Page images
PDF
EPUB

England.]

66

to the ballot-he said he should
not do more. There was no possi-
bility of the measure being carried
this session; and he would reserve
to himself a perfect freedom as to
any and every specific measure.

Mr Roebuck, agreeing so far
with Sir W. P. Wood, confessed
that he relied on no abstract right

he thought that there was no abstract right in question; but he asked the franchise for the instructed artizan living in a lodging, first, because he was a man who by honest industry gained his subsistence; next, because he was instructed; and, thirdly, he was a moral man; and upon these three qualities-independence derived from obtaining his subsistence by his own individual exertions, intellect sufficient to guide him in the judgment he ought to form upon the government of the country, and that morality which ought to pertain to the constituency-he was to be placed upon a line with any other class in this community, and worthy to be a constituent.

Sir Page Wood, like Mr. Hume, opened with a reference to Lord Derby's attack on democracy; but his reference to it was not made so much to disclaim the epithet of demagogue," as to present a contrast between the principles of democracy and those of absolutism. Putting out of his view the many "military occupations" now seen in Europe, he divided the governments into those high monarchical ones in which the sovereign is a paternal despot and the people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them, and those few governments in which, with an hereditary soveeign and an upper chamber of gislation, the people are generally vited to look after their own inrests, and govern themselves. ese latter are the nations goned by the "Democratic princie;" they are governed by the prinole of enlightened confidence: e others are governed on the prinle of fear. He described the atbutes of the British Constitution, showed that its principle is one Mr. Disraeli, after making some fe and progression. He in- sarcastic observations on the gened one nation in Europe- ral character of the debate, entered -which ranks by our into a review of the four propore a Representative Con- sitions involved in Mr. Hume's safely maintained. This motion seriatim. On the first d chiefly to two causes point, he assumed that Mr. Hume's the Belgian people objections to the present system period been trained were principally directed against se of freedom by the unfair predominancy of repreutions; and, se- sentation which the territorial iney were a nation terests obtain, compared with the religious faith. municipal interests. This he desame circum- nied; and he supported his dea great se- nial by a contrast of the popuin any re- lation and Members of Parliament franchise. belonging to the rural districts proval of in the manufacturing and agriculHume's tural regions of England with proval the population and Members of rring Parliament belonging to the great

[graphic]

the Peers and the Crown, and amenable at short intervals to the judgment of their constituents, would be a safeguard against, and not a step towards, the disturbances then already arisen in France.

Sir Joshua Walmsley seconded the motion, and supported it by a speech, in which he descanted on the unreasonable and inequitable distribution of the Parliamentary representation, and the impolitic restriction of the suffrage. He showed in detail, that the distribution of Members is neither in proportion to the population nor to the wealth of the districts and populations nominally represented, and that the number of votes is scarcely greater than the proportion of one in seven of the whole adult population. Then referring to our advance during the last twenty years, in commerce, wealth, knowledge, arts, and civilization-in all that distinguishes a civilized, industrious, and grow ing people he put in broad contrast to this the fact that there had been during that time no advance or improvement in our representation or rights of self-government. He besought the House to ponder, in this time of tranquillity, on the folly of treating with contumely the reasonable demands of millions of irritated subjects.

Mr. Henry Drummond addressed himself to the subject in a speech of some quaintness and originality, appealing to first principles as the test of institutions. Objecting to the Reform Act of 1832, that it had no principleit chose 107., and now they proposed 51., though there was no more principle in connecting the right with 51. than with 47. 19s. 6d. -he for himself propounded the rule, that the elective franchise

should be coextensive with direct service to the State; giving the poor man who has nothing in his pocket to tempt the tax-collector, but who has rendered his own personal service as soldier or militiaman, the right, after his discharge, to vote. The ballot he thought a matter to be left to the electors themselves. The varieties in our representation he defended; and the property qualification he specifically upheld, not on the ground often taken, that it is evadedthat was a bad ground, which went towards impairing the obligation of an oath and the conscientious duty of jurors and others-but on a sort of anti-communistic principle, which he thus illustrated: Whereever there are two animals, and one has got something to eat and the other has not, unless the one that has the something to eat were stronger than the other, there will inevitably be a battle between them. So, if there are two men alongside each other, one rich and the other poor, and the rich man has not something or other wherewith to defend his riches, there will be a free trade between them pretty quickly. Property and power must be considered together; for the power of civilized society is alone constituted to preserve acquired property.

If he were to take up Parliamentary Reform, Mr. Drummond said, he should turn his attention to the House of Lords. That he considered the weakest part of the Constitution, which needed to be strengthened. He suggested two measures for this purpose-the abolition of the vote by proxy, and the bestowal of life peerages upon men who had done distinguished service, but had not fortune enough to support an hereditary title.

Sir Page Wood, like Mr. Hume, opened with a reference to Lord Derby's attack on democracy; but his reference to it was not made so much to disclaim the epithet of "demagogue," as to present a contrast between the principles of democracy and those of absolutism. Putting out of his view the many "military occupations" now seen in Europe, he divided the governments into those high monarchical ones in which the sovereign is a paternal despot and the people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them, and those few governments in which, with an hereditary sovereign and an upper chamber of legislation, the people are generally invited to look after their own interests, and govern themselves. These latter are the nations governed by the "Democratic principle;" they are governed by the principle of enlightened confidence: the others are governed on the principle of fear. He described the attributes of the British Constitution, and showed that its principle is one of life and progression. He instanced one nation in EuropeBelgium - which ranks by our side, where a Representative Constitution is safely maintained. This he attributed chiefly to two causes -first, that the Belgian people had for a long period been trained for the exercise of freedom by municipal institutions; and, secondly, because they were a nation deeply imbued with religious faith. He believed that the same circumstances would afford a great security to this country in any reform or extension of the franchise. Having expressed his approval of the general bearing of Mr. Hume's motion, and his specific approval of one portion of it-that referring

to the ballot-he said he should not do more. There was no possibility of the measure being carried this session; and he would reserve to himself a perfect freedom as to any and every specific measure.

Mr Roebuck, agreeing so far with Sir W. P. Wood, confessed that he relied on no abstract right

he thought that there was no abstract right in question; but he asked the franchise for the instructed artizan living in a lodging, first, because he was a man who by honest industry gained his subsistence; next, because he was instructed; and, thirdly, he was a moral man; and upon these three qualities-independence derived from obtaining his subsistence by his own individual exertions, intellect sufficient to guide him in the judgment he ought to form upon the government of the country, and that morality which ought to pertain to the constituency-he was to be placed upon a line with any other class in this community, and worthy to be a constituent.

Mr. Disraeli, after making some sarcastic observations on the general character of the debate, entered into a review of the four propositions involved in Mr. Hume's motion seriatim. On the first point, he assumed that Mr. Hume's objections to the present system were principally directed against the unfair predominancy of representation which the territorial interests obtain, compared with the municipal interests. This he denied; and he supported his denial by a contrast of the popu lation and Members of Parliament belonging to the rural districts in the manufacturing and agricultural regions of England with the population and Members of Parliament belonging to the great

towns in the same regions, showing that the towns absorbed the greatest portion of the representation of those regions. In North Cheshire, the population of the two great towns, Macclesfield and Stockport, amounting to only 92,000, had four Members; the rest of the population, 249,000, had but two Members. In South Cheshire, the town, Chester, had two Members for its 28,000; the rest of the county no more for their 178,000. In South Derbyshire, the capital town again takes two Members for its 41,000, and the county gets but two Members for its 125,000. And so on, through South Durham, West Kent, North Lancashire, South Lancashire, and the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire. The last instance he described as the most glaring of all. "If I were to seek an instance in which to show that the distribution of the representation was not arranged with a desire to promote or to maintain the preponderance of the landed interest, I would seek it in that celebrated West Riding. We have there nine considerable towns, all of them important and distinguished for their industry and manufactures. Among them there are Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield, and Wakefield. The urban population of the West Riding is 500,000, and the rural population is 800,000; and yet the town population is represented by sixteen Members, though it is only 500,000, and the rural population, which is 800,000, is represented not by sixteen, but by two Members. This, then, is a summary of the great scenes of our modern industry. In North Lancashire, every 70,000 of the urban population have a representative, while for the rural popu

lation there is one representative for every 257,000. In West Yorkshire, there is a representative for every 32,000 in the towns, while in the agricultural districts every 400,000 of the population have a similar advantage." Lest he should be accused of selecting instances, he gave the result of a summary of the population of 107 large towns, having a population of about 6,500,000, and represented by 187 Members, in contrast with the remaining population of the United Kingdom and their representatives: this result was, that the population of these boroughs had one Member to every 35.000, while the rural population of the United Kingdom had one Member to 36,000. So that, on a "complete and comprehensive view," the town population was better represented than the rural population. Resting on the success of this demonstration, Mr. Disraeli declared all the statistics of Mr. Hume and his school to be founded on partial instances and fantastic combinations, conveying inaccurate impres sions, and not justifying the policy they were brought to support.

Mr. Disraeli next proceeded to the subject of the ballot, founding his objections to that method of voting chiefly on representations of its total failure in the United States, which he supported on the authority of an American correspondent, formerly a Member of the House of Commons. The hon. Member followed up his quotations by this expression of his own opinion—"Î believe it to be a growing sentiment in the convictions of Englishmen, that corruption is the consequence of men not being properly brought up. up. You may pass laws, ostensibly to prevent corruption, in coun

[ocr errors]

tries where nothing is secret, or in countries where nothing is open; but corruption cannot be stopped by law; it can only be stopped by elevating the tone of the community, and making men ashamed of the thing itself." With reference to the suffrage, Mr. Disraeli expressed himself in more guarded terms; for himself and his colleagues, he declared that they did not consider an extension of the franchise to be synonymous with the extension of the democratic power. "I repudiate the assertion that we are a party opposed to all reform unless we listen to propositions of the kind now before us." But he and his party would now stand by the settlement made in 1831, as one which, though not made by them, nor favourable to them, had yet, now, under remedial influences, proved capable of giving good government and freedom to the people.

Lord John Russell, in a speech of some length, went over the ground usually traversed on these occasions; dwelling on the merits of the existing system, but admitting the possibility of improving it. With regard to one point-the ballot: he admitted the present popularity of the proposition; but he said he thought its admirers had not considered all its consequences: for instance, the labouring classes now influence votes, but if voting were secret they would no longer know whether they did so or not, and that might create discontent. He took up a phrase Mr. Disraeli had used-that he would not sanction a new advance till a "clear necessity" for it arose; and, reading that as equivalent to the rejection of all change till there was clear discontent," he said such a princi

ple implied that the House should never move onwards, but on the impetus of agitation and dangerous crises.

The debate closed with a reply from Mr. Hume, in which he said, with reference to the statistics used by Mr. Disraeli, that they were either altogether incorrect or were directed against assertions which he, Mr. Hume, had never made. On a division, the numbers were, for the motion 89; against it 244: majority against the motion 155.

On the 27th April, Mr. Locke King renewed the motion which he had proposed in former sessions, to assimilate the county franchise to the borough franchise. The hon. Member's speech on this occasion was brief. He chiefly confined himself to some quotations from the writings of two distinguished men, John Locke of the past and M. Guizot of the present age, and referred particularly to the opinions and arguments put forward by Mr. Disraeli in the debate on Mr. Hume's motion respecting the franchise, especially his observation that he did not consider an extension of the suf frage to be synonymous with an increase of democratic power.

Mr. Campbell opposed the motion, on the grounds heretofore urged against it by Lord John Russell, and because in his opinion, it would open fresh sources of corruption at elections. So important an alteration of the Act of 1832 should be preceded, in his opinion, by deliberate inquiry.

Mr. Hume supported the motion, and urged the Government to emerge from the veil of secrecy, and say plainly aye or no on the question whether the suffrage should be extended.

Lord J. Manners, on the part

« PreviousContinue »