The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-21 00:00:00

the Reform Bill, speaking to an American of distinguished
talents, who then represented his country at our Court, and
I said to him, " I cannot but feel very anxious on proposing
to make an alteration in a constitution which has lasted so
long." He said, " Yes, so long and so strong." And that,
in fact, is the light in which I regard the constitution of this
country •it has been very long—it has been very strong ;
and we should therefore apply ourselves with the utmost care,
. with the utmost deliberation, and I will say with the greatest
anxiety, to any plan which proposes to alter the representa-
tive body in this House. Then, taking it in that point of view,
and not with regard to the question of right, let us see whether
a body elected by all the householders and all the lodgers would
be a better Parliament, a better representation, than the pre-
sent House of Commons. If you look to really household
suffrage, the objection applies to which the Hon. Gentleman
alluded, that you get a representation of brick and mortar,
and that those who have been the advocates of the Charter
will have a fair right to complain when they see the smallest
householders admitted to the right of voting, while many
persons superior in property and in intelligence to the
small householders are excluded.—(Hear, hear.) I do
not think that that is an objection which can be fairly
entertained against the present system of suffrage, because
that mode makes a choice among the householders ; it does
give a right to property ; it takes property of a certain
amount; it takes the rating combined with that property,
and then fixes the franchise. If we admitted the whole of
the householders without any other qualification than
that of being householders, it would be open to the ob-
jection that we admitted men of inferior intelligence. If
you are to make the suffrage more general—if you are to
make it universal, I do not see that having universal suffrage
you could well ad upon the plan proposed by the Hon.
Gentleman, by keeping up the present cities and all but the
smaller boroughs of the country ; I do not see that you could
well avoid that division into equal districts and into equal
portions, which it is the proposal of the advocates of the
Charter to introduce.--( Hear, hear.) If lam asked whether
a division into equal districts, and universal suffrage to every
male person of full age, would give a better representation
of.the people at large than the present system does,
would be more conducive to the interests of the people, I
must deny that such would be the result. You would
thereby have a great number of representatives for the large
towns ; some fifty representatives for this metropolis ;
some ten or twenty for other large towns; earl
representative imbued with the spirit and the ex-
cited feelings of the populations of these towns. You would
not have the feelings of the smaller boroughs and middle-
shied towns represented; you would have representatives of
the agricultural classes of totally a different character, firmly
attached to existing institutions, but unwilling to adopt the
msures of reform which this House and others formed under
the Reform Act, have been willing to adopt. I fear that
from a representation so composed, totally differing in their
political views—one ton much influenced with views of exten-
sive amelioration; the other, adverse to progress and im-
provements—you would have a collision and a contest which
would be dangerous in its operation, and, above all, the Par-
liament so composed would not fairly represent the country
which it would affect to represent. As far as his arithmetic
went the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose was right
but no further; he said that a million of people, in some
instances had no greater representation than a few hundreds.
His arithmetic was perfectly clear ; but when you examine
the operation and the reason of these differences you will
find that this representation, on the whole, is better from
your having a large variety of that kind than if you had
one sole kind of representation, and that the representation of
numbers. When we were discussing the Reform Bill, a
gentleman, whose loss we had afterwards to deplore, be-
cause he grave promise of great talents in political life,
though his political views totally differed from mine—l
mean Mr. Praed, who wished to give two Members to the
boroughs in schedule B—men of great science, he thought,
and men of great talent and information would be sent by
the small boroughs, though not persons of property in the
country, such as those who were likely to be sent to
Parliament by a division of the country, and not being
persons possessed of those stirring habits such as those who
were likely to be sent by great towns. The Right. Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, made a similar proposition. The
Noble Lord, after quoting a few observations which the Right
Hon. Baronet made in support of these views on the occa-
sion of his preposing a Jury Bill, proceeded by saying—l
think that these arguments were founded on sound and just
views of policy, but I conceivethat, in giving forty Members
to schedule A, and sixty Members to other small boroughs,
that we were providing sufficiently for that class of repre-
sentatives which has in it not only men of commercial and
agricultural knowledge, and men of every kind of informa-
tion, but which has in it men who have studied the consti-
tution of the country—men in active and men not in ac-
tive life, whose intelligence fits them to be representatives,
but whose habits do not qualify them for county repre-
sentation, or for the representation of such places as
Manchester and Birmingham. If this is the case, and if
I am at all right in that view, it disposes very much of the
whole of the arguments that have been put forth, that a
great inequality exists, that a small place returns as many
Members as a large place, that there are a thousand voters
in one place, while there are only 300 voters in another
place. If I am right in saying that these Members ought
not to constitute the main basis of the constitution, that we
should rather have the House of Commons like the country
itself, composed of various professions and various occupa-
tions; if I am right in that, then the whole of the arguments
against the present system founded on the disparity of the
numbers of electors fall at once to the ground. The Hon.
Gentleman does not get rid of disparity ; like the rest of his
propositions be leaves it'vague and undefined. Then what
would be the case if we were to adopt his resolution? He
says that be will leave the existing boroughs, with the ex-
ception of small ones ; he would throw Horsham, with three
or four other towns, into the county of Kent; but would he
leave such places as Canterbury, Guildford—such towns as
Norwich and Ipswich, in their present situation ? If he did he
would not have equality of numbers; and I say, how would
those who ask for reform be a bit better satisfied than they are
at present if they find that still there would be 20,000 electors
in one place and only 300 in another? They would then
Bay, Let us have a just and effectual reform instead of a
mere mockery of reform which you have given us. The
Honourable Gentleman, at the end of his speech, wished for
a settlement of this question very much in the same lan-
guage for whichl have been reproached with having used
on former occasions. Ido not know how he can have a
settlement of the question, for the advocates of the Charter,
who are more numerous .than his adherents, would still
have their grounds of complaint. They ask for a vote for
every male adult, which the Honourable Gentleman does
not allow, and for equal districts, which he does not pretend
to establish. I will not argue at any length on the question
of vote by ballot, for I believe that under that system there
would be means of discovering how an elector voted as w ell
as now. Among the various meetings lately held, there was
one held in the north, at which a gentleman from America
stated that he was frequently able in the United States to
tell how an elector voted. Ballot in itself was not security,
and it would be precisely the same in England. Though
the Chamber of Deputies in France were elected by
ballot, it was no security against revolution.. With re-
gard to the other proposition, that the duration of Par-
liament should noc exceed three years, if I agreed with the
Honourable Member for Surrey in thinking that we should
appear more often before our constituencies, I should hold
that, instead of saying with him that it was a matter
of indifference whether we should have annual or trien-
nial Parliaments, I should say that annual Parliaments
were to be preferred. What you want is not the power of
dismissing Members when they ill-behave themseves, as he
'apposes; for Burke was rejected at Bristol, not for ill-be-
baying himself, but for supporting civil and religious Jibe rty.
It is not a frequent change in representation that you ought
to have in view, but you ought to have in view the mainte-
nance of full confidence between representatives and their
constituents, and some kind of stability in the policy of
the country.—(Cheers.) If you had triennial Parlia-
ments the whole Constitution would be unsettled,you would
just give time enough to the people to consider that they
should make the change, while an annual election, either
in September or October, would be a sort of renewal of the
trusts which they would be ready and willing to make. I
therefore think, if we are to have any change, that annual
Parliaments would be better than triennial Parliaments, and
that triennial Parliaments is the worst proposition of all.—
(Hear, hear.) I once gave an opinion in favour of five
years ; but I am satisfied with the present duration of Par-
liaments, and certainly I shall not give my vote for an alte-
ration of the period. I think I see that there is a very
close correspondence and communication between Members
and their constituents—(Laughter)—and eves' though Mem-
bers may expect a tenure of their seats for five years, I do
ind that the opinion of the constituencies has a great influ-
ence on the conduct of the representatives.—(Hear, hear.)
But I would beg to put this question which the Hon. Gen-
tleman has raised to another test, which I do not think he
ought to refuse. The reform in Parliament took place in
1832. Has the House of Commons since ,that period shown
themselves, as is represented by some, to be the mere
servants of the aristocracy, or merely bigots who
are afraid to enter upon any reform, indifferent to
improvement, or careless of the voice of the people? I think
no person who considers the changes made in that time,
and how readily those changes have been adopted by
the Rouse when the voice of the people was clearly ascer-
tained, will say that this House has not responded quickly
and readily to public opinion of that kind. The new
Parliament was not 100
tirely abolished in ttiegNl,in existence when slavery was en-
favoeusrtedlndies—an immense change
petitions,
favoured by
by the
but such a change as was hardladoptedvoice
ever ofbeftohreele,
by people,
Legislature in the world.—(l hear.) Shortly after
that the trade with China was thrown open to the
commerce of the world, from which great commer-
cial advantages resulted. In a year or two after,
the commutation of tithes was adopted, a measure
in which the clergy.' and the laity were equally interested,
but at the same time a subject of such difficulty that it
baffled the power and intelligence of Mr. Pitt
when he took it into consideration. The Dissenters com-
plained of grievances with respect to the celebration of
marriages and the registration of births and deaths.
That grievance was completely and effectually remedied.
• In another year or two the municipal corporations were en-
tirely reformed. Many self-elected corporations were sub-
jected to popular election, and an entirely new constitution
In the course of late
Was given to them.—(Hear, hear.)
Years the House has been occupied with measures from
which a great portion of this House dissents, but which
were great changes, and in the opinion of the Hon. Member
• for Montrose great and beneficial reforms.—(Hear, hear.)
1 allude to the changes made in the tariff, to the number
of duties which have been abolished, the number of ex-
cise and customs duties which have been reduced, and one
great alteration and change has been made which surely
cannot be said to show that this House has been peculiarly
under the government of the landed aristocracy—the
total and entire repeal of the corn-laws. That measure
some gentlemen may think an injurious measure; others
may think it highly for the benefit of the country ;
but, at all events, it shows this, that when there was
considerable popular agitation, and public meetings held
In theand when
a great cry arose for the
change,country,
the House of Commons was not slow in listening to
the voice of the people, and effecting the alteration asked
for
be .—(Hear, hear.) Now, if these are changes which have
been made, and if various other measures have been
carried,
such as the reduction of the postage on letters to a penny.—
(" Oh oh," from Colonel Sibthorp, followed by much
laughter.) I was mentioning that subject in parenthesis
amongst others; but I really think that it was a greatei hange--(Cheers)—that it was a measure of great
importance - •
nce ; and when you find that the correspondence
"Re increased to the enormous extent it has done,
consider you may
how many persons were prevented from the
be
nefit of communicating with their friends; and when
ou think of the interchange of domestic affection which it
as occasioned
has you may estimate how great a benefit it
conferred on the community.—( Hear, hear.) I think,
therefore, that it cannot be said that the Reformed Parlia-
ment has either been idle or unwilling to listen to great
measures of reform; and let it be recollected likewise that
(i am sure e
ble feeli very! Member of this House must have a sensi-
bleof this benefit, though so many useful measures
cannot be c •
sub-
ject are carried on account of it,) the debates on every sub-
th,
~or now more protracted than formerly, and that there is
sarearetiae greater difficulty in carrying any number of mea-
Gentlem a single session.— Hear, and laughter.) The Hon.
nabine has asked us to agree to those great measures
ssc„, c, in the four different points which he has proposed.
be I beg to state that I do not think reforms should
waulled to the eubjeets I have mentioned, and others of a