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

,7
jSiait eit.e torm Bill, speiking to an American of distinguished
ltaiur, who then represented his country at our Court, and
to to " I cannot but teel very anxious on proposing
rash
lone an alteration in a constitution which has lasted so
inti.s: He " Yes, so long and so strong." And that,
tsts is the light in which I regard the constitution of this
ktd"w'rY ;it has been very long—it has been very strong ;
ash lea should therefore apply ourselves with the utmost care,
e utmost deliberation, and I will say with the greatest
t,en to any plan which proposes to alter the representa-
itsj. in this House. Then, taking it in that point of view,
th.srtWith regard to the question of right, let us see whether
selected by all the householders and all the lodgers would
~better Parliament, a better representation, than the pre-
itirr tioase of Commons. If you look to really household
tlltdasgse, the objection applies to which the Hon. Gentleman
es :S, that you get a representation of brick and mortar,
Ltl ,Ilat those who have been the advocates of the Charter
Ist,tre a fair right to complain when they see he smallest
persflolders admitted to the right of voting, while many
414 superior in property and in intelligence to the
Ist think
are excluded.--(Hear, hear.) I do
ajt,Link that that is an objection which can be fairly
'ined against the present system of suffrage, because
tir"e e mod
makes a choice among the householders ; it does
olia right to property ; it takes property of a certain
led ,11,t; it takes the rating combined with that property,
en fixes the franchise. If we admitted the whole of
e
thm householders without any other qualification than
of
Jecti, being householders, it would be open to the ob-
I a that we admitted men of inferior intelligence. It
tsikare to make the suffrage more general—if you are to
Sett it universal, I do not see that having universal suffrage
Sc,ntelotild well act upon the plan proposed by the Hon.
tesileman, by keeping up the present cities and all but the
ter boroughs of the country; I do not see that you could
hliavoid that division into equal districts and into equal
Cht:titB; which it is the proposal of the advocates of the
(14,'(iF to introduce.—{Hear, hear.) If lam asked whether
sti.dnen into equal districts, and universal suffrage to every
ate; Person of full age, would give a better representation
WOOl People at large than the present system does, and
I
test, he more conducive to the interests of the people,
tips that such would be the result. You would
titsiielul have a great number of representatives for the large
tees; Some fifty representatives for this metropolis;
tts tea or twenty for other large towns; each
4sentative imbued with the spirit and the ex-
bt have
of the populations of these towns. You would
ta" the feelings of the smaller boroughs and middle-
-llnwns represented; you would have representatives of
itjtl/4ricultural classes of totally a different character, firmly
sttsoed.to existing institutions, but unwilling to adopt the
jjoyes of reform which this House and others formed under
fedeform Act, have been willing to adopt. I fear that
klit•ii representation so composed, totally differing in their
Iseviews—one too much d with views of exten-
auselioration ; the other, influenceadverse to progress and im-
10Zinents--you would have a collision and a contest which
4,14 be dangerous in its operation, and, above all, the Par-
Ithitken so composed would not fairly represent the country
)tett'it would affect to represent. As far as his arithmetic
Ns'ne “On. entleman the alember for Montrose was right
est:o further; he said that a million of people, in some
had no greater representation than a few hundreds.
tie s""drrnetie was perfectly clear ; but when you examine
taf,P,eration and the reason of these differences you will
No that this representation, on the whole, is better from
hayin a large variety of that kind than if you had
451 kind g
et,ak_e of representation, and that the representation of
tet, 'trig. When we were discussing the Reform Bill, a
tle
ritae Irian, whose loss we had afterwards to deplore, be-
lls, he grave promise of great talents in political life,
Isti:gh his political views totally. differed from mine—l
1st:" Mr. Praed, who wished to give two Members to the
tostighs in schedule B—men of great science, he thought,
ruen of
e great talent and information would be sent by
%to,email boroughs, though not persons of property in the
1`4.1.1.17; such as those who were likely to be sent to
ist.A'atilent by a division of the country, and not being
)151.-t Possessed of those stirring habits such as thme who
the "I,ely to be sent by great towns. The Right. Hon. Barnet
101)14ernber for Tamworth, made a similar proposition. The
tioite Lord, after quoting a few observations which the Right
slop alla,ronet made in support of these views on the occa-
tilisC„nis proposing a Jury Bill, proceeded by saying—l
Nw. that these arguments were founded on sound and just
to to° Of Policy, but I conceive that, in giving forty Members
thatoedule A, and sixty Members to other small boroughs,
tostoW„e were providing sufficiently for that class of repre-
ss which has in it not only men of commercial and
hos-4,411re knowledge, and men of every kind of informa-
-41;4 out which has in it men who have studied the consti-
tisil.l,,ef the country—men in active and men not in. ac-
tit ts"( 1, whose intelligence fits them to be representatives,
,kajt"u, °se habits do not qualify them for county repro-
% -"kin; or for the representation of such places as
Iktilleoester and Birmingham. If this is the case, and if
shof at all right in that view, it disposes very much of the
tr_tateof the arguments that have been put forth, that a
44:equality exists, that a small place returns as many
on hers as a large place, that there are a thousand voters
Plscileg place, while there are only 300 voters in another
sot t. if I am right in saying that these Members ought
Ilit4sconstitute the main basis of the constitution, that we
id rather have the House of Commons like the country
thst, composed of various professions and various occupa-
~aiif I am right in that, then the whole of the arguments
„Illitestiellbst the present system founded on the disparity of the
'ere of electors fall at once to the ground. The Hon.
Prp 'man does not get rid of disparity; like the rest of his
o
Iro4L,tions he leaves it vague and undefined. Then what
toy, „oe the case if we were to adopt his resolution ? He
tit he will leave the existing boroughs, with the ex-
!ir ssls" of small ones ; he would throw Horsham, with three
ist;ur other towns, into the county of Kent; but would he
kirtre;antela places as Canterbury, Guildford—suck towns as
hois'en and Ipswich, in their present situation? If he did he
thst: not have equality of numbers; and I say, how would
tri's.who ask for reform be a bit better satisfied than they are
iii -sent if they find that still there would be '20,000 electors
o▪ se
'4y, ',Place and only 300 in another? They would then
a
re mocker us have a just and effectual reform instead of a
gosllnt,'"°ckery of reform which you have given us. The
kat; i"rable Gentleman, at the end of his speech, wished for
iliss,"ernent of this question very much in the same lan-
for which 1 have been reproached with having used
kettj'nner occasions. Ido not know how he can have a
Neement of the question, for the advocates of the Charter,
boo e their
more numerous than his adherents, would still'
tterbLueir grounds of complaint. They ask for a vote for
hot Jihniale adult which the Honourable Gentleman does
l'its_'"?; and for equal districts, which he does not pretend
Of ,frablish. I will not argue at any length on the question
*o4iite by ballot, for I believe that under that system there
s, he means of discovering how an elector voted as well
14e hws,',, Among the various meetings lately held, there was
15N in the north, at which a gentleman from America
11th h that he was frequently able in the United States to
ktl;°w an elector voted. Ballot in itself was not security,
tb would be precisely the same in England. Though
ball chamber of Deputies in France were elected by
f'ltcll2t was no security against revolution. With re-
it% I the other proposition, that the duration of Par-
-1101:lent should not exceed three years, if I agreed with the
ktipoeanrable Member for Surrey in thinking that we should
„t4t, ri„lrlore often before our cm:stituencies, I should hold
• isdrBtead of saying with him that it was a matter.
14! i;"erence whether we should have annual or. trien-
Zer tn.iarnents, I should say that annual Parliaments
1111'1,8,-; be Preferred. What you want is not the power of
ilsei4g Members when they ill-behave themseves,.as he
"Terri see
for Burke was rejected at Bristol, not. for
.illsbe-
Lt isi t-4 himself, but for supporting civil and religious liberty.
tia:tts frequent change in representation.that you ought
aaq e,.'n view, but you ought to have in view the mainte.-
ttl?,nst; „°' init. confidence between representatives and their
s,"e iti,-t„hts; and some kind of stability in the policy of
e4tt°,l"trY.—(Cheers.) If you had triennial Perna-
-8,•
,i" it Whole Constitution would be unsettled, you would
fn time enough to the people to consider that they
-tg Sad make the change, while an annual election, either
•titsts-sraber or October, would be a sort of renewal of the
thereiorwehicy they would be ready and willing to make. I
yore think, if we are to have any change, that annual
trilhat triennial
would be better than triennial Parliaments, and
'gear 'fnial Parliaments is the worst proposition of all.—
art ' "ear.) I once gave an opinion in favour of five
skle..; but I am satisfied with the present duration of Par-
4tienuts; and certainly I shall not give my vote for an alte-
n_lose Of the period. I think I see that there is a very
Zed t4rresPondence and communication between Members
inair,constituents—(Laughter)—and evea though Mem-
ad tb 3 expect a tenure of their seats for five years, I do
sloce _at the opinion of the constituencies has a great int'''.
tleouri the conduct of the representatives.—(Hear, hear.)
tletolwoUld beg to put this question which the Hon. Gen-
eStightnhas raised to another test, which Ido not think he
1832. to refuse. The reform in Parliament took place in
thernflas the House of Commons since ,that period shown
Persaus_ives; as is represented by some, to be the mere
!tre La of the aristocracy, or merely bigots who
ilts_ afraid to enter upon any reform, indifferent to
krovement, or careless of the voice of the people? I think
th_yerson who considers the changes made in that time,
t3!_how readily those changes
I.° House when the voice of the peoplehave bwasee n adopted
clearly
as o
ebry.
i`oted, will slay that this House has not responded quickly
pod readily to public opinion
,`,Srliament was not long in • of that kind. The new
urely abolished in the W estistence when slavery was en-
iLv d eat Indies—an immense change:
tit such a change as was hardly ever adopted before by any
bat
in the world.—(Hear hear.) Shortly after
"At the trade with China was thrown open to the
tool
!tierce of the world, from which great commer-
CI; advantages resulted. In a year or two after,
ill _Commutation of tithes
was adopted, a.. measure
bat et
the clergy and the laity were equally interested,
Valet the same time a subject of such difficulty that it
)4-114, the power and intelligence of Mr. Pitt
Plitiht-I,ue took it into consideration. The Dissenters com-f
Utio„s;'‘l Of rievances with respect to the celebdrationo
ftitj'ages and the registration of births
lan deaths.
ta; grievance was completely. and effectually remedied.
tiro, other year or two the municipal corporations were en-
jette'Y reform d Many self-elected corporations wee sub-
(ll3ivtnenPotope ut.lhar elec(tii[linetyeaara,nd an entirely new constitution
hear.) In the course of late
!hit the tlae House has been occupied with measures from
Ore '" great portion of this House dissents, but which
rfir eat changes," and in the
.opinion of the Hon. Member
eijod ',rose great and beneficial reforms.—(Hear, hear.)
duties
d eto the changes made in the tariff, to the number
el
isT which have been abolished, the number of ex-
usaZ"' customs duties which have been reduced, and one
tato
s 3 alteration and change has been made which surely
tte be said to show that this House has been peculiarly
the government of the landed aristocracy—the
41lie "II entire repeal of the corn-laws. That measure
ta3, tgalem en may think an injurious measure; others
"t, it highly for the benefit of the country ;
itc:ll'ider
all events, it shows this, that when there was
cb the aule popular agitation, and public meetings held
enge, country, and when a great cry arose for the
For, voleo House of Commons was not slow in listening to
k....(17_ of the people, and effecting the alteration asked
ell ino,Vtr, hear.) Now, if these are changes which have
sash V,V, and if various other measures have been carried,
te' Oh, the reduction of the postage on letters to a penny.—
atsUghtsrcT, from Colonel Sibthorp, followed by much
to'onot
OJ.LI. Was mentioning that subject. in parenthesis
isntittl eba‘unrs ; but I really think that it was a great
bsPorta, ago—(Cheers)—that it was a measure of great
isr. te ; and when you find that the correspondence
bt°on,,side-treltted to the enormous extent it has done, you may
!,„"tat of many persons were prevented from the
thint. communicating with their friends; and when
occasionedbe interchange of domestic affection which it
11'113 t°llfer you may estimate how great a benefit it
toeressre red on the community.—( Hear, hear.) I think,
toent baS that it cannot be said that the Reformed
(1 amiss
either .been idle or unwilling to listen to great
ki ea Of reform; ble a_gt Bur, and let it be recollected likewise that
ip, 'melee every Member of this House must have a sensi-
Oa beg of this benefit, though so many useful measures
trino carried on account of it,) the debates on every sub-
t!lkfere s_w more protracted than formerly, and that there is
qna grater difficulty in carrying any number of mea-
%Title % Single •
90h,, Intn ession.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Hon.
Sso-suned ; hie asked us to agree to those great measures
vr, the four different points which he has proposed.
"kllstaa ?!'g to atate that Ido not think reforms should
w the eubjecte I hare mentioned, and of a

similar kind. I do not think that we should content our-
selve's with improving the legislation', and altering the Ex-
cise and Customs.—(Cheers.) I think while the Reform Bill
was a settlement of a great question that the Reform Bill
itself may admit from time to time of such improvements or
alterations as experience and knowledge ay suggest.—
( Hear hear.) And at the time when I was most attacked
as speaking of the Reform Bill as a final measure, I spoke
in this manner of the retention of the freemen. I said I
thought it was a misfortune that the freemen were kept in
the Reform Bill, and that if they exercised the franchise
corruptly, one of two courses must be adopted, either to dis-
franchise them altogether, or, what I considered the better
course, to treat the rights of the freemen as other rights had
been treated. In a subsequent passage I said that there
were many detects in the Reform Bill which required to be
corrected, but that such changes differed entirely from a pro-
position to found a new reform Bill, based on triennial Par-
liaments, household suffrage, and vote by ballot. This was
said in my letter to the electors of Stroud, written in 1839.
From the year 1839 to the present time, I do not think the
Hon. Member for Montrose, or any of those who agree with
him, have thought it necessary to bring forward this ques-
tion of the constitution of the House of Commons. Neither
as a Minister officially, nor when sitting on that side
of the House, have I thought it necessary to intro
duce any measures of reform on this particular sub-
ice:. But as the public mind seems now alive to
subjects of this nature, I believe the time will come - per-
haps is not far distant—when reforms of the description I
mentioned might be introduced, which will tend to purify
the representative system. I think the inquiry we intend to
make by the Bill introduced this session with regard to cer-
tain boroughs, some of which have been accused and others
proved to be guilty of corrupt practices, may give us
turther information than we now possess as to the course we
ought to pursue—whether some of those boroughs ought
to be disfranchised, and whether we ought not to take the
same course with regard to others that were taken with re-
spect to the freemen of Great Yarmouth. But I should be
sorry to see one or the other course adopted without other
measures to accompany them. I should be sorry to see this
House much reduced by disfranchising boroughs, or to
disfranchise freemen without at the same time admitting
other kinds of voters to take their place.—(Hear,
hear.) What I have always admitted to be the
defect of the Reform Bill, is not the having of eighty-
five different kinds of votes as stated by the Hon. Gentleman.
What I think the defect of the Reform Bill is, that the great
variety in the right of voting which formerly existed has
been too much reduced to a uniform system.—(Hear, hear.)
I think that by some different varieties of suffrage, by giv-
ing the franchise, for instance, to those who have placed
money in the savings' bank, and thus showed their frugality ;
and to those who have been eleeted by guilds, thus showing
that their fellow-citizens placed confidence in them ; and by
other modes of this kind we might extend the franchise
without injuring the basis of our representation. I am not
disposed to say the Reform Bill is a final measure, and that
you cannot usefully and beneficially alter and improve it.—
(Hear, hear.) But if the Hon. Gentleman or the House ask
me whether I am prepared at the present moment to intro-
duce any Bills for that purpose, I must at once
say that I do not at the present moment intend to intro-
duce any considerable measures of the kind. I might
find reasons enough for that in the variety of measures be-
fore the House, and to which the attention of the House has
been already in a great degree directed. But, Sir, there are
other reasons—reasons which induced the Hon. Gentleman,
the Member for Montrose, to think that this was a good time
for a large measure of reform, but which induced me to come
to a totally different conclusion. It is admitted, and it must
be admitted, that sixteen years ago you,adopted a very large
measure of reform in the representation—a much larger
measure, I believe, than the most sanguine reformers of the
day expected the Ministers of the King to adopt. It must
be admitted that the carrying of the measure of reform—
the removal of Gatton, Old Sarum, and such like places,
from the representation, and the admission to it of such
towns as Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester—
that all has cntributed to give a larger and a
more secure basis to the representation. It cannot be
denied either that the House of Commons thus reformed has
carried large measures of improvement—vast in their
changes—tending to the increase of popular power and
popular advantage, and showing that the House is ready to
act according to the enlightened opinions of the people.
The Hon. Member says our votes this year have been extra-
vagant, and that we have been acting against the opinions
of the people in the :great establishments we have kept up.
There are some questions of the present session on which I
have desired the division lists of the 'House to be examined,
so that comparisons might be made 'between the constituen-
cies represented by Members dividing in the majority and
the counties represented by Members dividing in the
minority. On the first of these divisions, that limiting
the duration of the income-tax, the Members who
voted in the majority represented 668,038 ; whilst
those who voted in the minority represented only
346,689 electors. In the division of the 20th of March, on a
motion of Mr. llume's for reducing the number of men in
our navy, there voted in the majority the representatives of
716,278 electors, and in the minority the representatives of
only 171,317. On a similar motion for reducing the num-
ber of men in the army, there voted in the majority 600,753
electors, and in the minority 165,255.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
after these divisions on great public questions, I think it
cannot be said that the small boroughs have overpowered
the votes of the people upon matter relating to finance.
The votes of the House on these occasions have fairly repre-
sented the opinions of the people. That there has been of
late years a tendency to augment our establishments on
the part of this House, the Government, and the country,
I believe to be true. There are times when it is
thought well that we should render our establishments
as perfect and efficient as possible; and then when in,
accordance with that wish, large sums have been expended,
it often happens that the tide changes, and that a great wish
is expressed that no more money should be spent than is
absolutely necessary. In times of distress, when trade may
happen to be crippled from any cause, such a course may be
desirable to adopt, and I am sure that at such a period the
House and the Government never fail to feel and act upon
that principle. As I said before, there can be no ground for
saying at present, that with regard to expenditure the House
does not represent the opinions of the nation.—(Hear.) My
belief is that it does, and that it represents it fairly. Well,
then, Sir, if you find that a great measure of reform was
carried sixteen years ago, that great measures of reform have
been carried by the Parliament so improved—if you find also
that on questions which do arise or which are likely to arise,
this House represents the opinions of the people, and not any
selfish motive or class interest—then, I say, this is not the
time when a cry and a clamour for more reform ought to
be excited. The cry for change at present raised is ac-
companied by so many suggestions and proposals that are
wild and visionary—such, for example, as those contained in
the petition presented to-night by the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Bath—(Hear, hear)—views of capital, labour, and
property of the most erroneous kind, are so generally afloat,
that there is, I think, good reason in that for not making,
at this time, any great or sweeping alterations. And here
let me say that I deny the charge—the popular and common
charge—that the government of this country is carried on
for the benefit of its aristocracy: I believe sincerely that
the government is carried on for the benefit of the people at
large, and for the sake of no class interest ; but if it be
meant to be said that because people belong to the aristo-
cracy they are to be debarred from taking their part in public
affairs, why I object entirely to such narrow views.—(Hear,
hear.) I, for my part, will never allow that because a man
happens to be called Stanley or Howard he is to be prevented
from enjoying public distinction, as if because he had not a
name less noble or less illustrious. But, Sir, there are other
reasons—reasons of which the Members of this House can-
not but be sensible—reasons which I find in the records of
events which have been and are every day happening around
us. I say that at such a time the advantages which you have
had in your free constitution have been to you of inestimable
benefit.—(Loud cheers.) The stability of that constitution
which you have shown amidst all storms, and the mode in
which the institutions of this country have braved all hos-
tile attacks, have excited the admiration, not only of those
who are attached to this country, but even of those who
have no connexion with it, but who at the same time de
light to see order and social peace maintained; while it has
brought to you the respect of t hose even most hosattile to
your name and progress.—(Hear, hear.) I hope th this
House will do nothing to lose that admiration or forfeit that
respect. You have stood,
" Like a great seamark, braving every storm,
And saving all who eye it !"
—(Cheers.) I trust you will maintain that position—that
you will not choose at this time to accede to any vague and
indefinite proposal of some measure of reform, which, while
it apparently stops short of adopting the People's Charter,
cannot actually stop short of ultimately enacting that great
changer-(Hear, hear)—that you will rather think that it is
due to the institutions which you have the happiness to in-
herit, that it is due to the other advantages you enjoy, that
it is due, above all, to that great people whom it is your
honour to represent, to give a steadfast and most determined
negative tc the present motion.—(Cheers.)
Mr. W. J. FOX could not but observe that the objections
which the Noble Lord had urged against the motion of the
Hon. Member for Montrose referred rather to the details of
the measure which that motion indicated than to the princi-
ple upon which it was founded. But those details were not
now fairly before the House; and it was with a view to fix
the attention of the House, if he could, to the great princi-
ple at stake in this matter that he now ventured to offer a
few observations to the House. He thought the Noble Lord
must have been pleased with the fair opportunity that had
been afforded him of correcting any mistake in reference to
his expressions on a former occasion. At the same time he
considered the Noble Lcrd to have been rather too severe on
those by whom he thought those expressions were per-
verted. His (Mr. Fox's) own impression was that the
Noble Lord meant to draw a distinction between fiscal
reform and organic reform ; that he was willing to
see the former gradually progressing, but that he
would resist the advance of the other in any
way whatever. It must have been gratifying to the Noble
Lord to have the opportunity of telling the country that he
was not opposed to further reform in the representative sys-
tem ; but it would have been still more gratifying to the
country if the Noble Lord had more distinctly hinted what
the reforms were to be; what was the principle by which
those reforms were to be guided ; what would be their ex-
tent, and what their results. He confessed that from what
the Noble Lord had said there was very little to guide them
in their anticipations, and that little was of the most indefi-
nite description. It merely amounted to this—that he would
take the opportunity, from time to time, to disfranchise a
man who should be guilty of bribery, or to admit a man to
the franchise who should have acquitted himself well by
making an accumulation in a savings'-bank.—(Hear, hear.)
The broad question, of whether the industrial masses of this
country were or were not fairly represented in that House
Nor
Wed
st Surrey orlby touche
the Nobleeittrd byw hthoefolliloowne. dMheimmb.erNfoo
ha been scarcey d eor,
them by a brief remark as to the dif-
taken place to
could he think dismiss r reference to the meetings which ha. d
harter and those who supported
advocated the People's C ferences of opinion that existed at them between those who
household suffrage. questiony, • • b -
differences existing be
-
Lord should have shown, not the
To meet the fairly, the Noble
art who were adverse to any
were both opposed by a third p y
tween these two views among the people, but how far they
reform at all.—(Hear, hear.)
neat f going beyond that
difference between parties who
To show that there existed a
unless it could
struck not at all at the matter,
limit availed but little. To int to that discrepancy
agreed that some
considerable reform was indispensable. Those meetings,
be shown that they were not agr
whether in favour of universal suffrage or of household
ld
suffrage, proved that the great mass of the pep
considered that one or the other was necessary ; and they
demonstrated that the people at large concurred in their
main purpose much more closely than they were separated
by their diversity of opinion. The real question was not
what fiscal reforms had been or were to be
proposed. He
meant not to enter upon any censure of the proceedings of
the House of Commons, for he thought this fallacy ran
through the Noble Lord's reasoning, not only on this occa-
sion, but on many other occasions, that in a representativegovernment, they had only to regard what might be called
the extrinsic agency, and sot the power by which it
gas
w
foonrlmyetdo
govern
dern
the country, b
fashioned. The representative
it had htodo
it
in nol3
agency bad not
with the feelings of the pair It was a government of
opinion,--(Hear, hear.) 111 the hleatberi a tust