Commons to answer those two despatches by
changing the laws of England at the instance of a foreign
power, I voted that the House of Commons should
answer them by resolution, and not by bill—i.e., that they
should answer them specifically, and in terms, deferring,
until that answer had been virtually received, any change
in the laws of this independent country. (Cheers.) I can
scarcely claim any meed of praise for the part I took on the
India Bill. Having been a member of the committee of
1853 I thoroughly disapproved of the proposal to abrogate
the government of the East India Company. I thought
that form of government needed amendment ; but I saw no
reason, under the circumstances, why it should be totally
abrogated and annulled. 1 thought its abrogation a viola-
tion of that federal system on which the dependencies of this
constitutional monarchy had been governed for many years.
I thought it imprudent that, at a time of revolt in India,
the Ministers should change the form of government which
prevailed throughout that dependency. I thought that the
East India Company, as trustees for the Crown had not
deserved to have their functions destroyed ; and I think so
still. What course, then, was I to pursue? Was Ito
go in direct opposition to Lord Derby's Government?
Should I, by that means, have stayed the passage
of the bill I deprecated? My judgment told me
that I might overturn the Government, but that I should
not stay the bill. [ therefore adopted that course which
is open to every member of Parliament. I abstained from
taking any part in those discussions. You know I was
once whipper-in of Lord Derby's party. I was the first
officer they ever appoioted ; and I know this, that a mem-
ber may in • division count either one or two. If he leaves
the party with whom he generally acts and votes against
them, he counts two. One is abstracted from the ranks of
his party and one added to the ranks of their opponent..
But if he abstains from voting he only counts one, and that
is the course which I thought it my duty to pursue in your
interests on the great Indian question. I succeeded after-
wards in extracting from Mr. V. Smith an admission that
after the publication of Lord Canning 's proclamation with
respect to India, he had withheld from Lord Ellenborongh,
his successor, information explanatory of that proclamation
—a proclamation which no doubt induced that severity of
language for which, if anything, Lord Ellenborough was to
blame, language contained in the despatch expressing his
dissent from that which was considered a confiscatory pro-
clamation. So mach for the session which is passed, and I
can only say I trust I shall never witness such another.
But forgive me if, pursuing the gime coarse which for years
has been adopted in this room, I ask you to accompany me
whilst I glance forward. It is impossible that I should ig-
nore the speeches it has pleased Mr. Bright to make in
Birmingham. You will excuse me, therefore, if I advert
to them. Don't expect I am going to attempt to answer
his doubleharrelled inaugural address. (" Hear," and
laughter.) It occupied eight closely-printed columns of
the daily newspapers, but still he mooted anbjects of im-
portance; and although the good sense of England will
ignore the sentiments which lie expressed, yet it is impos•
sible to doubt that the violence of his address affected the
mind's of many of those whose ignorance he appealed to
when be endeavoured to excite their feelings against the
institutions of their country. I lament that a gentleman
giftel with so much talent and so mach eloquence as Mr.
Bright should have used his powers of illustration to prove
himself so bigoted and narrow-minded a politician. I say
bigoted, for although he may claim not to be bigoted in his
preference for any particular form of religion, he is
bigoted in his hatred to the Church of England, and he is
a bigoted advocate of democracy. (Loud cheers.) I am
sure you have all read his speeches ; it is nut natural you
should overlook them ; but is It not strange that one, who
claims especially to be the advocate of freedom, should
have blamed England for the exertions she made for the
liberties of Europe ? Is it not strange that a member of
the Peace Society should have spoke slightingly of the

1151

balance of power in Europe, the sole basis on which na-
tions in a position of independence can hope to adopt that
system of arbitration which the Peace Society has ever
advocated, and justly advocated, ne the alternative for war?
Is it not strange that he who calls himself a Protestant
should grudge an expenditure which has not impaired the
progress or advancement of this country, but which we
have incurred for the defence of the Protestant interests of
Europe? (Hear.) Mr. Bright spoke slightingly of the
revolution of 1688, whilst he expressed a hope that, in the
town-hall of Birmingham, he might inaugurate another.
You who have read history will agree with me that from
the revolution of 1688 dated the commencement of that
period of tempered freedom during which England has
advanced to the high position she holds amongst the
nations of the earth. That revolution, I say, has con-
ferred upon us a freedom of which I will only observe
that it is endangered only by its success. i did not advert
to Mr. Bright's address merely to reply to the many extra-
vagances which, I may be forgiven for thinking. he uttered ;
bat he entered into the question of reform. Now,that is a
question most attractive to the labouring classes of this
country, and Mr. Bright assumed to himself, and the party
with whom he is connected, the credit of being exclusively
the representatives of the labouring classes. My hon.
colleague and myself have been much mistaken in our
course if we have not ourselves been the friends of the
labouring classes. (Cheers.) I can only say that there
have been few instances of greater blindness in accom-
plishing the functions of representatives, if we have
failed in duly representing the interests of the labouring
classes comprised in this large constituency ; and when
he taunts us, as he has done, with having failed to re-
present the working classes, it would be easy to reply,
Is plaque, How is it that Mr. Bright, the representative
of the interests of the working classes, was a vigilant
opponent of the Ten Hours Bill ? how was it that he op-
posed every measure fur the mitigation of the severity
of factory labour? how was it that he opposed, as we all
remember, a measure for guarding machinery and protecting
from injury those employed in factories? (Cheers.) I was
whipper-in for the late Mr. Fielden when his bill came
before the House of Commons, and if you refer to the
division on that occasion, you will find that the majority
consisted of men of like opinions with myself—Mr.
Fielden, Lord Ashley (now Lord Shaftesbury), Lord John
Manners, and others, who claimed for women and children
and men employed in factories that mitigation of labour
which has proved nowise injurious to the trade or com-
merce of the country. (Cheers.) And Mr. Bright, from
first to last, with all the powers of declamation, and all the
energy he possesses, opposed this bill, and then he comes
to Birmingham and tells us he is the exclusive friend of
the labouring classes! (Cheers.) But Mr. Bright pro-
poses a Reform Bill, and, in doing so, he deems it
necessary to say that for thirty years he and his party
have waged perpetual war against the predominance of
the country gentlemen in Parliament. Now in what does
that predominance consist ? If it consists in the county
representation I will show you the vast power—the vast
forces—against which Mr. Bright has made this perpe-
tual war. He said the only way to procure a just and
real representation of the people was this—that the mem-
bers should be taken from the smaller boroughs and con-
ferred on the larger boroughs and cities, which were to be
divided and subdivided for the purpose of creating the
constituencies to receive them. Now, what measure of
justica would that be, according to Mr. Bright's own prin-
ciples ? Mr. Bright is a democrat, and he holds that the
only true representation of the people is that toe majority
should choose their representatives, and that divisions of
the constituencies, as I understand him, should he made
for that purpose. And, mind you, his proposal is to add
v) the number of borough members by extending the repre-
sentation ofthe exisths g boroughs and the districts over which
their precincts extend. Yon will forgive me if I just show
how the matter stands in the point of view in which Mr.
Bright has chosen to consider it that is the population
represented by county members and the number of th ose
members, as compared with the population of the
boroughs and the number of members who represent
them. I claim this for the comity members—that
they are the representatives of the majority of the
people of this country. I *ll just call your attention to
the proportion in which the population of counties and
boroughs are represented in Parliament, at present, under
the Reform Bill of 1831. I find by a return moved for by
M►. Fitzroy in 18.53 (and the circumstances have not
changed since then) that the whole population of Eng:and
and Wales was 17,927,609, and the total number of members
496. The population residing beyond the precincts of cities
and boroughs was 10,405,9x91, and the number of county mem-
bers reprtsenting the population was 159. Then the popu-
lation residing within the precincts of cities and boroughs
was 7,1.11,679, and the members who represented them 337.
Now, these facts explain many circumstances which perhaps
you have been at a loss to understand. There is a powerless-
ness ou the part of county members in the House of Com-
mons. It is true we are divided in opinion ; but I wish to
show how small a body of members rep►esents the majority
of the population of England and Wales. According to
this calculation, and I believe it to be correct, each county
member—and, mind you, Mr. Bright treats us as if we did
nut represent the people—represents 66,612 of the popula-
tion, while each borough member only represents 22,052 ;
and Mr. Bright's proposal is to increase this disproportion, by
which &county member represents three times the popula-
tion represynted by a borough member. ( Cheers.) The result
then is that although we, the county members of England, re •
present the majority of the population, yet in the House of
Commons we are in a minority of less than one to two ; and
this great reformer—this advocate fui• democratic principles
—washes to perpetuate and enhance that disproportion. But
that is not all. Remember that if a voter lives within a
borough, and has property nut immediately connected
with his house, he votes for the county also. lam likely
to know that tact, seeing that I have 1;300 constituents