The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-06 00:00:00

1849.

' shows that up to this time public opinion was not pre •
pared for the change which the House in 1846 adopted.
My belief is, though I do not assent to the wisdom of the
course the House took in so long delaying this change,
that it was not behind public opinion in the course it
took on that subject.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to
many subjects in relation to religious liberty, as to the
Roman Catholics particularly, does any one believe that
universal suffrage would produce less feeling of reli-
gious bitterness and animosity that now exists among
Members of the House?—(Cheers.) My belief is that
Members of this House are far more liberal than the
community in general are disposed to be.—(Cheers.) The
Hon. Gentleman says the liberal and democratic ele-
ments of the country do not exist in the House, mere
especially in the Cabinet, and that the feeling of the
aristocracy entirely governs the formation of the Mi-
nistry. With respect to this subject—though I am afraid
the Hon. Gentleman will think I am labouring under
some strange delusion—my belief is that the people—
that the humblest people, that the poorest people of this
country, have no indisposition to the ari-tocracy.—(Loud
and general cheering.) My helief is that the aristocracy
is not and could nut be forced upon them, but that the
aristocracy having, from the time it became a free
country, most happily for its liberty and most fortu-
nately for themselves, felt a sympathy with popular
liberty having even entertained popular prejudices
when the people were prejudiced, and having stood up
•for popular rights when those rights were attacked—
my belief is, I say, that the aristocracy of this country
has a strong hold on the opinions and affections of the
people.—(Lnid cheers.) And, Sir, when we talk of the
aristocracy, and of the members of different Admi-
nistrations, let it be recollected that many of the
aristocracy of this day were the democracy of 50 years
ago.—(Cheers.) It was said by a very clever person,
whose opinions I have heard quoted in the House, Ma-
dame de Steel, when she came to this country and
studied our manners and constitution a little, " I see now
what is the difference between your aristocracy and the
ancient noblesse of France. In that country the aristo-
cracy was the despair of talent, in this country itis the hope
of talent."—(Much cheering.) These very words very
well express in my mind the difference between one of
those constitutional aristocracies which never admitted
new persons into its ranks, and never gained new mem-
bers, and the aristocracy of England, which contains in
many instances persons the sons and grandsons of those
who were themselves the democracy of the country,
whose fortune was of the very smallest and most insig-
nificant, but whose talents, we find by the credit which
they obtained for the exercise of them, raised those per-
sons to a place among the aristocracy.—(Cheers.) And
are we to be told th very next day, as it were, that
those persons are to be put under ban and excluded
from all share in the government of the country,—
that they are not to enjoy any of the social distinctions
of life ?—(Cheers.) What I have to find fault for with
the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) and
those who agree with him is, that they are so exceed-
ingly narrow-minded.—(Tremendous cheering from the
Opposition benches.) Get them upon the subjects with
which they are particularly conversant, and I listen with
great admiration to their extensive knowledge and acute
ability, but when we come to discuss large questions
such as concern the fortune- of our empire, then I see
that they have intellect and understanding bound
up in such a narrow round—(The Noble Lord was in-
terrupted by a tremendous burst of cheering from the
same quarter)—that it is quite impossible to get them
to understand those great principles on which our ances-
tors founded the constitution of this country, and which
we, their successors, humbly admire and endeavour to
follow. The Hon. Member (Mr. Bright) spoke too of
economy, and told us that nothing could be done in this
House to obtain it—that motions for economy were refused
and rejected, and that even the smallest reduction was not
sanctioned by a majority. But, Sir, I think in this re-
spect the House and the country have very much come
to the opinion if there is a strong disposition for re-
trenchment in the public mind that the Government is
likely to listen to that opinion, and that having listened
to it they are more likely to carry such retrenchment
into effect in the manner which is conducive to the effi-
ciency of the public service, than by votes and discus-
sions debated in the course of some half-hour upon the
estimates. The fact is, that since the estimates of last
year were introduced, the navy estimates have been re-
duced nearly 400,0001., and there have been various
other reductions. Therefore, though there have been
no direct votes of the House cutting down the esti-
mates, yet the influence of public opinion has been
brought to bear upon them, and they are now made
more in conformity with public opinion than, as
I must confess, they were when we presented
them at the beginning of last year. But if this be the
case, the Hon. Gentleman has no reason to complain
of the want of economy which exists. The Honourable
Gentleman, indeed, speaks always as if we were adding
to the taxation of this country, and as if the people
were bzrne down by an additional weight of taxation
which it was impossible for them to bear. He (Mr.
Hume) always argues in this way—we paid 50.000,0001.
10 years ago ; we pay 52,000,0001. now. There is,
therefore, an additional taxation of 2,000,0001. But
when be does so he really uses a computation which is
unworthy of the knowledge we know the Honourable
Member must possess on the subject. The real matter
to be inquired into is, whether the same taxation is kept
up, if there has been any addition to it, or if the taxes
have been reduced. In locking to this subject I beg
to refer the Honourable Gentleman to a paper of the
taxes imposed and of the taxes reduced within the
last 20 years, viz., from 1829 to 1847. I find the sum
total is, that while 6.000,0001. of taxation has been im-
posed upwards of 17,000,000/. has bee :n reduced, making
a balance of excess of taxes repealed over taxes imposed
of 11,266,0001.—(Cheer5.) And, be it observed, in the
course of these 20 years the population has been increas-
ing, the means and property of the country have been
increasing, and, theretore, with 11,000,000/. less of tax•
a tion, that which remains is imposed on a greater amount
of population and property.—(Hear, hear.) There have
been of late great complaints that taxes imposed on ar-
ticles of consumption of the people were maintained, and
it was said there should be direct taxation instead.
Now, let us examine this question. I find that of the
sum total of taxes taken off, 7,500,000/. was taken off
the Excise, and 9,500,0001. off the Customs, while
800,0001. had been imposed on the Excise and 2,000,000/.
on the Customs, leaving a balance of 7,000,0001. in excess
of duties repealed in the latter, and of 6,000,0001. in the
former in the last 20 years.—(Hear, hear.) So facis it
from being true, therefore, that the country is bureened
and weighed down by an additional amount of taxation,
that this House for the last twenty years, baying been
employed in the same way for twelve years before, has
been employed in taking off the load of taxation, and in
diminishing the burdens of the people. But let me con-
sider the state of those taxes which are on the neces-
saries of life at the present period, and compare them
with what they were formerly. I will take a speech de-
livered in this House 112 years ago.—(A laugh.) We
have had since that time many wars, and more especially
the last great revolutionary war, which caused this
country to incur debt to an enormous extent, and there-
fore it may be supposed that taxes on the necessaries of
life would be greatly increased. Here is an extract from
a speech delivered at the period I mention:—
" For my part, I do not know any one necessary of
life upon which we have not some tax or another,
except water; and we can put no ingredient I know of
into water in order to make it palatable and cheerful
without paying a tax. We pay a tax for air, and
for the light and heat of the sun in the daytime,
by means of our tax upon windows; and for light
and heat in the nighttime by means of our duties up m
coals and candles; we pay a tax upon bread, meat, roots,
and herbs of all kinds by means of our salt duty; we pay
a tax upon small beer by means of the malt-tax, and a
heavy additional tax upon strong beer by way of ex-
cise. Nay, we cannot have any clean thing to put upon
our backs, either of woollen or of linen, without paying
a tax by means of the duty on soap, &c."
Now, with respect to all those taxes, it is to be observed,
that the duties on coals, candles, and most of the taxes
here mentioned no longer exist., Adam Smith, writing
some twenty years after, said there were four articles,
necessaries of life, taxed in this country,—leather, salt,
candles, and soap. Of all these there is now only one
which bears any tax. I think these things are worth
mentioning, because we hear it continually repeated that
there are great taxes on the necessaries of lite, which
our ancestors had not to bear, and that the people are
now suffering under an additional weight of taxation.
That two such great wars—the American and revolu-
tionary war—both of which I must confess appear to me
to have been unnecessary—(Hear, hear)—should have
rendered necessary a great load of taxation, is what I
am compelled to admit, but it is what I am sure the Hon.
Gentleman would not wish to alter, if the alteration re-
quired any breach of faith or any attack on public cre-
dit.—(Hear, hear.) And yet let him not be sure the
plan he proposes would not have a great effect on that
credit. I cannot forget when one of thoge great peti-
tions, signed I believe by some 3,000,000 or 4,000,000,
was presented by the Hon. Member (Mr. Duncombe),
the petitioners especially declaimed against the national
debt, and asked the House to abolish it, on the ground
that we were directly forced to incur and pay the
interest upon it. Therefore, Sir, I don't think it so
exceedingly safe, if this motion should be carried, that
many of those admitted to the suffrage would not in
their ignorance think they would be benefited by the
reduction of those taxes required to pay the national
debt.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the gist of this
motion, and as to its main purpose of admitting every
male of .full age to vote, I must say, frankly, that Ido
.e
object to giving every person a vote for Members
sr
becrsa_of. tLeh y
House of Commons—(Cheers)—in the belief " n
e re-
would, many of them, be easily affected by P
sentations and delusions, and that theyeliave not suffi-
cient political information to enable theta to make a
right choice of Members—(Cheers.)
s.
)'The Honourable
in
great body of
their virtue and
Member asks me if I do not be_
integrity. I entirely give credit to the
the working classes of this countryt i
. for their virtue and
integrity. I believe, from time to time you may enlarge
the suffrage, that they will lot come, more and more
worthy of the franchise; but, as far a, I can see and ob-
serve, I say that if you were at the present time to
divide the whole country into districts, and give every
man a vote, as the lion. Gentleman proposes, the peoPle
would be liable to be misled by artful and designing',
demagogues—(Cheers)—and that the representation of
this House, so formed, would not conduce to the welfare
and good government of the people.—(Loud cheers.)
The Hon. Member asked us to imitate that which is now
going on in countries abroad, and on this subject .I must
speak in the same spirit.as that in which it wss adverted
to by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
the Home Department (Sir G. Grey). I by no means
wish, as the Honourable Member (Mr. Hume) seems to
suppose, to defend or to eulogise those Kings who have
so long withheld from their subjects constitutional
liberty; on the contrary, I have said in this House that
my belief was, if they began after 1815 to admit their
people to the enjoyment of constitutional liberty—if they
bad framed those laws with respect to the press which
would have enabled thei 'subjects to understand and
discuss political matters inategd of being driyou to ape.

culative works and wild theories as their models of
government, that they would have taken the wise
course, and that we should not have seen the con-
vulsions and tumults of the last and of the present year.
—(Hear, hear.) But it is quite different to held that
opinion, and to say I am anxious to imitate the present
course of things on the continent. Nor do I think those
nations mean to proceed in that advance which they were
once so ready to profess.—(Hear, hear.) I see that with
respect to the Prussian Constitution of last year, for in-
stance, universal suffrage was to be the established rule.
We were left behind. Prussia had got to the top of the
tree, and we n ere at the bottom, in darkness and igno-
rance. The Hon. Member said we should have followed.
" Don't let us be behind Prussia," said he; " there they
have got universal suffrage. Don't let England follow at
such a distance in her wake." But what have we seen
in the present year? By the Constitution which is now
adopted the electors are divided into three classes—the
r-chest and smallest class, who pay most; another more
numerous paying smaller taxss, and a third very nume-
rous class paying the smallest amount Of taxes of all.
Are they all to have an equal right of suffrage? By no
means.— (Hear, hear.) The 500 of the first class are to
choose as many representatives to the Chamber at Berlin
as the third class of 5,000 persons. What is that but
another way of escaping from the evils of universal suf-
frage?—(Hear, hear.) Such a system would be totally
new iu tins country. For my own part, I would rather
; obtain this full representation by the old and prescrip-
tive mode of the constitution. We have to see yet
whether this scheme will succeed. While we see such
a course of changes and transmutations in other coun-
tries, don't let us have the weakness, and childishness,
and folly, to imitate them till they have at least fixed on
something really good and legitimate. The lion. Gen-
Oman wishes us to imitate the nations of the continent.
I see, in the course of these changes, almost every great
capital has been, for a certain time, in a state of siege.—
(Cheers.) Paris,Vienna, Berlin, and Milan, have all been
in that condition. And what is the case in a state of siege?
No security for liberty, the press entirely crushed, ac-
cording to the will of some general commanding in the
town. If any newspaper appears, hostile to the ruling
power, or displeasing to the general in command, he goes
off with some thousand or two of men able to enforce his
orders, and says, " The town is in a state of siege, this
newspaper shall not appear." Now, is that a state of
things we should envy ur ought to imitate?—(Cheers.)
Well, we enjoy some freedom of the press; we, who
have each man every morning, according to his desire,
the opinions he chooses duly set before him. One
newspaper tells him the whole country is ruined by free
trade—another tells the reader the country is ruined
because we have not adopted universal suffrage. So
long as each man has this luxury—(A laugh)—to read
what paper he chooses, all of them agreeing that the
country is ruined, in the first instance, and then having
different opinions from which he may please himself
as to the cause of that ruin, and to have his news-
paper presented to him at his breakfast table,
don't let us have this state of siege, of which we
have heard so much; and don't let us have seine general
at the Horse Guards depriving every man of his
newspaper.—(Cheers and laughter.) I would not have
any imitation of those nations on the continent which
are at present undergoing those transformations.
I trust that a rational and temperate liberty may be the
result of all their struggles. I am sorry to see their
efforts beset by so many difficulties, and accompanied by
so much bloodshed. But, so tar as I see, there are but
three great countries which appear to stand, each ac-
cording to its constitution, in a firm and unmoved posi-
tion—the one where there is a complete democracy,
namely, the United States, where none of the people
.wish to change their constitution—where it is evidently
suited to them; another in the opposite pole, the empire
of Russia, where the law is fixed by the sole will of the
monarch, but where order is preserved and general se-
curity for life and property afforded under the strict
means adopted by the supreme authority; the third is
the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain; and, so
far as I can see, the people of this country are as much
attached to the constitutional monarchy as the people
of any country have ever been attached to the constitu-
tion of their own state. My belief is that it is the form
of government suited to this people. My belief is that
not a balance of forces, but a combination of powers
brought about by monarchy, aristocracy, and demo-
cracy acting together, produces as much of liberty and
happiness, as great a development of talent, as great en-
couragement in the practice of religious and moral duties
as any constitution the world ever exhibited has pro-
duced. My belief is, that if you adopted the scheme of
the Hon. Member for Montrose, as it is explained by
the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), you
would risk alt these blessings.—(Cheers.) Ido not
think that you, the House of Commons, chosen by uni-
versal suffrage in equal or nearly equal districts, would
long have peace in this House; and, if you had peace
in this House by an overwhelming majority carrying
measures of a democratic nature, you could not keep
harmony with the other two powers of the state.—
(Hear, hear.) In framing and proposing the Re-
form Bill, as I stated at the commencement, what we
wished was to adapt the representation of this House to
the other powers of the state and keep it in harmony
with the constitution. That object, I think, after seven-
teen years' trial, we have attained. We have obtained a
gradual progress of measures of-reform without convul-
sion, without fear, or risk of blocdshed. If you go on
in the same course other measures will be adopted by
Parliament, other measures which, being in harmony
with the opinions of the people, will pass into a law in
a constitutional manner, and without interruption to that
constitution. I pray you, therefore, in the name of that
constitution, not to adopt the measure now before the
House, but to give it a decided negative. I believe you
stilt be consulting the interests, and I urn firmly con-
vinced you will also be consulting the wishes and opinions
of the people.—(Great cheering.)
Mr. OSBORNE thought it could not have escaped the
observation of the House and would not.ef the peo; le,
that the opposition to the motion had come, with one
exception, not from the hereditary en, mien (Ara( rrn on
the other side, lut tiara the Gentlemen also now occu-
pied the Treasury bench. They had climb d into pow er
on the credit of what. had been done by the Hon. Mernbtr
for Montrose, and chose who Lad been stigmatised as
men of narrow and confined minds. It was time that
those who expressed so narrow and c •nfined ideas should
be thrown over by those whom they stigmatised. The
most remarkable speech of the evening was that made
from the vicinity df the red box by the Hon. Member for
Cambridge. His whole argument was drawn, I.ke a
special constable's, from the 10th of April. The Hon.
and classical Member when he referred to Arivotle for-
got that Aristotle had been persecuted by the Conserva-
tives of his day for his new doctrines. The Hun.
Member's speech would have been more appropriate on
the Miscellaneous Estimates. With respect to the speech
of the Secretary for the Home Department there had,
since the days of Julian the Apostate—(Laughter)—been
no such conversion recorded in history. It was true, he
said, that in 1842 he had voted for the ballot,
but he had been converted the other day by the argu-
ment of tne Hon. Member for Oldham! Julian the
Apostate had assumed the garb of a monk at first, but
when he reached the Imperial throne, who; he took his
place on the Treasury bench of his day, he voted against
Christianity. The speech of the Noble Lord was a me-
lancholy failure. He app .sled to the Conservative fears
of the old women. Not content with referring to the
state of foreign countries, he brought in the subject of
the national debt. In the book on the Engiish consti-
tution—that curious book wherein he said the constitu-
tion to which he now appealed had never been fixed—he
stated that the national debt had been the great cause of
the taxation of the country; and, therefore, that if des-
potism were to be established in England it must begin
by destroying the national debt, the people, possibly,
being willing to part with their liberties in exchange for
a diminished pressure of taxation. How did such views
tally with those now expressed by the Noble Lord?
The attempt to terrify those sensitive persons the fund-
holders was a weak invention of the enemy. The Whig
party were notoriously more aristocratic at all times,
more anti-liberal in reality than those who avowedly
opposed liberal principles. In the words of Swift, they
"Forget the dunghill where they grew,
And think themselves the Lord knows who"
—(A laugh.) The Noble Lord said—and the Right
Hon. Member for Tamworth cheered him at the time—
that half the capitals of Europe were in a state of siege.
Was the Noble Lord so satisfied with respect to his
own Government, was he so confident that he could
point to Ireland and say that at present it was not in a
state of siege? The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended;
the Alien Act had been renewed; and at this moment
there were actually more soldiers in Ireland than voters.
Was it not notorious that four prosecutions had been
instituted against one newspaper, and that the Attor-
ney-General could not possibly get a conviction against
Mr. Duffy? The more any plan was pressed, the more
did the Noble Lord recede. He would propose none of
his own, and therefore Hon. Members were obliged to
vote for the plan of the Hon. Member for Montrose. If he
(Mr. Osborne) might offer any advice to those men of
narrow and contracted minds, the free-traders, it would
from that be that they should make a stand, .separate themselves
t,
rwtsheilefhan theirincu
talentsbus on
the and take hi
c h
would command. The Noble Lord would be left to de-
claim to empty party wthh a
e d positionpro ved
benches, while they were carried into
power on the shoulders of the people.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. P. W. WOOD rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
and observed, that Hon. Gentlemen who evinced so much
impatience might be satisfied in not having had much of
their time consumed on previous occasions upon ques-
tions of reform. He was happy to see that her Majesty's
Government had considered the present subject worthy
of discussion. It was said that there were no petitions
in favour of the proposed measure; but that circumstance
could not ignore the existence of 5,000,000 or
6,000,000 of unenfranchised Englishmen, whose feelings
were too sensitive to be indifferent to contemptuous con-
duct, and whose minds were far too acute to take
sneers for arguments.—(Cheers.) Nobody bad grap-
pled with the motion; but the artifice which had been
resorted to both by the Noble Lord and by the Right
lion. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) was to assume that
motion to be identical with the one brought forward on
a former occasion by the Hon. Member for N. ttineham
(Mr. F. O'Connor). But the two measures were dia-
-1 metrically opposed to each other. It aas cur ieus enough
that in the debate on the Triennial Bill in 1792—which
%%eta supported both by Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt—Mr.
Fox (who was then in power) said, " that it was the
fatality of this country that the Government would
never move towards reformation till it was on the
brink of destruction, nor until they feared that every
man was about to take up a musket." That, also, had
been uniformly the case with all the Governments on
the continent, and bad been one main cause of those
convulsions which were now taking place in almost
every country in Europe.—(Hear.) It was said that
there were no petitions calling for the measure; at
other times when numerous petitions were presented, the
cry was," Oh, this is agitation." He (Mr. Wood) was
no agitator. lie did not approve of itinerant agitation.
—(Opposition cheers.) Ile refused, in 1832, to join the
Yvliticawl Union; and yet, afteg all, it WU the rtAitiCat