The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-01 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

ipest has been suff:red to sit for seven years ; nor if we 1
Ileave the Septent sal Act as it is, will any prudent MI 1
1 nister allow it to sit for seven years. If, therefore, yen
1 wish the duration of Parliaments to be shortened to
three y, a-s, the proper course would he to fix the legal
term of four years, ited if you wish them to sit for four
years, the proper course would be to fix the legal term
at five years. I ant inclined to take the legal term at
) five years, thus leaving the prectical rule to be a Par-
) h meat every four years ; and I ought to add, that
whenever we shorten the duration of Parliaments, my
opinion is, that we ought to abolish that law by which
Parliaments are dlseolved six months after the death of
the Sovereign. It is altogether an unnecessary law,
introducing capricious dissolutions, by which Parlia-
ments may be dissolved three weeks after being elected,
and it is to be attributed to nothing but a legal tech-
nicality, with no reason that can be given de-
rived from the public good.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
I come now to another suiaject—of the highest and
gravest importance—l mean the elective franchise.
/ This is a subject on which I doubt whether my opinion
will be equally pleasing to you, as, judging from your
expressions, I presume my sentiments on other sub-
jects have been. I shall express my opinions, how-
ever, on this subject, as frankly as I have expressed
' them when they may be considered more pleasing—l
shall express them with the frankness of a man who is
more desirous to gain your esteem than your votes.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) I stand on the principle of the
Reform Bill. I think that principle an excellent one ;
and that it requires only to be followed out. I would
follow it out to its full extent. I deeply regret that it
should ever have been departed from. There are two
deviations from it to which I was especially opposed—
; and which the Government, when they consented to
them, regretted as much as men could regret ; but they
were driven to them partly by the vehemence and
urgency of their opponents, and partly by the divisions
lof their friends. The one was the admission of the
freemen, the other was the admission of the 50/. tenants
at wall. At the same time I must say that I despair
of being able to meet with any direct remedy against
either of these evils. As to the latter, the greater evil
of the two, the only real corrective is that which is to
be found in the Ballot—the only corrective for the other
is by Parliament keeping its eye -fixed on those places
where corruption prevails—by vigilantly detecting the
prooie of abuse„ and by disfranchising the towns so soon
as the proofs ef g n,ral corruption are brought home to
‘ them. As to other changes in which you may be soli-
citous to know what my opinion is, I think the diffi-
culties of the registration ought to be removed out of
the way—the clauses relating to peyrnents ought to be
amended or altogether removed—(Cheers)--and that
the elective franchise ought to be extended to every
10/. householder, whether within the limits of a ho-
retools or without.—(Laud cheers.) To this length I
am prepared to go ; but I should not deal with you
ingenueu.ly if I did not tell you that at present I am
not prepared to go farther. There are many other
(petitions as to which you ought to be satisfied of the
opinions of your representative ; but I shall only glance
rapidly arid cursorily at the most important. I have
ever been a determined enemy to the slave trade, and
to -personal slavery under every form.---(Cheers.) I have
always been a friend to popular education. I have al-
ways been a friend to the right of free discussion. I have
ever been averse to all restrictions on trade ; and, above
all, on those restrictions on trade which affect the price
of the necessaries of life.—(Loud cheers.) lam averse
to religious persecution, in whatever form it exists ;
whether as direct penal laws, or as imposing civil disa-
bilities to the exclusion of any one from the blessings
of our civil institutions.—(Cheers.) Now, having said
so much upon measures, I hope you will permit me to
say something with respect to men. If you send me
your representative to Parliament, I wish you to
understand that I go there determined to support the
Melbourne Ministry.—(Cheers mingled with hissing.)—
I assure those—(A cry, " It's only one")—No,
no ; I am perfectly used, by long experience of po-
pular assemblies—sthough my band is a little out at
present—to these expressions of dissent ; but I can as-
sure those gentlemen that I have no feeling other than
that of respect and kindness for them, in their using
those expressions which they are perfectly entitled to
use ; but I must say again, that if you send me to
Parliament, I shall support the Melbourne Adminis-
tration, and that not from any personal interest or feel-
lag. I have certainly the happiness of being on kind
and friendly terms with many members of the Govern-
anent ; and to one member especially—the Noble Pre-
silent of the Council, I owe obligations which I shall
ever be proud to avow. By that Noble Lord, when
I was unknown in public life and scarcely known to
litirgeif by sight, I was placed in the House of Com-
dons ; and during my seat there he never interfered
in the smallest manner with my freedom of action
as a member of that Assembly. Since that time
I have represented a constituent body to whom I can
never cease to be grateful—the populous borough
of Le-eds. I may now by your kindness bi•
placed '.in the proud situation of representative
of Edinburgh, but never can I feel more indepen-
dent in the House of COMmons than when I sat
there its the nominee of the Marquis of Lansdowne.
Buit. while I acknowledge my obligations to that Noble
Peer—while 1 openly avow my friendship for many of
his colle; pea, it is not on that ground that I shall
support them. I have no right to sacrifice your inte-
, rests to ray feelings. The support which I propose to
give to the present Ministry, I would give on the fol-
lowing grounds : I believe them to be by many degrees
the burst Ministry which, in the present state of the
wintry, can Possibly be formed.—(Cheers and hisses.)
I believe we have but one choice. I believe that ou'
only choir* is between a Ministry substantially—for of
muse 1 de not speak of particular individuals--be-
tw sen a Ministry in substance the same as the Mel-
bourne Cabinet, and a Ministry under the direction of
the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. I de
1406 hesithte to pronounce that my choice is in favour
of the farmer.—(Continued cheers and hisses.) 1
cannot understand—and it is an objection to these
poses that they convey no reason—(Great laugh
ter)--I cannot understand whether the gentlemen
lare angry with the Melbourne Government because
they are too Conservative,*or because they are not
Conservative enough, else I would frame my arguments
accordingly ; bat is my present state I have no guide
to dir.ort ine as to their opinions. Ido not deny, I an,
far from denying, that the Government have committed
great faults. fsee them ; but I also see the difficul-
illaes which Governmtnt have had to contend with ;
(and I say, looking to their past history, they arc
entitled to praise ; and looking to the future, I con-
fidently auticTate that they will be entitled to sup-
port. It is a ccnamon error—anti one which I
should have been surprised to find in a meeting so re-
speotable and intelligent as the present, if I had not
found it also existing among men, not only intelligent,
but mueh cb..vsrsan tin public business—it is a com-
mon error to think that in politics legislation is ever\
thin; and administration nothing. Nothing is more
usual than to hear men say—What, another Session,
gone, and nothing done—ao new Bills passed—no
Irish Municipal Bill—no Ballot—Reform at a dead
stand—why, how could we be worse if the Tories
were in? My answer to this is, if the Tories were in,
we should have the same bad laws, and we should
have a bad Administration into the bargain.—(Cheers.)
alt seems strange to me that gentlemen are not aware
that it is possible that it may be better to have unre-
formed laws administered in a reforming spirit, then
r formed laws administered in a spirit hostile to all
reform. We often hear the expression, " measures,
not men ;" and there is a sense in which it is a most
excellent sentiment. " Measures, not men," certainly ;
that is, we are not to oppose Sir Robert Peel, merely
becaust he is Sir Robert Peel, or support Lord John
Russell simply because he is Lord John Russell—
we are not to follow our political bodies in the same
bland spirit as my honest Highland ancestors followed
their Chieftains when all the Campbells were found on
the side of Gto ge 111., because the Duke of Argyle was
a Whig, and all the Camerons fought for the Stuarts
because Lochiel was a Jacobite.--(Laughter.) But it
you mean, that while the laws remain the same, it is un-
empertant by whom they are administered, thee, I say
that a doctrine more absurd was never broached by any
political party. Why, what are laws ? They are
mere words, they are a dead letter, till a living
agent comes to put life into thorn. This is the case
even in judicial matters ; and yet it is possible to tie '
up the Judges of the land much more closely than it
would be right to tie up the Secretary for the Home or
the Foreign Department ; but even there, in framing a
code of laws, is it no matter whether it shall be admi-
nistered by Chief Justice Hale or Chief Justice Jeffe-
ries ?—(Cheers.) It would be easy, as many of you
must be aware, to point out instances of societies,
where bad institutions, under good Administration, have
made the people prosperous ; and other instances,
where coostitut.ons that looked remarkably well on
paper, yet under a bad Administration have ground
the people to the dust. But we need not go out of
our own country. Let us see within our own island.
and in our own time, the power of a good Administra
tion to mitigate bad laws. For example, let us take
the law of libel. I hold the present state of our law
of libel to be a scandal to a ci%ilised community.
Nothing more absurd can be found in the whole
sem ,Is of jurisprudence. How it was abused formerly
you all know. It was abused under the Administra-
tion of Lord North, of Mr. Pitt, of Mr. Percival, of
the Earl of Liverpool ; and I am sorry to say it was
abuiled—most unjustifiably abused—by Lord Abinger,
under the Adenieistradion of Sir Robert Peel and the
Duke of Wellington. Is there any person who will
pretend to say that it has been abused under the Go-
vernment of Lord Melbourne ? That Government has
had enemies in abundance—there h eis no want of ma-
ligners ; it has been attacked by Toryr opponents and by
Radical malcontents ; but has a
ofthem, ever
had the effrontery to say thei it everny o
abusedee the power
of ex ofdo inforteations?—(Cheers.) And is that
from want of provocation? On the contrary, they have
i
been attacked and libelled in a
Government way in which never
was libelled before. I it , 1
Is then the effect
of the law ? Has the law been altered—has it been
modified ? Not at all. We have exactly the same
I