The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 221 1842.

to accuse any Honourable Member of corruption. He was
sure he could not do so upon Gentlemen opposite ; but those
Hon. Gentlemen must allow that many persons, who supported
the Reform not consider that they were supporting
the doctrine of finality. The situation which he nad the
honour of filling at the time of the Reform Bill, prevented
him from having much to do with the discussion upon it, but
he was free to confess that he never thought that measure was a
final measure. How was it possible that in a country, like Great
Britain, the law could always remain in the same state? He
believed that the constituencies had never wallowed in so
much political mire and degrading dirt as they had done since
the passing of that Bill.—( Cheers.) When the balance of
party was so small, great temptation was held out
to persons to resort to means unworthy of any party.
But he must say that he did net think
the people of the country were alive to their situation. He
did not think that generally they were aware of the import-
ance of their political rights. He was afraid that education
had not spread sufficiently amongst the people. With respect
to the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, he was not
to withhold his support from this motion because he (Mr.
Bernal) could not go the length of the Charter. He was not
prepared to assent to the principle of annual Parliaments. He
was not prepared to give the franchise to all adult males in the
kingilimi, but he was oat prepared to say that the present
system of representation was a good one. or that it was a
_Macadamized road of legislation than which nothing could be
better. The Right Hon. Baronet had talked of an extension
of the suffrage endangering the monarchy, but the Right
Honourable Gentleman must remember that there was
an aristocracy in St. Giles's as well as in St. James's.
Although he should support the Hon Me mber for Rochdale,
still he did not go for the Charter. But they could not shut
their eyes to the scenes which occurred at elections, and the
question was, How were these things to be avoided ? He was
not prepared to suppart an evil because it had existed for
thirty }'ears; and althoughy Reform Bill had been passed, he
al, no reason y
should not go a step further. The
s,lhthey the
Right Hon. Gentleman said that they were nut to decide the
representation numerically, but by property. Although he
(Mr. Bernal) was not prepared to controvert this position,
Net he did not see why the two should be blended. The nume-
rical power must force itself on the attention of Parliament.
Now, he would ask, whether it was not better to grant what
was asked, than to have it forced from them ? In,
speaking on this motion, he wished to guard himself
against misrepresentation. He was neither a leveller, nor he
hoped an inconsiderate Reformer. He had considered the
subject seriously, and although he could not wholly agree with
the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, yet he thought
it was better to remain in his place in the House, and state his
sentiments.—( Cheers. )
Sir JOHN EASTHOPE, who was for a considerable time
voice in which he addressed
anxious to say a few words on
tinheauirlliobule se thening t o
saidthe
he low
w toneas
this subject. He did not agree with the principles of the
Charter, as it was called—he was quite prepared to agree
in the principle of no other qualification being requisite than
being elected by the constituent body. He supported universal
suffrage, but with respect to paying Members, he thought it
would be a long time before they saw that.—(Laughter.)
With respect to a division of electoral bodies into districts,
he should vote for a Committee -of Inquiry. He
must oppose the motion in the terms in which it was
brought forward. He had not the slightest notion of conform-
ing to all the propositions that the motion contained. To
some of them he assented, and when they were brought forward
in a practical manner, as they would be in the motion that
would soon be made by his Hon. Friend the Member for Shef-
field, he would give them his support.
Sir C. NAPIER would not vote for complete suffrage or
for annual Parliaments, though some of his constituents had
commanded him to do so —( Hear) —yet he would vote
for going into Committee on the motion. But he would vote
for the no property qualification. As for paying Members of
Parliament, if Isis constituents would give him a house in
Portman-square, and a couple of clerks to take care of his
papers, he should have the utmost pleasure in accepting these
favours.— (Laughter.) But he did not see why the community
at large should be called on to do for a Member that which his
own consituency would not do, and, therefore, he would oppose
that as a general proposition. The recent cases that had been
laid before the Howe proved the necessity of some reform in
constituencies. He earnestly hoped that the recommendation
for the disiranchisement of the borough of Sudbury would he
carried into practice, and by way of making the example more
impressive, be hoped that those who gave bribes would be pu-
nished as well as those who took them.—( Hear. )
Mr. VILLIERS supported the motion for inquiry. There
was nothing that was pointed to as a reason for the Reform
Bill that his Hon. Friend could not now point to as a reason for
the reform of the franchise, and he hoped, therefore, the motion
would be agreed to. They had ten years' experience of the
bad working of the Reform 131,1. Every instance of bribery,
corruption, and intimidation proved this. His Hon. Friend
did not ask tor annual Parliaments, or for complete suffrage ;
all he asked for was inquiry, arid no one could vote against it
unless he was determinel not to extend power to
the people. Ile could not at all agree with the
reasons of his Ilonourable Friend the Member for
Leicester for opposing the motion ; and he thought that the
Hon. Member for Rochdale had made out a strong case for the
proposition he had addressed to them ; therefore he (Mr. V.)
would vote for the motion, and he hoped it would meet with
general support, as in agreeing to it no lion. Member would
commit himself to any of the principles it advocated.—( Hear. )
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Gentleman, the leader of the
night, had stated, and no doubt truly, that petitions from a very
large and important body of the community, couched
in moderate and respectful language, on the subject now
before them, had been presented to the House ; and he'( Sir R.
Peel) should be most unwilling. however he differed
from their prayer, to say anything, in the course
which he should take that night, that could apppear like disre-
spectfulness or indifference to their feellngs.—( Hear, hear. )
He also must say that, having watched the political conduct
of the lion. Gentleman himself, he had always given him
credit for integrity and purity of motives. He (Sir R. Peel)
should for that reason, and also because the Hon. Gentleman
had that night addressed the House in moderate and
temperate language, be sorry to treat with disrespect
any motion made individually by him, and therefore
he (Sir Robert Peel) should proceed, rather than
content himself with a silent vote, to state very shortly
the grounds on which he would give his most decided opposition
to the Hon. Member's views; and if he avoided stating his
reasons at length, it was because he bore in mind the warning
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that the House would have
to discuss this subject once a month for several years to come.
—(Cheers and laughter.) The motion was a peculiar one.
It embraced several propositions, and then invited the House
to go into a Committee to consider them. The Hon Gentle-
man who spoke last was very anxious that whatever they might
do, they should at all events consider all the points of the mo-
tion ; but he (Sir R. Peel) apprehended that what the Hon.
Member for itochdale wished was, a Committee to consider
those questions for the purpose of bringing in a Bill with re-
ference to them, and not a Committee for taking evidence, and
merely considering those matters. If that were the bject
of the Honourable Member for Rochdale, he (Sir R. Peel),
considering that the House had already on their hands the
Income-tax and the tariff, must regard this additional prospect
of another Committee of the whole House, tot Ike evidence at
the bar, as another most cogent reason for giving his most de-
cided opposition to the motion.—( Hear and laughter.) He
could not, of course, account for the absence of the Noble
Lord (Russell)—(Laughter)—but he (Sir R. Peel) recollected
at this peculiar moment a prophecy he made some ten years
since, that he apprehended the day would arrive when the most
determined enemies of the Reform Bill would be found amongst
those Radicals who then supported it, and that his vote would,
at no distant day, be required todefend the Reform Bill against
its former supporters.--(Cheers and laughter.) And with re-
spect to the Reform Bill, he would here quote and defend one
of the wisest observations of the Noble Lord, that this country
could not afford to have a revolution once a year, to
make those enormous changes that were demanded in
the representative system, and that, therefore, he was
determined to resist these further efforts at Reform.
—( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) The ground on which
he (Sir R. Peel) now resisted the present motion was the same
ground on which he made his prophecy ten years ago, when he
refused to comply with the wishes of the people. When the
cry was, in 1830, that the Reform Bill gave universal satisfac-
tion to the country—when it was demanded that the Bill
should pass unaltered—that the people must have the Bill, the
whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—(Laughter)—when it
was boasted of as the second great charter of the people, and as-
serted that from that time forth corruption would cease, that
the working classes would be represented by Members who
would give them perfect satisfaction, and that they would have
good Governments, arid consequently that they would have no
need even to wish for further 'reforms—when all this was said, he
ventured on a prediction, and what the House had that night
heard gave evidence to show that his prophecy was right.
He believed, however, that the Reform Bill was not justly
chargeable wills the grievous defects now complained of ; but
of this he was certain—and the fulfilment of one prophecy
justified him he thought in venturing upon a second—of this
he was certain, that if the majority of those who supported the
measures now proposed had their own will granted to them, that
ten years hence they would find in them as many faults and
disappointments as they now complained of in the Reform Bill.
—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He thought it quite clear that
the majority of those Hon. Members who would vote for the
Hon. Member for Rochdale' were adverse to half of his pro-
positions.—( Laughter and cheers.) It was clear that if the
majority opposite could prevail, we should have this result—
an extension of the suffrage and triennial Parliaments, a rejec-
tion of the proposal to pay the representatives of the people,
and vote by ballot.—( Hear, hear.) Now, first, as to the ex-
tension of the suffrage, observe the great limitations several of
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite would place on the principle.
The Hon. Member for Sheffield declared himself an advocate
for an extension of the suffrage, but then he would connect it
with property. Why, then he would maintain what he so
often complained of in this eountry—a master-class and a
slave-class ; the latter consisting of those who were taxed; but
not represented. The Hon. Gentleman said that every man
who was subject to direct or indirect taxation, and who had
not a right to vote for the election of Members of
Parliament, was in the condition of a slave ; and
that, if you attempted to take his property without
his consent, was guilty of spoliation and robbery.
Yet the limitation he proposed to the franchise was directly at
variance with this great principle. But this only proved that
lie (Sir R. Peel) was right in his second prediction, that the
a..esdTtthollaeht representation ought
party' opposite would not, even if they had the power, make re-
presentationnv have only
the assertiongu ara guarantee ehad
f
athoela' be sidnccdo u-pelreqinugia. for
rtoNh-v iee
nightttshu co-equal
ai
rwianiwtttihoeh neitca,ahnxcasete:eom''n. whether direct or indirect. But
their own principle would first of all operate against the fair
sex—they were to be excluded altogether from the franchise.—
(Hear.) This was the first check to their great principle, that
according to the law of Providence and the law of nature, no
person who was unrepresented ought to be taxed.—(Laughter
and cheers.) Females were allowed to exercise the right of
voting at the India House and other places, hut the principle
of the Hoc. Gentlemen opposite would exclude them at once
trom the franchise. But, according to their principle, every
man of 18 years of age, being then liable to serve in the
militia and to bear the burdens of the State, should, no matter
what his education, be entitled to vote at the election of
Members of Parliament. It must be so, if they argued accord-
ing to the law of nature an r the law of Providence.—(Laugh-
ter and cheers.) Therefore, every man of the age of eighteen,
subject to taxation, direct or indirect, no matter what his edu-
cation, or whether he was a beggar or not.—( Laughter, cheers,
and "No, no")—he begged pardon, bat he was right, for,was not
a beggar subject to indirect taxation ?—( Chaers)—and, there-
to e, according to the law of nature and the law of Providence,
he was entitled to vote, and, according to Lord Camden, it was
a spoliation and a robbery to take a man's property without his
consent. —( Laughter and cheers.) But then, if this, the
tefun-
damental principle of the Hon Gentlemen opposite were true,
why should we have representatives at all?--why should we
have delegates at all ?—why should you take money from a man
who was What was this, but
sayingin but 1 give you re-
presentatives , and though a man was represented, you would
give him reason to say-1
protest against this, yet, in spite of
s practice,in
mi
_II I°t disregard Y— (L
yaouugrh oprin.)ions,
Camden and truth, and in spite of the law of Providence and
the law of nature, you make me pay.—(Laughter and cheers.)
Now, still under the proposed law, there would be
a slave-class. What confidence then, what hope had
they, that their new law would last longer than two or
three years? Were they not reducing to slavery, according to
their own principle. all whom they excluded ?—(Hear, hear. )
He was glad to see that he was convincing Hon. Gentlemen
opposite.—(Laughter and cheers.) The Hon. Member for
Sheffield was already clearly ashamed of his own Bill.—
(Laughter.) New, take the t,uestion of triennial Parliaments.