Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

suppose that the Unions would be satisfied? they must not only "run for it," but" cut and the Bristol Union? the Unions of Manchester run for it." (Repeated cheers and laughter.) or other places? Were there not in those Undoubtedly, Ministers had been very expeplaces thousands of artisans occupying houses ditious, and everything showed that they' below the value of 10., and would they be relied more upon their heels than upon their satisfied with a new constitution which set heads. (Laughter.) In order to satisfy people over their heads men who possessed no advan-out of doors, they had brought forward this tage in character, education, wealth, employ- Reform in a manner so absurdly defective, ment-in short, in nothing but paying a pound that it was an insult to those to whom it was or two per annum more for their houses? The addressed. (Hear.) The hon. Member for fact of living in one street rather than another, Calne had reprobated those who travelled for would confer the right of voting, than which a their historical illustrations to Florence or more senseless proposition, a more insulting Venice, and as he (Sir C. W.) entirely agreed a more irrational enactment, was never sought with him, he would not go beyond the four to be imposed upon an intelligent and hitherto seas that circled in our island. As the Radicals free community. Then let the House look to of the reign of Charles I. had overturned the the mode in which the 107. value was to be Government then, so the Radicals of the reign ascertained. Were the builders, carpenters, of William IV. would overturn the Goveruand joiners, who were to value those houses, to ment now. The hon. Member for Calne had be appointed by the Lord Chancellor? Was it warned the House not to resist excitement, necessary that his scanty patrouage should be and had referred to the fatal consequences of increased with not only the appointing of the resisting excitement, before the civil wars in new Judges in Bankruptcy-not only the 1642; but did he mean to suggest for a moCommissioners and Barristers, but was he ment that there was any analogy between the likewise to appoint all the valuators of the 101. circumstances of the present times and the franchise? Some of the alteratious in the bill reign of Charles I.? Hau the illustrious House now before the House gave him satisfaction; of Brunswick excited the animosity of the but the 101. clause remained, in his mind, people like the unfortunate House of Stuart? about as objectionable as ever. To the two Had the subjects of William IV. to complain measures that of the last session, and that of of the tyranny of the Star Chamber, or of the the present-he might apply a passage in odious tax of ship-money? (Hear.) If it were Virgil [lege Ovid], which, indeed, was so hack- thought fit to resort to history, surely it would neyed, that nothing but its exact application be folly to turn from the lessons of prudence it could warrant the use of it :afforded. To the quotations of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Croker), he would add one more, not indeed from a historian, but from a poet, who dealt quite as much in practical wisdom and solid sense as any of the most applauded He begged also to call the attention of the retailers of by-gone events. His right hon. House to a matter of dates. The instructions Friend had drawn a parallel between the reigns to the state engineer-to the man of science, of Charles I. and William IV., but he might who was employed to construct a new consti- have rendered the picture and its pendant more tution, or entirely to remodel the old one-complete, if he had adverted to the manner in were dated the 24th of November, 1831, only ten days before the meeting of Parliament; so that no longer period was allowed for the formation of the bill. Instead of postponing the meeting of Parliament until January, the two Houses were required to meet on the 6th of December, and within a very few days afterwards was produced that great effort of skill and genius, the new and equally efficient measure of Reform, accompanied by a fasciculus of documents, extending from No. 1 to No. 5; but in which Nos. 3 and 4 were even yet wanting. Many had been astonished at the precipitation of the Ministers; and the

facies non omnibus una

Nec diversa tamen : qualem decet esse soro

rum."

which, at both periods, the Bishops had been
reviled. They were then, as now, called ma-
lignants, and Butler registered the sort of
treatment they received, even from the lowest
grades of society, when he said, that
"Oyster-women locked their fish up,

And trudged away to cry No Bishop!'"
(Laughter.) In our own time their treatment
had been even less ceremonious; for not long
since, at a public meeting, a flag was exhi-
bited representing a prostrate bishop, with a
mitre on his head. (Cheers.) The reign of
Charles I. had had its political prophet, but he

hon. Member for Calne had attributed it to was

a paltry pretender compared with the absolute necessity. Other people, he said, had political prophet of the reign of William IV. been so slow, that Ministers were obliged to That prophet, in a speech upon this very subrun for it. (Cheers and laughter.) Those were ject, had warned the Bishops to set their his own words; and hopeless as it was to add houses in order. (Much cheering from the to the hon. Member's learning, and desperate Opposition benches.) He did not believe that as he must be who would attempt to mend his the boldest and most malignant of the Roundphraseology, he (Sir C. W.) would, neverthe-heads and Radicals of the reign of Charles I. less, in this instance, venture to suggest a ever ventured upon any prophecy so fearless slight change, viz., that if Ministers proceeded and so furious. As a sedative to public excitewith an equal degree of rapidity in future, ment, he warned the Bishops to set their

781

24TH DECEMBER, 1831.

houses in order; and within a month after-hostes humani generis, who pretended that it wards, the palace of one of the Bishops was in would relieve every species of distress. It was, flames. (Loud cheers.) He did not see the hon. equally with the last, a measure of revolution Member for Calue-the Ariel of Calne-in his and robbery (cheers): as Jacobinism was the place. He was happy to observe him behind principle of the last, so was it of the present was a change without necessity or use; for the Chair; and he put it to that Ariel behind bill. (Cheers.) He would again insist, that it the Chair (laughter), who had talked so much of the reign of Charles I., whether he could the constitution, as it stood at present, was point out a precedent at all parallel to what he equally preservative of the liberties of the had just advanced? He (Sir C. Wetherell) people and the prerogatives of the crown. agreed that it was difficult to stop excitement; (Hear.) Before he sat down (oh, oh!) from difficult, indeed, when it rushed in such a the Ministerial benches; answered by cheers torrent from a source whence a single drop from the Opposition) -before he sat down he ought not to flow; difficult, indeed, when it would say, that both the noble Lords opposite burst in such a blaze from a quarter whence had failed to answer the speech of his hon. a single spark ought not to escape. (Much and learned Friend the Member for St. Mawes. cheering, long continued.) Who could blame Up to the present moment the principles and the people for being excited, when their pas- probable operation of the bill remained unexSir R. PEEL rose, and after some delay the sions were roused even by the leader of this plained. (Loud cheers.) blessed conservative Ministry? (Hear, hear, The right hon. Baronet said :hear.) After this, could the colleagues of this House became sufficiently silent for him to political prophet assert that it was not their proceed. fault-that they, forsooth, were not to blame-At this late hour of the night, and in this and that they could not resist a tide, the flood-stage of the debate, when so short a time is gates of which they had themselves opened? left-when, according to the prevailing wish They had raised the excitement for the sake of the House, we shall proceed to a division, of carrying their bill, and now they were anxious to skulk behind the supposed necessity they alone had created. Thus a law was to be extorted by intimidation that could not be justified by reason. (Cheers.) Something had been said about episcopacy, and he did not blame those who were opposed to it, but he thought that the protection of episcopacy was necessary for the preservation of the national religion. He thought with Pope :

[ocr errors]

"Ev'n in a Bishop I can spy desert;" and take away the props of religion, religion itself must fail. Reference had been made to the late French Revolution. He begged to ask whether it was yet finished? and the question had been at least raised whether the ancient formula of public worship on the Sabbath should not be abolished. He would tell the conservative Ministry of England that an insult offered to the dignitaries of the Proa personal insult to testant Church was every member of that church. After all, he could not blame the ignorant and vulgar, who were hurried away by the impetuosity of their passions to acts of contumely and vengeance, when the example was set in a quarter where dignity and honour ought to reside, and from whence protection ought to be afforded. (Repeated cheers.) The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to remark upon the recent events at Lyons, and deduced from them the argument that the three glorious days, and what they had accomplished, had not done enough for the lower orders of the people of France, who were still dissatisfied. He contended that the effect would be the same in this country-that the projected Reform would not be final-that the people would be disappointed when they found that it did not remedy their existing evils, and that the advocates for the measure were only the

I should desire at once to address myself to
those arguments in favour of this measure
which are supposed to be still left standing,
But the speech of the hon. and
without referring to any arguments of a private
nature.
learned Member for Calne, who, for the third
time, has thought it desirous to introduce some
topics unconnected with the merits of the de-
a manner purely personal, compel me to adopt
bate, and who has addressed himself to me in
a different course; for I should be unworthy
of the situation which I hope I hold in this
House, if I permitted the debate to close with-
out reference to these arguments. I think
that the hon. Gentleman, in the three speeches
he has made in favour of reform, has taunted
me three times on the subject of the Catholic
question. I confess I thought that after three
speeches he might have left this alone; and
that after two months, he would not have come
down with all the sweltering venom (tremen-
dous cheering) collected in the interval which
He has charged me with having
has elapsed since the last attack was made
upon me.
been guilty of unworthy things towards the
present Ministry in the course they have been
pursuing, as if I were under some necessity of
returning the compliment I received from
"When you proposed the
them upon the Catholic question. What is
the obligation I have contracted? The hon.
Gentleman says,
Catholic question, they who had before brought
it forward agreed with you cordially, and hand-
somely gave you their support; and, when
they brought forward the Reform Bill, why
did you not do the same?" Simply, Sir, for
this reason-that they agreed with me on the
Catholic question, while I differ from them on
the subject of Parliamentary Reform. He has
charged me with what amounts in substance
though not in phrase to little less than gross
corrupt apostacy. (Hear.) He has insinuated

that having opposed the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, I brought forward the Catholic question with the sole desire of continuing in office, and of appropriating to my self the honour due to others. I have long been silent under this charge, but I can be silent no longer. In the first place I thought the time had hardly come when I ought to place my conduct in the proper light, and I therefore left the charge unnoticed; but the time has now come, when my defence of my conduct on the Catholic question ought to be put beyond all doubt. In the first place, I did not undertake to settle the question of the Test and Corporation Acts. As the Minister of the Crown I opposed that question. I was beaten-I was left in a min rity on that question, and being so, I did not attempt to defraud of any honour those who had previously advocated the settlement of the question; for opposed as I was to it, I privately believed that after the vote of the House of Commons, it was better that the question should be settled; and in that conviction I did what I could to facilitate an amicable adjustment. Then, says the right hon. Gentleman, why did you not resign when you found you could not carry your measure? The hon. Member, with his usual discretion, wields a two-edged sword, which equally wounds friends and foes. Is it an imputation that Ministers do not resign when they cannot carry into effect a measure to which they are favourable? (Hear, hear.) If it is so, then, why do not the present Ministers resign? (Hear.) I made no charge against them for not resigning, and I now say that it is not fair to infer improper conduct because Ministers do not at once resign, when they are defeated in their attempt to carry a particular measure. I will now state the whole truth as connected with the Catholic question, and, having done so, I will appeal to every man, whether, in what I did, I was not fully justified. On the 9th July, 1828, I was called on to form part of the Ministry. There had been three changes of the Government. The administration of Lord Goderich had lasted months. There were three parties in the state: there were the Tories, the Whigs, and the friends of Mr. Canning. In the Government of Lord Goderich two of these parties had been united; why they did not retain office, I have yet to learn. I have never heard the cause; but the fact was that that Admiuistration failed to meet the Parliament. In the month of January the Duke of Wellington was called on to form an Administration, aud the Duke and I were obliged to postpone the meeting of Parliament for one week. We met the Parliament one month after the Government, composed of two of the parties in the state had quitted the Government, and we were beaten on the question of the Test and Corporation Acts. Is there any gentleman who would have had us leave the King at such a moment on that question? (Hear.) I now come to the heavier charge of the Catholic

question. For several years in this House I had taken a most active part in opposition to that question; I had so taken it from the great doubt I entertained, whether the removal of Catholic disabilities would restore tranquillity to Ireland, and I therefore maintained an uncompromising hostility, taking care, however, to avoid all asperity of manner. In 1822 [qu. 1828] I was again left in the minority on that question. There were, then, circumstances which showed me that it was more dangerous to continue the resistance I had offered, than to yield. I have often said, that my opinion on the subject is unchanged, for I had doubts whether the people of Ireland would be benefited by the change, which would give strength to dissent, and power to the many. From time to time I found that the success of the Protestant party was balanced by the success of their opponents, and I thought it hopeless to maintain, with effect, a further resistance; but, at the same time, I thought there could be nothing more unfortunate than that I, who had been the most strenuous in opposition, should be the individual to undertake the settlement of that question. It was not for the sake of any personal sacrifices that I was called on to make, for I always expected that such sacrifices must be made, that I felt a repugnance to it, but that I felt I must necessarily lose the confidence of the party with whom I had so long acted, and I did feel it unfortunate that I, who had evinced the most decided opposition, should be the individual to introduce the very measure I had so long opposed. It happened that I was absent from London in the year 1828, and I wrote my opinion on the policy of settling the Catholic question to my noble Friend, I stated-"I have thus expressed my opinion without reserve on the first great question of all, on the policy of seriously considering this long-agitated question with a view to an adjustment. I have proved, I trust, that it is no false delicacy with respect to past opinions, nor any fear of charges of inconsistency that will prevent me from taking that part which the present danger and the new position of affairs seem to require. I am ready to do so if it is absolutely necessary. I think there is less of danger in the settlement of the question than in leaving it, as it has been, an open question, by the effects of which the Government has been on many occasions paralyzed. I must at the same time say, that I think it would not conduce to the satisfactory settlement of the question, that the charge of it should be left in my hands. Personal considerations are entirely out of the question. I show this by avowing, that in case of necessity, I am ready to undertake the duty, but I think I could support the measure more safely, if my sup port of it were given out of the House. Any authority which it may be thought I possess among the Protestant party would be increased by my retirement. I have too deeply been engaged in opposition to concessions to make it advantageous that I should be the individual to originate this measure." (Hear.) I

mention this, Sir, to show that circumstances fied I would abdicate my functions, and not had compelled me to undertake the settlement stand here to offer weak opposition to the of that question. (lear, hear.) I did after-measure. I assert, however, that I am at wards undertake to introduce a measure for liberty to offer this opposition. A great part the settlement of that question, but I remaiu- of the speech of the hon. Gentleman turned ed til January, 1829, in the belief that I upon the question-not whether this measure should retire from office, and give my support is for the advantage of the country-but who to that measure in my private capacity alone. are the parties that propose it. The assumpBut it was made evident to me that my retire- tion is, that to the pressure of external force ment, together with the King's opinion on the we must give way, and that we have no alterCatholic question, would absolutely precludeuative but that of satisfying the craving of the the satisfactory settlement of it. I wrote a people. The hon. Gentleman has said, "How letter to my noble Friend, expressing an is it that we can have eyes and not see, ears earnest wish to avoid undertaking the painful and not hear, legs and not walk, and how is office. That was on the 12th of July, 1829; it that all our senses do not convince us that but knowing the difficulties with which he was reform must be conceded?" Will he ask the at that time surrounded, I said, "I speak same question of the Marquis of Lansdown, without reserve. If my retirement should who has eyes and ears and legs; but has prove, in your opinion, after the communica- neither seen, nor heard, nor walked, but has tion you have made, an insurmountable ob for years opposed Parliamentary Reform? stacle to the course you intend to pursue, in Why, in the year 1827, did we see the Marthat case you shall command any service I quis of Lansdown, together with other right can render." The memorandum indorsed on hou. Gentlemen opposite (cheers), taking part that letter states, that the Archbishop of Cau- in Mr. Cauning's Government, after he had terbury, the Bishops of London and Durham, declared, to the last moment of his life, he had that day had an audience of the Duke of should be opposed to Parliamentary Reform? Wellington, to declare that they should give (Cheers.) And on this point I find a passage their decided opposition to the proposed plan. in Mr. Stapleton's Memoirs of Mr. Canning, That circumstance made it impossible for me stating, that all the Cabinet was united in sayto retire. I had advised the King to concede ing that the question of Parliamentary Reform the measure. I could not shrink from taking would not be supported by any member of the part in introducing the measure I had advised Government. (Cheers.) After this, I think him to adopt; and no consideration on earth that we have a right to say that we do dread but that should have induced me to stand in the opening of the question of reform. The that place and propose it. But if I believed, noble Lord has asked why we objected to as circumstances had compelled me to believe, accede to his former small motions of reform? that a settlement of the question was necessa- But can he ask this question, after having ry, and that my retirement was an insupera- himself told us, that to those who made the ble obstacle to the settlement, I appeal to any slightest concession he would address himself man of honour whether I should have been in the words of Cromwell: "The Lord has justified in retiring? (Hear, hear, hear.) I had delivered them into my hand"? (Cheers.) I advised the King, and could I, when he said, must say that I think it rather hard that the "I have scruples-you ask me to make sacri- noble Lord should in this manner exonerate fice of them-yet you yourself refuse to make those who have even refused to make the a similar personal sacrifice,”—could I, I say, slightest abatement, and fasten himself upon when thus appealed to as a subject, refuse to me, because I believe that I once stated that I undertake the task? (Cheers.) Under these should be willing to transfer the franchise of a circumstances I did undertake it, and not for second Grampound to Manchester. Neither the purpose of robbing the original proposers do I feel that I have been very fairly dealt of the honour. (Cheers.) The boa. Member with by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. has charged me with having been the cause of Macaulay), who has taken occasion to comthe delay in this measure of Reform; and,pliment me on having sung my Palinodium. consequently, of having been the cause of the ("I did not mention you," from Mr. Macauevils which he says have arisen from that lay.) No; the hon. and learned Gentleman delay. I deny it. I must repeat now what I did not mention me, but the sarcasm was not have before said, that the conduct of the party the less pointed. (Loud cheers.) But I can in giving me their support on the Catholic assure the House that so far from having question, was conduct dictated by the purest taunted the Government with adopting my and most honourable motives, and entitle that principles in their new bill, I have already party to my respect and gratitude. (Hear, stated it as my opinion that the essential prinhear, hear.) I said so at the time; but does ciples of the bill remain unchanged. What I the hon. Member, therefore, think, that with did say, on a former night, was, that I thought fetid breath, and whispering humbleness, I that the country was in a better situation by should shrink from offering opposition to this being afforded this opportunity of re-considerbill? (Hear, hear, hear.) Am I to abate mying the measure; for which reason-I conopposition-am not at liberty to say that Iceived that we had had a great escape, and think the King's Government are in error, if I felt thankful to the House of Lords for Laving thick them so? If I thought I was disquali acted as it had done. (Cheers.) But as far as

this House is behind the improvement of the times? Is it not rather before it in what it did on the Catholic question and on that of Free Trade? (Cheers.) But another error which, in my opinion the advocates of reform have committed in their arguments, is, that they have discussed the question as if it only applied to this country, quite forgetting the immense colonial possessions of the empire. But if it be said that the population of India is

I can see, not only do I rejoice in this, but the noble Lord also ought to rejoice, for it has given him an opportunity of improving his bill, and eulogizing the beauty of the daughter in preference to that of the mother. We have heard their boast this evening of "mater pulchra, filia pulchrior;" and therefore, I hope there is no doubt that the noble Lord's gallantry will lead him to rejoice that he is able to enjoy the embraces of the daughter rather than those of the mother. (Aof so low a grade of intellect as not to underlaugh and cheers.) But, after all, when it is stand the nature of good government, I think considered that I live in the very neighbour- that will only serve to make the case worse; hood of those meetings to whom I have been for if they perceive that change is taking place denounced as "the whisper of a faction " in England, without being able to perceive the (cheers) to whom I have been held up by justice of that change, it will only lead them the press of the country as a fit subject, not the more doggedly to require a change in their for arguments, but for brick-bats, (cheers), own condition. Another fault is, that the bill I think that it is a little too much to find fault makes no difference between nomination and with me for vindicating a course which an small boroughs. It may be very well to say honest and honourable party pursued, and by that the nomination boroughs must be got which they have afforded an opportunity for rid of; but that shows no cause for destroying what the Government thinks an amendment in the small boroughs also. (Cheers.) Besides, the bill. (Cheers.) I think, however, that the real fact is, that this bill does not destroy after what we have heard in the course of this those very boroughs at which it is said it aims. debate, we must no longer hear of the princi- Look at Midhurst: we have been told over ples of this bill being argued on the ground and over again that the representation of that of the Constitution. The noble Lord dissents place belonged to a hole in a wall; but, after from this, I see; but has he not himself said all, that very hole in the wall is to retain its this evening that if it had been his fortune to right. It is true that the constituency is enhave lived at the period of the Revolution, helarged; but the place itself continues the himself would have voted for the maintenance same. In an address from Walsall, I find that and continuance of the sma'l boroughs? the abolition of the East India monopoly and of (Cheers.) But surely, if these small boroughs the traffic in the flesh and blood of negroes, are now contrary to the spirit of the Constitu- is particularly insisted upon. Now, I do not tion, they would have been equally so at the meau to say that all this is not very honestly time of the Revolution, and it would conse-intended; but what I am afraid of is, that quently have been out of the power of the noble Lord to have voted in their support. (Hear, hear.) Allusion had been made to the Bill of Rights, and the declaration contained therein, that elections should be free; but this declaration by no means refers to the small boroughs, but to the circumstances mentioned in the preamble, which arose out of the inter-struction by confiscation; but I am afraid ference of King James II. with the election of that steps will be taken, the ultimate tendmembers, and which is particularly described eucy of which will be to shake the confidence by Reresby, who gives an account of his being of the country; and that confidence once desired by the King to stand for York, to shaken, there will be an end at once to the which he consented, on the condition that the chief stimulus which induces men to amass King should put out of the Corporation of property, and which, in England, has hitherto York all those members to which Reresby ob- been productive of that wealth, commerce, and jected, and which James accordingly did: so power, which have given her so high a station that from this it appeared clear that the de- among the nations of Europe. Let us for a claration in the Bill of Rights in nowise ap-moment look at the state of Frauce! What plied to the small boroughs, in favour of which the noble Lord would have fought on bis stumps if he had lived at that time. I am ready to admit that if there does not exist an elastic spirit in the Constitution so as to meet the temper of the times, that there is something wrong, something that requires alteration and that if the boroughs are made of such iron stuff that they will not yield to the impression of improvement, the attempt to put them down is justifiable. But will any one, after looking at the progress of the Legislature since the year 1827, say that the animus of

when we get a popular Parliament, we shall find it jumping to conclusions-conclusions that may be right, but which, from the great variety of interests they embrace, require the nicest caution and consideration in their management. (Cheers.) In the same way with respect to property, I am in no fear of its de

is the condition of the working people there? Why, although they have not to meet the heavy taxation that exists in this country, their state is most deplorable; and it is found that in every part of that kingdom the situation of the industrious classes is such, that it almost becomes a question whether they will ever be able to recover their former vigour, and reassert that position which the industry of every country ought ever to possess. (Cheers.) The right hon. Baronet, at the conclusion of the quotation, said, that this was the case of a country with an increased army and an in

« EdellinenJatka »