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 describes
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 subject, 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 an
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 the
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 speak ant,
they had heard Mr. Roebuck speak out, they had heard Mr.
Baxter in the north also, and Mr. Conicgham at Brighton,
all deploring the deficiency of oar means of 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 wan not popular.
owing to the fear of increased taxation ; and at lait Lon'
Hardwicke had spoken out, and had stated that t
country was not in a proper state of defence. lie 'o.t
not find fault w'th Louis Napoleon for increasing nag.
or his harbours whenever he thought proper.
uh lee h
ad
a!
just as much right to build ships and to open d