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

yearshe
plea
—(
ao
fgncwincreased
what
• e
• foundedn
nbae much
ofe
greater
increaset h e
ir,
al
validity
ttityoa
taxation
itaahnne
?t
Hear,pfo° pr
uPlahlteii hear.
)i
hear.) But we all know that the wealth of the country has,
The taxation per head in this country, in 1848, as compared
with twenty years ago, is greatly reduced in amount, bht
there is another circumstance of importance to be taken into
account, namely, that there has been a great re-distribution
of taxation, and in every instance that re-distribution has
been in favour of the working classes of this country.
Compare 1827 and 1847 with the two financial years of 1828
and 1848. The Customs of 1827 were under 18,000,0001;
they scarcely exceeded that sikm in 1848. The Excise duties
in 1827 were 12,000,000/., they were not so much in 1848.
The stamps and taxes were nearly the same in both years.
There was an immense reduction in the revenue derivable
fromw
iwasth
lt
reductionhse2BP,
Hs td-oaoffifpernaeo
poi
more
er
proportionate
a7e,sbco
oo
increasem,
opoao compared
innwtihthe
1848
populationla
s 8 2c70. m Tpahre
compared
this country. The rate of our Government expenditure
increase
et the last
population,
public the
wealth,
has
been almost stationary; the amount of our taxation has been
stationary. The popular pleas for reform are, therefore, not
true..—(Hear, hear.) The pleas that have been, to-night, ad
nauseam, repeated in every petition are utterly fallacious,
and it becomes those who offer those petitions to the House
to vindicate the accuracy of their allegations. We are
asked, in the first place, to increase the franchise. I lis-
whimacbatinesi
eear
ttnddyhetea:dtxi
btlnaodhettllwitheehern. uee t
adtsrdoei
igtdogri
founded.hhia. rshtaoeA dttuexonvtrfpwlye
rnnmhypoopt
eefseateacodrntrins
de
oatotmeonbon
nnutfothwone
hear Hon.from I
thee m bile
or forn
GentlemanMontrose,
some principle laid down upon which the franchise was to
u sa
stab the
subject
differenceaf
th,a
right of o f Qap
binrunie.
eunhhteeEnwneno
confounding
gelopnaenl
mergli
aodofnpndtcotcdihhostowihenedansahists
dsHtit ainiattathonuhucnovthr
jet
that
aoooghGrntnnhai
egegaatti
nelilhottetol
whorer,
oivimuaeggflngo
,hahtg
anehntteretss.
Englishman to have a vote, why is it necessary. for thweaesxtehre-
cise of that vote that the person should live in a house?—
(Hear, hear.) But then he must be of age, says the Hon.
:01 es me
rbver .
his Again,
country, h
and sai d
notthat b e a
moreper s otnhttvamnoeia atbw aeaenlcldathl
to
cheers,)
knoweunr
spoon
w.
eighteen years of
aonfda,gtehsehreofuolrde,
hhaeva:gauevdotteh....sat(Levaeuryhtemran twenty-one
rt tiwgehnttyto-
noteot ato
principle
g hh
et thoasv
(Hear.) The whole of the male population, saysg
theee1,1120....
Gentleman, are liable to serve in the militia when they Hon.,
-
arrive at legal age, and they must join the posse condtatui,
even when they are at school ; and, therefore, he pm.
poses this great change. But in doing so he has laid
down no principle whatever. I cannot understand where
the line should be drawn. I observe in a debate not only in
"another place," but in another country, that some ridicule
was excited by a gentleman who advocated the rights of the
other sex to the franchise—(A laugh)--but as far as the
mere abstract reason is concerned, I should like to see anybody
in this Home, who is the follower of the Honourable Gentle-
man opposite, get up and oppose that plan. I say that, in a
country governed by a woman, in a country where you al-
low a woman to form a part of the other estate of the realm,
English peeresses for example, where you allow a woman
not only to hold land, but be a lady of a manor, and to hold
courts, where a woman, by law, may be a churchwarden—
(Laughter) I really do not see when she has
so much to do with Church and State, any one
reason for your withholding from her the right to vote.
(Hear, hear.) But the plan of the Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site at once disfranchises millions. Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site have spoken of the suffrage as " a trust." But Ido not
look upon it as " a trust" any more than " a right." It is
what everything in England is—it is a privilege.—(Hear,
hear.) It is created by law, as everything in England is
created ; the characteristic of our history has been, that it is
held out not as an odious exception, bat as a general re-
ward.—(Hear, hear.) Well now, Sir, that brings us really
to the character of this House and the political order of
which we are.the representatives. We represent the Com-
mons, and the Commons are an estate of the realm. The
material of that estate is of course a question of policy, of
expediency, and it is perfectly open to anybody at any
time to discuss the question of what that order should con-
sist; but it is an order, whether you make it a thousand or a
hundred thousand, or two or three millions, it becomes an
order, and a privileged order. The Reform Bill was a re•
construction of this order or estate of the realm. That was a
settlement most unsatisfactory to the House. And no one
can pretend that that settlement was_ carried with the fall
support and sanction of the people of England.—(Hear.)
There is not the slightest doubt that if you had had universal
suffrage at that moment the measure would .have been re-
jected. But you decided not only to have the Bill, and the
whole Bill, but nothing but the Bill.--(Laughter.) And
you got it. But when there has been a great settlement of
the question under such circumstances,is it unreasonable that
we, who agreed to it with reluctance, should insist that be-
fore any new scheme is sanctioned for the new settlement of that
great question, the newly-proposed construction should offer
a fair prospect of giving satisfaction to the people and se-
curity to the State ?—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I for one am
no advocate for finality; far from it. I cannot conceive that
there may not be circumstances or periods when we ought to
do that which which we have done for 500 years in this
country—reconstruct the state of the Commons. I acknow-
ledge that the last reconstruction, however unsatisfactory to
the Hon. Gentleman and his friends, is, I believe, more satis-
factory to the nation than the plan which is brought forward
by the Hon. Gentleman. Certainly, I cannot, in considering
this plan of the Hon. Gentleman, discover anything that
has a tendency to satisty the public heart. This is not at all
a project which is to enfranchise " the serfs of England" that
goes to the labouring classes, and says, "you shall take
your place in the political constitution of your country."
'fhe Hon, Member for Montrose has brought forward a pro-
ject of which property, and property alone, is the basis.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I think that property is already
sufficiently represented in this House. I am prepared to
support the system of 1832 until I see the character and
constitution of the country occasion a new change.—(Hear,
hear.) Sir, in opposing the motion of the Honourable
Member for Montrose, I protest against being placed in the
category of those who advocate " finality." This proposed
change does not appear to me to be in any way adapted to
satisfy the wants of the age, nor to be conceived in the
spirit of the times. On this occasion I shall touch but
very briefly upon a second point, not because I have any
wish to evade that important part of the discussion—l mean
ballot. We shall have an opportunity of discussing that
question when the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Berke-
ley) brings forward his motion. There is not the slightest
.ioubt that the adoption of the ballot in this country would
at once effect a very great alteration in the character and
habits of the people. And that I think would be a very
great evil.—(Cheers.) But before we argue the question of
suffrage and ballot, I am surprised that Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite
afor4rogteetr,t the
oughtimmense
o ev
never
element e
bn
e
t which, in
omitted;
that is the influence of opinion organized by a free press.
That is the best safeguard against corruption and intimida-
tion.—(Cheers.) You may have what laws you like, but
dis-
cussions and
that is the means by which you can put an end to the intimi-
dation and corruption, as it elevates the tone of public feel-
ing, and brings the influence of public opinion upon the
conduct of the great body of the nation.—(Hear, hear.)
Nobody can pretend that this is an age distinguished by its
corrupt practices; on the contrary, every Parliament that
has ever existed for the last fifty years has been less and
less corrupted.—(Hear, hear.) We have not, as was the
case seventy or eighty years ago, the Secretary of the Trea-
sury depositing a 500/ note in the hands of a Member in
the lobby for voting for a Ministerial measure, and then a
charge regularly made for such corruption under the title of
"head money,"—(Hear, hear.) All that was now asked
from the Right Hon. Gentleman whe had filled that office
was " a pair."—(A laugh.) Sir, I shall not touch for a mo-
ment on the third point, short Parliaments. No one can sup-
pose that short Parliaments would occasion less expendi-
ture of the public revenue than long Parliaments. Moreover,
I shall net say a word against' the practice of triennial Par-
liaments, because it is a part of that old Tory creed which I
have consistently supported.—(oh, oh, and cheers.) Did
not: Sir William Wyndham support triennial Parliaments
against a corrupt Whig Minister ?—(Hear, hear)--and I:am
happy to see indications amongst the movements of the
people of this country which show that they are prepared
to rally round that part of the Tory creed. The only reason
why I object to it now is, that no Honourable Gentleman
has shown us the paramount necessity for a change.
But no one can for a moment suppose that the substitution
of a system of triennial Parliaments can have the least effect
on our policy or legislation.—(Hear, hear) And, there-
fore, I now come to the fourth point, which I admit is one of
very great importance. I allude to the proposition for elec-
toral districts. The Hon. Member for Montrose entered into
some details on the subject. I owe to the kindness of a gen-
tleman, who is unfortunately no longer a Member of this
House, my possession of the manifesto of the new party upon
that subject. Sir Joshua Walmsley was so kind as to place
in my hands this publication, which he told me was the
manifesto of the new party.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I promised to give it as candid a consideration and attention
as possible. From this publication it would seem that the
county of Buckingham, which is said to produce an
annual rental of 674,0001., sends eleven Members to Par-
liament ; whilst Lancashire, with an annual produce of
5,000,000/., sent only twenty Members to Parliament. Now
I admit that Buckingham has none of those great advan-
tages that attend the towns of the Manchester school ;
but Buckingham refused to pay the ship money, and car-
ried the grand remonstrance, and since the settlement of
our Parliamentary Constitution, in 1640, I believe Buck-
inghamshire has furnished this House with a series of
statesmen (Laughter) with a series of statesmen—
(Cheers)—such as have contributed more than the Members
sent from any other county to create the empire, sustain
the renown, and cherish the high spirit of the English
people.—(Cheers.) Buckinghamshire, however humbly it
asay now be represented, has sent to the House of Commons
Hampden, Grenville, the elder Pitt, and Burke.—(Loud
cheers.) Now I ask the House, is it to be tolerated that a
population which, for centuries, have sustained the credit,
honour, and prosperity of England in such an eminent
degree, shall be destroyed for the purpose of adding to the
legislative importance of some great manufacturing towns,
born in a day, and perhaps vanishing in a day ?—(Cheers.)
I see a great deal in these days about realised capital; but,
Sir, one of the most important elements in constructing the
suffrage of an ancient people is the realised experience of the
thtilisriosuthhe
nation—(Hear, hear)—and to suppose that you can sud-
let)
denly deprive a great section of the nation of those political
torem ern be rlthbeevgagrar theepa ouse, in con-
sidering men
shiadmserihn
rights which they have exercised with honour and prospe-
rity to themselves and to the nation at large for centuries,
may probably lead to a civil war. Unworthily as Bucking-
hamshire
et
hr ai
sa yq
uneos wt
i ohne represented,
,
aManchester, for
nepxmamnpmle. ack Here (said the Honourable
ae
whom it has heretofore had a voice in Parliament. Now,g I
will show you who are the great men we are to anticipate,
fromum eanntilf eemsnto, of the new party.
dS,RiAn EfaLclt--,
tThahtattheisxialeatralyphcolentfiwrmass
thwebaotrivwi:isafttoilide
Mr. HUME—That publication was printed before ever
any party was formed.
me by Sir Joshua Wahnsley, that it was .accepted and accre-
dited;gr Dani
new party.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition. ) '1 lie great
question which the new party had to deatwith was, where
were they to get a leader?—(Laughter.) The doctrines of
the party had been laid down. Here is the pamphlet, by
Alexander Mackay, of the Middle Temple. The ideas
broached in it are, to be sure, strange and novel, but then
there is all the more reason that they should have an expe-
rienced leader. They must have a secretary—a rnanagiug
man—a whip for the new movement.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) We have the electoral districts all carved out, at
least upon paper. Manchester is to have seven instead of
two Members of Parliament. Now, only think of that—
( Great laughter.) Why, Sir, since we have been in our
dreary opposition, there Is been, no doubt, from many pecu-
liar circumstances, only one Member for Manchester.—(Loud
laughter.) My Right Hon. Friend has not said much either
as 'a Member of the Administration, or .divested of that
position, although he has appeared in both characters during
thhe present
been
ssilent,
eanets, o
s o
rn session.—(A
virtually
for Manchester. There is difficulty enough at present. It
(lantgh has been but one Member
laugh.) My
My Right Hon. Friend
is hard enough to keep one Member in order. But, Sir, if
we are to have seven—if there are to be seven Richards
in the field--(Roars of laughter)—we must retire from
the -contest. Only think of having to reply night after