The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-07 00:00:00

wholly dissented from the proposition that Mr. Thomas I
Cooper was therefore the man fitted to legislate for the
people of England, or to assist in guiding the helm of state.
For, inquiring not into the political capacity, but into the po-
litical conduct of Mr. Cooper—what did he find? He found
Mr. Cooper proceeding to the Staffordshire Potteries, at a
time when; in consequence of some unhappy differences be-
tween the masters and the workmen, the minds of the
workmen were in a highly excited state. He found Mr.
Cooper haranguing those fierce and excited men in
language of the most inflammatory description, in piercing
words, which a day before, were sure to lead to deeds
of ♦iolence. He found the hearers of those words, when
the address urging them on was concluded, rushing
forth to acts of plunder and of outrage, menacing the whole
district with desolation and flames, and only deterred from
their purpose by the armed interposition of the military,
beneath whose enforced fire one of Mr. Cooper's victims—
for such he must call the unhappy man—fell dead, checking
by his fall the advance of his companions, and thus saving
their lives by his death. He found that the outrages thus
created by the glowing words of Mr. Cooper were the occa-
sion of a special commission which sat for three weeks, and
spread terror and grief throughout hundreds of families com-
promised in the guilt of the insurgents.--(Hear, hear.)
Surely the House and the country would not assent to the
proposition that such a man as the inciter to these acts of
violence was a fit and proper representative to legislate for
England, or that his ignorant victims were fit recipients of
the political power asserted for them.—(Hear, hear.) The
history of mankind was not the history of the masses think-
ing for the masses, but of the genius, wisdom, virtue, and he-
roism of the few vindicating the liberties of the many, crest •
ing them by their genius, informing them by their wisdom,
and confirming them by their virtue, and cementing them
with the blood offered up by their heroism. The
time would come when the masses might be
safely entrusted with a full participation in the administra-
tion and legislation of the State, but that time had not yet
arrived. The people, uninformed by knowledge, were as the
cyclop in his cavern, gigantic but blind, blind with a dark-
ness, which could alone be dispelled by the light from
science, by the light from learning, by the light from above.
—(Hear, hear.) He would quote, to the purpose of these
views a few lines from Coleridge

" My son, of these old narrow ordinances
Let us not hold too lightly. They are weights
Of priceless value, which oppress'd mankind
Tied to the volatile will of their oppressors
For always formidable was the league
And partnership of free power with free will.
The way of ancient ordinance, though it winds,
Is yet no devious path. Straight forward goes,
The lightnings path, and straight the fearful path
Of the cannon ball ; direct it flies, and rapid—
Shattering that it may reach, and shattering what it
reaches.
My son, the road the human being travels,
That on which BLESSING comes and goes,doth follow
The river's course, the valley's playful windings,
Curves round the corn-field and the hill of vines,
Honouring the holy bounds of property :
And thus secure, though late, leads to its end."
Before he sat down he would say a word or two about the
petitions presented on this subject. There had been a great
number of these, from very respectable parties, who in va-
rious points of view were dissatisfied with this or that fea-
ture in our present institutions, though probably for the
most part with no very definite notion of the nature and
extent of the Hon. Gentleman's motion ; but he denied that
there had been manifested any pure enthusiasm throughout
the country on the subject. He denied that there was any
spirit of that kind which manifested a desire in the country
at large for great changes. There was, on the contrary, a
vast majority of right-minded and sound-thinking men who
were of opinion that this was not the time to be talking
about unsettling the institutions of this country. There were
multitudes of petitioners who would never have come for-
ward but for a speech which had better never have been
spoken.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe the nostrums
of the Honourable Member for Montrose were so inviting
as to inspire any considerable number of English hearts
with a desire to try them—(Hear, hear)—or to embark in
the struggle which his Hon. Friend was endeavouring to
excite. He believed, on the contrary, that there was a
general feeling of humble gratitude entertained by the people
at large for the institutions of the country, and also a senti-
ment of just pride, which was occasioned by the belief that
there was something in them which rendered those institu-
tions worthy of living anti dying for, and in behalf of which
the prayers of thousands of Christian hearts were daily
raised. Was it at a moment when England, by virtue of her
institutions, and by the providence of God, showed herself to
be the Thermopylae of the world, that the House of Com-
mons was to be called upon to proceed with these miserable
tamperings with institutions that weathered the shocks of a
thousand storms? He should rejoice when the condition of
the people was ameliorated, to enable them to exercise the
franchise I but, believing that the people of this country now
were wholly unfit to receive such a boon—believing in his
conscience that this resolution was founded on a principle
leading to no end, presenting no settlement, but tending to
a succession of endless and fruitless agitation, he entered his
humble but solemn protest against the mischievous character
of this new agitation, and gave his voice with all his heart,
soul, and mind, against the first resolution, which was its
first, its mangled, but no less destructive offspring.—( Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN—Sir, I feel a difficulty in treating a ques-
tion of this kind in the same language in which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman has treated it, and if it were necess,
sary to possess the same flow of eloquence which he has used,
I should not have presumed to follow him ; but I feel another
disadvantage in following him, inasmuch as he has not given
us any facts as a groundwork of the reasons with which he
has favoured us. He has mentioned it as an alleged fact,
that the country is not in favour of this motion for the mea-
sures of my Hon. Friend. Now that was the statement
made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government ; and
I think it is a most important question to us, more important
probably than any other question which could engage our
attention in this House, for certainly on almost any other
topic we may assume there would be great diversity of opi-
nion amongst the classes excluded from the franchise.
But I now put it to the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man, and I put it to the Noble Lord the Member for the
city of London, do they or do they not deliberately
mean to say in this House, that the great mass of the un-
enfranchised population of this country do not desire to
possess political power? That is the question. Will any
one in this House utter such a libel on the great mass of the
people in this country, that they are excluded from political
rights, and that they are so abject, so servile, that they even
do not desire to possess political rights? Sir, I should be
sorry to believe it, and Ido not believe it. I should have a
very poor opinion of my countrymen, indeed, if I enter-
tained such an opinion of them. But this is a very important
element in this discussion. If you admit with me—and
there is no one here who will deny the proposition—that the
people
atidl
eunit you
powouphuao are
lr
aetii not
on
nt
hofi s et uph foi rssai nte
oicouhnni! ettrc desire i
atr
are
pressing,
eso
uto b
ti
nogf: enfranchised,seve n
desiring,
o atnhde
claiming the right which you deny to them; and if, in ad-
dition to that serious dilemma, it can be demonstrated that a
very large section of the enfranchised middle class are in
favour of the same views as the class not enfranchised, it
becomes a serious element in the discussion of this question.
Without venturing to anticipate the result of the division
here to-night, I call Hon. Gentlemen to notice the division
to-morrow, mid they will find that in the proportion
that Members in this House represent large con-
stituencies, where the middle class, the ten-pounders,
have the free and unbiassed exercise of their opi-
nion, just in that proportion will you find their repre-
sentatives vote in the lobby in favour of this motion. And
I mention this fact in anticipation, for I know it will prove
to be the truth ; I mention it with satisfaction, because I
find iu that fact a strong and most effectual appeal to the
great mass of the people to show them that it is not true, as
has been attempted to be shown by more than one who has
spoken
middle
eninth
classesis debate,
towardsthat
t there
theere isa
working h
hostile
eslpatsrsiets
tthaet art
of the just
iunnbp
iraospsoe rdt
will,
tthheey m
arei d ddl
disposed
pc
01 as sesde s
tcoa no
peexne rtchi
es eptohr et
ai
sfree
o f at nhde
constitution to their unenfranchised fellow-countrymen.
These facts being admitted—and they must be admitted, for
nobody can get up and say that the people who have not
the franchise do not desire it—what is the assertion of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman? That we have not
had a great number of petitions and meetings. I have
been long accustomed to watch the progress of opinion out
of doors, and test; the progress of questions in this House
by what was doing out of doors; and I have better op-
portunities of knowing than he has, that there has been a
considerable movement in the country, at a short notice,
and without organization, in support of the motion. I
have taken the trouble to record the public meetings held
in favour of the Honourable Gentleman's motion, recorded
in the daily news since first he announced his intention of
bringing it forward. There have been 130 public meetings
held. I tell you that there have been more spontaneous
movements throughout the country in favour of this motion
than in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws after we had
been at work agitating for five years, because I will frankly
admit that in the movement for the repeal of the corn-laws,
we galvanised from a centre, if you please; that meetings
were got up at the instigation of a few men who were ex-
neeted to attend; but on this question the meetings were
local, uninvited, uninfluenced. I do not deny the discres
pancies of opinion at these meetings as to the nature of the
objects for which they should operate; but there was much
less discrepancy, much less of the leaven of dissension, than
I have seen in times past, and less of discreditable dissen-
sion than many people would like to see in those meetings,
but they have been petitioners—they are in favour of the
Charter; in favour of universal suffrage in other cases; and
in a great majority of cases in favour of the motion of my
Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose. Standing
here as the advocate of the motion of the Honourable Gen-
tleman, I have nothing to say against those who are for
universal suffrage, or for the Charter. I will never enter
the lists to oppose those men who advocate the right, as
the llonourable Gentleman advocates it, to the suffrage,
instead of any other test. I should feel I was not justified
in taking the argument which the on Gentleman has taken,
and which the Noble Lord the First Minister has taken. He
addresses himself to the advocates of universal suffrage ;
he seems to me to argue that they have more right than
those who are for household suffrage. I can understand the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, if he intends to vote for
universal suffrage, I can understand the force of the argu-
ment ; but as I am not going to oppose universal snffrage, I
do not stand here to support it on this occasion. I will leave
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and all those who arguers
as he does, in the hands of the advocates of universal suf-
frage, judging that they are quite disposed to make the most
of the argument. put into their hands. In advocating the
suffrage which the Hon. Member for Montrose introduced,
and which he termed household suffrage, I must say that
the [lon. and Learned Gentleman has not shown his usual
legal knowledge ; and a difficulty and stumbling-block is
thrown in our way as to the definition of household suffrage.
To judge from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's speech,
household occupancy has always been considered as nothing
but occupying a house. Judging by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman's argument, it has never been decided that a
man living in a lodging is a householder. That I under-
stand to:be the Hon. and Learned Member's argument. lam
not learned in the law, but the Court of Common Pleas has
decided that a lodger claiming to be rated to the poor may
claim to have a right for voting.—(Hear, hear.) What 1
say,.Y I say with some knowledge of the matter. lam sorry
to have to correct the Hon. and Learned Sergeant in mat-
ters of law, but under the Reform Act it has been ruled in
the court of Common Pleas that a lodger paying 101. a year
rent, where the landlord does not live on the premises, can
claim to be rated, and be upon the list of voters. Then my
householdvoters;
suffrage, merely takes a similar interpretation to
that,4 which is taken by the Court of Commcn Pleas, and
ys4o)u• says, without requiring a 101. test, if you have been a lodger
does claim to be put on the rate book, and on the list of
in__ ; and it is really not a very difficult matter of arrange-
t to extend the rule a little further and say, if the land-
lordßon.and Learned
on the premises, and you claim still to be rated,
you may be
Leeapduiffit
counlrythe list of :voters; and then the
tacos, y :phial;
mwriele.end Gentleman will see this altogether gets
rid of th
We have opened a dwohoor whicht he is throwing in our
should exclude clerks and economi-
cal doot h
en cetl e
rwk
si
whose to
causeget
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. There was one re-