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

:similar kind. I do not think that we should content our-
selves 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 may 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 defects 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
lion. Member for Montrose, or any of t hose 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-
ject. 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
further 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 ithe 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-
live 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 Miuisters 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 contributed 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
ehanges—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. Hume'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 them.
time when a cry and a clamour for more reform ought te
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-eight by the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber tbr Bath—(Hear, hear)—views of capital, labour, and
property of the most erroneous kind, are so generally loat,
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 chiss 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 brayed 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 those even most.hostile to
your name and progress.—(Hear, hear.) I hope that 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
change—( 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 to the present motion.—(Cheers.)
Mr. W. J. FOX could not but observe that the objections
which the Noble Lord 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
seer ethoseformt
hb
ey and whom
former
org a
organic
he
e gradually thoutasrrhtted uefvorhng lit
iran evyetfeeo;
or
reform those
erottoeifehrlngprogressing,
al
itentts hgshhieente expressions were per-
verted. His (Mr. Fox's) own impression was that the
Noble Lord meant to draw a distinction between fiscal
representativehg gratifyinge, w
other
taobhsu uetatrotwr
tyi
htil
nhl
e:ahtga
Nobleta
nhht
yoee
wasLww
Lord
ao
ryudl
not
ot
whatever.bor ape vspi
eos
opposed
the ttlhoto epfmup
further
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.)
'[lie broad question, of whether the industrial masses of this
country were or were not fairly represented in that House
had been scarcely touched either by the Hon. Member for
West Surrey or by the Noble Lord who followed him. Nor
could he think it a fair reference to the meetings which had
taken place to dismiss them by a brief remark as to the dif-
ferences of opinion that existed at them between those who
I advocated the People's Charter and those who supported
household suffrage. To meet the question fairly, the Noble
Lord should have shown, not the differences existing be-
tween these two views among the people, but how far they
reforml4-ere both t
eab);,ahtehairr.d) paTrotyshwohwo
twheartethaedrveeresxe
itsoteadnya
all
difference
availedb et w
bute en partieshttle. whoTo
pointwere for
to g ot ihnag bey
t di
seornedp
at
nheayt
li
shterucskhownnot
thatat all
heat
"tore nnioattter,agreuendlessthaitt could
be shown that they were not agreed that some
considerable
whether
in
favour orn nss:ffblrea.ge
oThosef hmeetings,
suffrage, proved that the great mass
necessary; and
eandpetohpelye
considered that one oowrfatsuhneiinvodetrihrearel was
demonstrated that the people at large concurred in their
main purpose much more closely than they were separatec,
by their diversity of opinion. The real question was not
whatmean meant not
to fiscal reforms p
uhaodnany en
been or were to be proposed. 'He
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 representative
gthoeveerxnpriennsite
theyonly t
regard
had to what might be called
only to govern the agency,and
pno o bpu the power by which it was
et s
hle
formed and fashioned. The
country, representative agency had not
a government of
opiaipn.—(Hear, hear.) If 41 the Dietuber3 of that
tnadw to
as
with the feelings ofdo it in conformity
the.