Chapter XL: {george IV. 1830—1831} (2)

At this period it was the public opinion that the monopoly of the East India Company imposed a mischievous restraint on the trade of the country, without any reasonable cause or counterbalancing advantage. One large portion of the community, indeed, wished to have the renewal of their charter refused _in toto_ to any extent, or under any modification; while another professed themselves willing to be satisfied with reducing the company to the level of ordinary merchants in matters of trade, leaving them in the possession of their widely-extended territories. In this conflicting state of opinion government had determined not to take the responsibility of proposing any measure of its own; but had promised that in the present session a committee should be appointed to make the inquiries which ought to precede any arrangement affecting interests so varied and important. The appointment of this committee was moved in both houses on the 9th of February; in the upper house by Lord Ellenborough, and in the commons by Mr. Peel. In making this proposition, the latter said, that he had no plan to submit for the future government of India; no opinion of ministers to state as to the renewal or modification of the charter. He proposed the committee that the question in all its bearings might be examined; but the details should be left for future consideration, when that committee should have formed its opinion. He proposed it, he continued, with the plain and honest view of having a full, perfect, and unreserved investigation into the affairs of the East India Company. The house, he said, would feel the importance of such an inquiry. It would bear in mind that higher objects were involved than the mere extension of trade. They would have to consider the whole character of the government, ruling over an immense extent of territory, wielding a powerful force, and administering an ample revenue. They were bound to consider the various modes in which that government affected the people over whom it ruled, and how far any alteration might affect the influence of the crown. The present form of government extended over many millions of people, and it had existed for a great number of years. Whether another form of government might be devised from which equal benefits would flow, he was not prepared to say; but sufficient was known of the present system to induce them to pause before they rashly interfered with it. As regards the company’s commercial concerns, the documents which would be presented to the committee would contain full information on that subject; and at present he would only say that a reference to these returns would convince any unprejudiced mind that the sanguine expectations of great benefits, which some supposed would arise from throwing the trade entirely open, ought not to be entertained. The most interesting objects involved in the inquiry were the welfare and happiness of the Indian population placed under a government. He had seen a census, which made our native subjects in India amount to ninety millions. Looking at the extent of territory which in that country belonged to Great Britain, the vast population there subject to our sway, the great revolution by which they had come under our dominion, the immense distance at which they were removed from our shores, and the difference existing between the languages and usages of the natives and ours, the mind was almost lost in amazement. Whatever might be the wish of a British parliament to enlarge the rights and foster the interests of British citizens, there could be but one feeling as to the moral obligation which we had incurred to promote the improvement of these distant subjects, so far as the feelings, the institutions, and the prejudices of that country would allow. In the list of the committee proposed by Mr. Peel there were the names of three or four East India directors. Messrs. Hume and Baring objected to their being put on the committee, although they expressed an opinion that they would not act unfairly, and that there was a necessity of obtaining the information which they possessed. Mr. Astell, one of the directors named, declared that the company desired nothing more earnestly than the fullest inquiry. What the directors complained of most, was the ignorance which prevailed on this subject, and which, by deluding the country, was the greatest enemy they had to contend with. He courted inquiry; for the more the subject was investigated, the more likely would it be that the directors would have justice done them. Let the committee obtain the fullest evidence; let them examine all the documents that would be brought before them; and then they would be able to decide whether India could be better governed; whether justice could be more fairly administered; and whether the happiness of the natives could be more humanely consulted. He contended that the directors had done all they could, and that they had never lost sight of the interests of their country in the pursuit of their own. The committee was appointed as proposed, retaining the members of the East India Company.

DEBATE ON A PROPOSAL TO ALTER THE CURRENCY.

During this session Mr. Attwood brought the subject of the currency before the house, by proposing two resolutions; namely, to make silver a legal tender as, he contended, it had been before the Bank Restriction Act of 1797, and to restore small notes. This question underwent a full discussion but the motion of a double standard seemed so objectionable, and any scheme for depreciating the currency appeared pregnant with such dangerous consequences, that the motion was withdrawn without dividing the house. Several members, indeed, expressed an opinion that it was far from being certain that the standard adopted was the best; but the relief to be obtained by the double standard proposed was thought by them to be neither so great, nor so certain, as to justify the making of such an experiment. The motion was ably opposed by Mr. Herries, who said, that the proposal to introduce the silver standard was almost impracticable and unjust. The proposal was, in point of fact, to have the two precious metals in circulation at certain fixed proportions; a condition which rendered the execution of the scheme impossible. It was well known that the proportion in which these two metals interchanged now was different from the proportion which they held in 1798. The mover himself had admitted, indeed, that the difference was five per cent. It might not be quite so much, but assuming it to be so, to what did it lead? It made the proposed resolution a recommendation to the legislature to declare gold and silver equally a legal tender, although there was a difference of five per cent, in their relative values. What would this be, he asked, in practice? Every debtor, it was said, who had money to pay would be enabled to discharge his debt with five per cent, less than he was bound to pay at present; and no doubt, he would, if the opportunity was given to him. Suppose then that the resolutions should be agreed to; what would be the result? It would be proclaimed from one end of the country to the other that this house had come to a resolution the effect of which might be shortly stated thus:—namely, that every man who had claims payable on demand, every man who held notes of small or great value, every man who had outstanding debts, would, if he secured the amount of what was due to him before this resolution passed into a law, get the whole of his money; whereas, if he delayed beyond that period, he would only get ninety-five for every hundred pounds. What, he asked, would become of the Bank of England, or of every banking house in the kingdom, or of all debtors who were liable to pay upon demand all that they owed? Would not all transactions of commerce be suspended, and the whole country present one scene of confusion, and consternation, and ruin, when the house of commons proclaimed to all who had debts due to them, that if they did not collect them on the instant, they would assuredly be losers to the amount of five per cent.? Mr. Herries also contended that the alleged justice of the proposition was fallacious. Its justice was made to rest on this—that it was only fair to give the debtor the power of paying as he might have done in 1798; and it had been assumed, that up to that time men could discharge their debts in gold or silver, as they pleased. It was a great mistake, he argued, to suppose that silver had been the standard of this country throughout the last century. It had only been a legal tender by weight, but then it had become so depreciated, that, practically, there was no such thing as tender by weight, while by law the tender in coin was limited to twenty-five pounds; so that it was clear that in 1798 silver could not be the standard. He concluded by saying, that if a regulation could be made that a creditor should be obliged to take half his debt in one standard, at the will of the debtor, and that the debtor should not be obliged to pay more than half in one, and half in the other, it might, perhaps, be practicable to have the two; but he did not see how, otherwise, the two could exist together.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—BILL FOR REPEALING THE DUTY ON BEER, ETC.

On the 15th of March the chancellor of the exchequer produced his annual exposition of the finances, and of the financial measures to be adopted in raising the expenditure of the present year. His statements presented no remarkable features except the repeal of the beer, cider, and leather duties. By this measure ministers desired to show their wish of alleviating the pressure of taxation on the lower classes. With reference to the extent of the repeal, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that “the amount of the three duties which I thus propose to repeal will be, on freer, £3,000,000, on leather from £340,000 to £350,000, and on cider, £25,000. These reductions will give direct relief to the people, amounting, at least, to £3,400,000., and will give them relief indirectly to a further amount; so that in fact the whole relief cannot be estimated at less than £5,000,000 a year.” The remission of duty on beer was proposed to take place on the 10th of October following, and the reason given for such delay was, that the repeal should take place conjointly with an opening of the trade, when the time arrived for renewing the licences of public-houses. There can be no doubt that the measure proceeded from excellent motives; but it is certain that by encouraging the increase of public-houses to an indefinite extent, immorality and crime had been introduced into every nook and corner of the land. The picture which the poet Cowper drew of the evils of public-houses in his day have been increased a hundredfold by such a measure so that it is literally true, that,

“Pass where’er we may, through city or through town,
Village or hamlet of this merry land,
Though lean and beggar’d, every twentieth face,
Conducts th’ unguarded nose to such a whiff
Of state debauch, forth issuing from the sties
That law has licensed, as makes temperance rec.”

It is probable that this measure has occasioned more evil than any act passed during the whole period to which this portion of the history of England refers. Yet there can be no question that ministers conceived that they were legislating for the poor man’s comfort; experience, however, has proved that it was for the poor man’s bane. After stating the intention of ministers on this subject, the chancellor of the exchequer next gave his estimate of the revenue of the present year. The demands of the public service, including the charge of the national debt, were £47,812,000, and the available income was estimated at £50,470,000, leaving a probable balance of about £2,500,000 only for the sinking-fund. In the revenue of last year a deficiency of more than £500,000 below the estimate was acknowledged; but at the same time a clear surplus of £4,000,000 had been applied to the redemption of the national debt. To compensate for the loss of revenue from the repeal of the above duties, it was proposed to consolidate all the laws relative to the stamp-duties, for placing the management of the whole of that branch of the revenue under the stamp-office in England, and make similar articles everywhere subject to the same duties. It was also proposed to levy an additional duty on spirits; and also to effect a yearly saving of about £800,000 by the conversion of four per cent, stock into three and a half. These measures were subsequently carried into effect. The chancellor of the exchequer finally held out hopes of a reduction in the amount of expenditure, by the consolidation of various departments of the public service: this he said was likely hereafter to place at the disposal of the government a great surplus revenue which would enable ministers to make a further repeal of taxes. The principal reduction promised by government this year, that of the beer-duty, was not carried without great opposition. Brewers and publicans alike were arrayed against it, as it would break up their monopoly. The latter complained loudly of the deterioration to which the capital invested by them in the trade would be exposed, since every man who could pay two guineas might take out a licence. The landed interest, likewise, was against this measure: agriculturists wishing rather to see the duty on malt than beer repealed. They spoke much of its deficiencies in not providing any system of control, to secure the proper conduct of publicans, such as existed under the present licensing system. It would convert England they said, and with much truth, into one huge tippling-house, spreading throughout the country universal demoralization. An attempt was made on the second reading to throw out the bill, by a motion that it should be read a second time that day six months. This failed; but in the committee a stronger effort was made in favour of a clause proposed by Mr. Monck, to the effect of permitting the brewer to sell his beer on premises different from those on which it had been brewed. It was contended that this was only an enlargement of the former permission to sell beer on the premises on which it had been brewed; and that it would not injure the object sought by the bill in so far as protection against monopoly was concerned, while it would be beneficial to the interests of the existing dealers, whose interests ought not to be neglected. On the other hand, the clause was opposed as inconsistent with the principle of the bill. The effect of it would be, it was said, to prevent competition, and the public, instead of receiving an improved commodity, would remain as they were. When the committee divided, the proposed clause was rejected by a majority of only twenty-five. Opposition renewed their efforts against the bill on its third reading, when Mr. Batley moved a clause, to the effect of enforcing the statute of James I., against the odious crime of drunkenness. Mr. Brougham in opposing this motion said, that he was one of those who thought the general interests of morality were better consulted by permitting such clauses to slumber in the cells of the statute-book than by having them enforced. He asked, What was the real meaning of the statute of James I. It was that a penalty should be inflicted on any person who committed the odious and ungodly crime of drunkenness, from any liquor, except claret or champagne. If morality was to be enforced by act of parliament, let the law be impartial, and not punish the poor and illiterate for a crime in which the rich might indulge with impunity. He would like to see the justice of the peace, or magistrate, who would fine a knight of the shire, or independent member of an independent borough, who in the morning might possibly be brought before him in a state presenting a good imitation of the odious and ungodly crime of drunkenness, which called down the wrath of the moral legislators of the age of King James. Sir Robert Inglis having reminded Mr. Brougham that a higher authority than that of James I. had denounced drunkenness, and that if he himself were found in the street in a state of inebriety, no magistrate performing his duty would fail to punish him, Mr. Brougham replied, that he had not the good fortune to be educated at the university represented by the baronet. It was, indeed, well replied by Dr. Johnson to a lady who inquired of him to which university she should send her son: “Why madam, I can only say, that there is an equal quantity of port drunk at each.” He was perfectly aware that a higher authority than King James had denounced drunkenness, but the difference was, that that high authority made no distinction of persons, whereas the act of James did. Could the right honourable baronet point out one instance of a member of parliament having been punished for drunkenness? Sir Robert repeated, that if Mr. Brougham would go into the street drunk, he would soon meet with due punishment; he replied, that it would be grossly unfair, inasmuch as there were thousands of gentlemen in the same situation never noticed. This was an unanswerable argument, and the subject was dropped.

THE QUESTION OF REFORM.

It has been seen that the Marquis of Blandford moved resolutions pledging the house forthwith to employ themselves in the work of reform, as an amendment to the address. On the 18th of February he brought forward a more specific plan. The house of commons, he argued, had ceased to be framed as the essential principles and earlier practice of the constitution required; a circumstance which had arisen from represented places falling into decay, on the one hand, while, on the other, wealthy and populous towns, which had sprung up in the meantime, were unrepresented. His object was, he said, to restore the principles of representation as they had been established in the days of Henry III. and the three Edwards. For this purpose he proposed that a committee should be chosen by ballot, to take a review of all boroughs and cities in the kingdom, and report to the secretary of the home department those among them which had fallen into decay, or had in any manner forfeited their right to representation on the principles of the English constitution, as anciently recognized by national and parliamentary usage. The home-secretary was bound to act immediately on this report, and to relieve all such places from the burthen of sending members to parliament in future, while he filled up the vacancies by towns which had been hitherto unrepresented. Another part of his plan was to revive the custom of paying wages to members for their attendance in parliament; a provision which he thought would prevent abuses. He also proposed to extend the right of voting to all copyholders and leaseholders, and to place the representation of Scotland on the same footing with that of England. He concluded, by moving, to bring in a bill to restore the constitutional influence of the house of commons. This motion was supported by Sir Francis Burdett, and by Messrs. Pendarvis, Benett, and Hobhouse, with others of the school of reformers. Sir Francis Burdett said, that he could not comprehend all the details of the propositions; but he understood it to be a question of reform, and, therefore, he would support it. He admitted that the house was composed of men of as enlightened understandings, and as addicted to the English principles of freedom, as could be found collected in any nation of the world; but he asserted that they were returned to the house under an influence which rendered them incapable of exerting the faculties of their minds, and injurious to the country. He remarked:—“Look at myself, I have gone through the whole process under the present system of representation, and a most ruinous one it has been. Early in life, I came into this house in order to defend the constitution of England; I purchased my seat of a borough-monger. He was no patron of mine; he took my money, and by purchase I obtained a right to speak in the most public place in England, With my views, and with my love of the liberty of my country, I did not grudge the sacrifice I made for that commanding consideration. If I had abused the right I had thus purchased, and passed through corruption to the honours of the peerage, I should not enjoy the satisfaction I now feel.” He had also tried, he said, the county system. He stood for a county, though he would not have given twopence for the representation of that county, his object having been to expose the abominable system, and the oppressive tyranny of solitary confinement in England. He had also gone through the remedial operation as it was called, of the Grenville act, so that, as he had sounded all the shoals and shallows of the system, it was not wonderful he should be a great advocate for an alteration. The question was this: ought the house to be an assembly of retainers of the crown, or of representatives of the people of England. The bill was opposed by Messrs. Feel, Twiss, Maberly, and Stanley. Mr. Twiss said, that a scheme had never been produced so happily calculated to ridicule parliamentary reform, although it was of course far from the intention of the noble lord by whom it had been introduced. Mr. Peel also amused the house with remarks on the title of the bill, and said that he would never be a party to a wholesale depreciation of the elective franchise, or assent even to the first stage of the bill, which devolved on a ballotted committee the power of destroying all boroughs which they might think ought not to send members. Lord Althorp moved as an amendment, “That it is the opinion of this house, that a reform in the representation of the people is necessary,” should be substituted for the motion, for leave to bring in a bill; but both the amendment and the original motion were negatived without a division.

THE CASE OF EAST RETFORD.

During this session the proposal for transferring the franchise of East Retford to Birmingham was ultimately rejected, and the privilege extended to the adjoining hundred. During the debate Mr. Peel expressly disclaimed the imputation which had been thrown out, that this selection had been made with a view to increase the influence of the Duke of Newcastle, whom the Catholic relief bill had now thrown into the ranks of opposition. There were circumstances in the case of East Retford which should induce parliament to extend the franchise to the adjoining hundred. One element in the case which weighed with him, was the consideration that the county of Nottingham sent only eight members to parliament; and he saw no good reason why that number should be reduced. Lord Howick declared, that though he would vote for the transfer of the franchise to Birmingham, he thought it useless to inflict punishment in individual instances, when it was notorious that a large majority of members obtained their seats by venal means. The proper remedy would be to adopt a general measure; and he, therefore, moved the following resolutions:—“That bribery has been repeatedly and habitually employed to influence the election of members of parliament. That this fact has been often established, never denied, and was especially proved at the bar of this house in the first session of the present parliament, in the cases of Penryn and East Retford. That it is notorious that a similar practice is openly resorted to in many of the cities and boroughs of the United Kingdom. That the recent disfranchisement of Grampound does not appear to have in any degree diminished the prevalence of this evil. That this house, therefore, finding that the passing of specific bills directed against particular cases, has neither had the effect of removing the existence, or arresting the progress of corruption, is of opinion that its character may best be vindicated by abandoning these useless and expensive proceedings, in order to adopt some general and comprehensive measure, the only means of effectually checking so scandalous an abuse.” These resolutions were negatived by a large majority.

MR. O’CONNELL’S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ETC.

On the third reading of the East Retford bill, the first attempt was made in the British parliament to introduce principles new to the representation of the country: namely, that the votes of the electors should be given by ballot. This proposition came from that most reckless of all demagogues; that prototype of the Athenian Cleon, Mr. O’Connell, who argued that the ballot would protect the voter from all undue influence, whether of fear or corruption. On the other hand, it was argued that the mode of taking votes by ballot would preclude representatives confronting their constituents; but it was not till after nomination, and the demand of a poll, that the ballot would commence; so that this mode would not take away from constituents the power they now enjoyed of requiring explanations of past conduct, and pledges for the future. The motion, which was lost, had been favoured by certain occurrences at Newark, which were brought before the house of commons on the 1st of March, on a petition from some of the electors of that borough against the Duke of Newcastle. His grace was possessed of large property within the borough—some private, and some held under a crown lease—and had always been able to decide the election. Mr. Sadler had recently been returned on his interest in opposition to Sergeant Wylde; and the petition stated that “the return of Mr. Sadler was obtained by means of the prevailing belief, founded on the experience of former elections, that such of the duke’s tenants as should vote against his grace’s nominee would be expelled from their tenancies; that many of the tenants gave their votes to the opposing candidate; and that they had in consequence received notice to quit their holdings, whether the same was house or land, and whether it constituted part of the estate of the crown, or the private property of his grace.” The petition further stated, that his grace had neither denied that such notices had been given, nor had disclaimed them; but had rather justified them, by stating that he had a right “to do what he would with his own.” In moving that this petition should be referred to a select committee, Mr. Poulett Thomson informed the house, that not only the use thus made of crown property affected the constitutional character of the representation, but that its original investment was a ministerial job, which had caused a great pecuniary loss to the country. The Duke of Newcastle, he said, held about nine hundred and sixty acres of land surrounding the town, by a lease, granted in 1760, at a rent of only £36. This lease had been renewed in 1815, nine years after its expiration, at a rent of £2,060; but it was still too low, as the estimated value was £3,500. The pecuniary loss was therefore well worthy of attention: but this was a trifle compared to the political purposes to which the property had been applied. The noble lessee never gave a lease for more than one year, in order to keep the voters under his power; and the petition stated the manner in which this power had been employed. If the allegations were true, the house was bound to interfere; for though he did not mean to impugn the just and natural influence of the landlord over his tenant, he appealed to the house whether the power arrogated in the case before them did not rather resemble the tyranny of the slave-driver, than the proper influence of a British landlord. There was not even, in the present instance, the objection of interference with the rights of private property; this was a species of property against the future abuse of which the house might guard, though they could not interfere with the existing lease. They could address the crown, praying that the lease should not be renewed; and, with a view to have the allegations sifted, he moved that the petition be referred to a select committee. This motion was supported by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse, who set no bounds to their indignation. The latter especially exerted his eloquence on the subject. He remarked:—“Suppose the king’s government should send to his grace the Duke of Newcastle, to let him know that when his lease expired he should no longer have the benefits of that lease; suppose such an intimation was given to his grace, and that it was alleged and understood that his ejectment from the possession of this property took place in consequence of his having given a vote against government upon some great and leading question. If that were done, would it not be denounced as an attack upon our dearest privileges, as an invasion of the most sacred birthright of Englishmen: the liberty to assert and maintain their opinions? Compare the conduct of the government in such a case, with the conduct of the noble peer in the present instance: there were these poor men, because they had to vote against his grace’s candidate, banished from their homes, driven from their happy firesides, and deprived of all the comforts of life. Could such conduct on the part of the noble duke bear comparison with the case of the government depriving the noble duke of these crown-lands on account of his giving a vote against them?” It was stated on the other hand, that many of the allegations in the petition were gross perversions of fact. The crown-lands, for instance, were not in the immediate neighbourhood of the town, but were scattered about among the adjacent villages to a considerable extent; and the crown at the renewal of the lease had only twelve houses and twenty-six cottages. There were others in the neighbourhood who held land to a much greater extent than that belonging to the crown. Mr. Sadler himself said that the petition was a mere election paper, made up of wanton exaggerations, and unfounded misstatements, for electioneering purposes. He also vindicated his patron’s character for humanity and consideration, as regarded the inhabitants of Newark. He denied that he was exposed to the operation of any sinister influence, and could conscientiously say, that the noble duke had left him on all questions to pursue his own line of conduct. Mr. Peel defended the principle of the whole transaction, as well as the mode by which the land in question had been acquired. He could see no valid distinction between this property and that which descended to a man as a freehold from his ancestors. He remarked:—“The lease which his grace possessed of this crown-land gave him a right to deal with it as any other possessions during that period; and in dealing with the property of the crown as with his own, it was obvious that he committed no breach of privilege. Now the petitioners entirely confined themselves to the crown possessions held by the noble duke, praying that a lease of them might in future be refused to him. They did not even refer to his other property, with regard to which he had dealt precisely in the same manner. It was plain therefore that if, in the management of his own private possessions, he had committed no breach of privilege, he had committed none by dealings in a similar manner with the property of the crown. He would not say that the Duke of Newcastle did not dispossess these tenants; but, without entering into the question, he would say that superior to the privileges of that house were other considerations, to which they were bound in duty and conscience to defer, namely, the rights of property. Here was no allegation that menaces had been employed; there was only the fact that seven tenants had been dispossessed. Now, if they were to control the rights of property, under the idea that those rights had been exercised in controlling an election, a precedent would be set which would be not merely inconvenient, but positively dangerous; for nothing could be more dangerous than to say, they would not suffer any tenant to be dispossessed who had voted in opposition to his landlord’s wishes. It was in vain that honourable gentlemen exclaimed against the influence which any peer derived from the possession of property: there was no difference between that, and the influence which any other great landed proprietor enjoyed; nor could any species of reform exclude such influence. Property, he contended, should always have an influence in that house, no matter whether it was in the hands of peers or commoners.” The motion for referring the petition to a select committee was negatived by a majority of one hundred and ninety-four against sixty-one.

MR. O’CONNELL’S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND VOTE BY BALLOT, ETC.

Of all the various plans for altering the representation, whether suggested by an honest desire to obviate the necessity of sweeping innovations, or springing from the designs of restless demagogues, there were none against which so little could be said as the proposition for conferring the elective franchise on populous commercial towns. When, therefore, Lord John Russell failed in transferring the elective franchise of East Retford to Birmingham, he did not hesitate to bring the subject before parliament again, by moving for a bill to confer that privilege, independently of all other considerations, on Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester. He founded the constitutional nature of the proposed alteration on the known practice of parliament, which extended such rights to unrepresented places, when they had acquired importance by their wealth and population. He remarked:—“It is true the proposal hitherto had been, that the franchise should not be conferred till the house had a forfeiture to dispose of; but it is now plain that if the towns in question are to wait for such a transfer, there is no probability of their obtaining it: so numerous are the difficulties stated in both houses of parliament.” His lordship said that it did not seem very reasonable that the fitness of Leeds or Manchester to be represented should be said to depend on the good or bad conduct of the electors of Penryn or East Retford: their claims must rest on circumstances in their own situation; and if that situation was such as to render it just and desirable that they should be represented, where, he asked, was the sense of saying, that what was just and reasonable ought not to be done, because the electors of some other place had refused to do what was wicked? Lord John Russell then entered into various details demonstrative of the growing greatness of the towns in question. In continuation he remarked that he could not discover any sound reason why so many citizens, and so much wealth, should remain unrepresented, when the principle as well as the practice of the constitution, had pointed out the manner of admitting them into parliament. He knew it would be said that there was no limitation to the principles that if it was held good to admit three towns, it might equally be extended to twenty, thirty, forty, or even indefinitely. He confessed this; and he saw no reason why, if Sheffield, or any other town should at some future period attain the same rank, it should not obtain the same privilege. It was not probable, however, that the principle could ever be applied to more than four or five towns in the whole realm. Parliament, moreover, had not always been so fastidious in regard to the extension of a principle. It had not refused, for instance, the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. But the present bill would not even add permanently to the members of the house; he proposed that in future cases of disfranchisement, the franchise should be allowed to drop altogether, instead of being transferred. The whole measure seemed to him incapable of alarming the most timid person, and it ought to be received with willingness by the sternest opposers of innovation. When he looked at other countries, the wisdom and policy of the measure was still more imperiously forced on his conviction. We could not shut our eyes to the fact that a collision between royal authority and popular resistance was rapidly approaching in France, though all must regret that some compromise was not contemplated which might save society from its consequences. It was for us, then, to profit by the warning, and awaken in time to a perception of the nice mechanism of our own representative government. It behoved all who were lovers of liberty without disorder, and of peace without slavery, to watch anxiously at such a period; endeavouring so to accommodate our system to altered times and circumstances, as to render it worthy of the respect and affection of the people. The constitution itself supplied us with the means; we had only to use its own renovating principles. Its fabric was not, as some supposed, that of a Grecian temple, perfect and complete in all its parts, which could not suffer alteration without the destruction of its symmetry; it was rather like a Gothic building, susceptible of enlargement, consistently with the integrity of its ornaments and the security of its duration. The views on which this bill was founded were repeated and enforced by Lord Sandon, General Gascoyne, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Huskisson, Bright, and Brougham. All of these members did not go to the same lengths as Lord John Russell, but all admitted that it was desirable the towns in question should be represented. Some would give them members only as a sequel of the disfranchisement of corrupt boroughs. Mr. Huskisson, who delivered his last speech on parliamentary reform, said that he would have been better pleased to have been able directly to transfer the franchise of East Retford to Birmingham; but as the late decision of the house had rendered that impracticable, he would support the motion. He observed that the time was fast approaching when ministers would be compelled to come down to the house with some measure, or to resign their situations, and nothing was more unwise than for a government to delay important propositions, till compelled by overwhelming majorities. He did not wish it to be understood, however, that his vote implied he could ever be brought to sanction the substitution of a new system of representation for that which existed. He added:—“To a more extensive parliamentary reform, a measure founded upon the principle of a general revision, reconstruction, and remodelling of our present constitution, I have always been opposed; and while I have a seat in this house I shall give it my most decided opposition. If such an extensive reform were effected, we might go on for two or three sessions in good and easy times, and such a reformed parliament might adapt itself to one mode of government on the ordinary concerns of the country; but if such an extensive change were effected in the constitution of parliament, sure I am that, whenever an occasion shall arise of great popular excitement or reaction, the consequence will be a total subversion of our constitution, followed by anarchy and confusion, and terminating either in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, or a military despotism; these two great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they have been always hitherto seen to observe. I am, therefore, opposed to such an extensive change and revision of our representative system.” The motion for leave to bring in the bill was negatived by a majority of one hundred and eighty against forty.

If this bill was the most harmless modification under which reform could be proposed, that which was subsequently brought before parliament by Mr. O’Connell was, on the other hand, the most wild and ruinous. That arch-demagogue moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish triennial parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot, the foundation of this system being this proposition—simple indeed in its nature, but tending to anarchy—that every man who pays a tax, or is liable to serve in the militia, is entitled to have a voice in the representation. Lord John Russell, who took occasion of the motion to introduce certain resolutions of his own, embracing a more comprehensive scheme of change than his former proposal, said, that he could not consent to any of Mr. O’Connell’s scheme. Triennial parliaments might not be very objectionable; but as to the other propositions, he considered them totally incompatible with the constitution of England. Lord Althorp spoke to the same effect: as any change was an evil, he said, the least change was the limit to which he should go. Mr. Brougham adopted the same course: the duration of parliaments might be shortened, he thought, but he set his face against universal suffrage and vote by ballot. His arguments against them were very cogent and convincing. A county election, he said, could not be managed like an election at a club, where the box was handed round, and the pellet thrown in, and there was an end of it. To contest for a county or extensive city, a man must be constantly among the people. His friends and himself should be unremittingly engaged in active canvas; committees and subdivisions of committees must be occupied in parcelling out the several districts, and ascertaining how their strength stood in this part and the other; landlords were to be sought out, and they of course would exercise an influence over their tenants. He would suppose that those who advocated this system would be able to devise some plan by which the voter was to be able to vote in such a manner as that mortal could not discover, except from himself, how he voted; that he was to be placed in some kind of sentry-box, and provided with some kind of stamped pellet, the forgery of which would no doubt be made an offence: it being assumed all this while that notwithstanding promises made to his landlord, and the candidate, his friend, the elector intended to give his vote to another. The vote was given, and against a promise. Well, he went afterwards to the candidate, congratulated him upon his prospect of success, not failing to add, that his vote was one of the items which contributed to the prospect. But then see the moral; see how far the concealment of what was done could be continued; how far the knowledge of it could be kept from the landlord, to secure whose interest in retaining him in his farm he had made the promise. No one could see what passed in the sentry-box, or how the pellet was disposed of; but were there no such things as conversation amongst friends in going to or coming from church, or at the club, or at the alehouse? was nothing of the nature of the vote to be allowed to transpire? was a man to keep such a watch and guard over his words and actions for three years, until the next election come, that no mortal could discover what he did? He must not tell it to his wife or his child; he must keep it locked up from his bosom friend; he must not broach it to his pot-companion, but be as dumb as the tankard which they had emptied between them; and this state of silence must be observed for three years. Thus far for the elector: how far was the concealment to be operated upon by the candidate? He had found out that he was unsuccessful; that where he had been promised five hundred votes he had not got fifty, the seed giving back one for ten, instead of yielding ten for one, as a good husbandman had a right to expect. Inquiries will be set on foot as to where the deficiency was. It might be a mistake of the poll-clerks: the poll-books were examined and all was right still. Then the Lord Johns and Sir Roberts, who had promised their interests, were questioned; but they insisted that it could not be amongst their tenants, for they had all promised, and had all, no doubt, religiously kept their words. Each defended his own tallies; but one had not voted for every tally promised. Suspicions were excited, and some of the voters questioned. The man so questioned had only one of three answers to give: he must say that he voted against the candidate, by which he was sure to lose his farm; or he must refuse to say how he voted, by which his loss of the farm would be equally certain; or he must insist and solemnly call God to witness that he had voted as he had promised. But even this latter alternative would not completely lull suspicions: there would still be the watchings and questionings of friends, and of agents, for no act that could be framed could prevent these. In the course of these something would turn up to fix the suspicions on which bad landlords would be ready to act against their tenants; and it was on the assumption of bad landlords, who would visit the refusal to vote for them or their tenants, that the necessity of vote by ballot was at all defended. The bad landlord would act upon suspicion: the more so, as, there being only fifty votes where five hundred had been promised, the chance was ten to one that any one of the five hundred who said he kept his word, was stating a falsehood. Examples would then be made of a few: and what would be the result? Why, that at the election a vast number would not vote at all. Some even of those who had kept their word would take that as the surest way to prove that they were not in the pay of the opposite party. The landlord would compel others, whom he strongly suspected, not to vote, as the only way of preventing their accession to the other side; or he might persuade some of those who, he knew, if they voted at all, would vote against him, to pair off with those whom he suspected, and thus deprive his adversary of the whole. But was there no other way of coming at the fact of how a voter had kept his word? If, in voting against his promise, he acted for his principles, he would be likely to make it known for the sake of those principles; if from friendship, he would probably tell it to gratify his friend; or if he gave it from motives of interest, nothing was less likely than that he should conceal it, for the attainment of the object would render the disclosure useful; and in this way the secret would come out, and the offended landlord at last get at it, and the visitation upon him, which the vote by ballot was intended to avert, would follow. But was this the only evil which resulted from this system? Was there not a far worse remaining behind? Did not all this study and concealment of a solemn promise violated; this long watching and guard over a man’s words and actions, so as constantly to appear that which he was not, tend to make him lead the life of a hypocrite; that character of whom it was so justly and eloquently said, that his life was one continued lie! What could be expected from a man who had deceived those who had trusted him, and from one election to the other was obliged to keep a constant watch on his words, lest, in an unguarded moment, he should betray his secret, the discovery of which would not be more injurious to his interests than fatal to his character? What must be the opinions of those who could believe that a man, who was for years, nay, even for months or weeks, habitually false on one subject which was dear to him, could be true on all others? Such an opinion was founded in utter ignorance of the human mind: false such a man was, and false he must be, until human nature became totally changed, or until men’s opinions of each other were totally subverted. Thus the ballot would have but little efficiency, and that little would be purchased at a great price. Mr. O’Connell’s motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and nineteen against thirteen; and the resolutions moved by Lord John Russell were afterwards negatived by two hundred and thirteen against one hundred and seventeen. These resolutions proposed to give members to large and manufacturing towns, and additional members to counties of great wealth and population. They also proposed to decrease the numbers of members for boroughs, giving to such boroughs compensation by means of a fixed sum to be paid annually for a certain number of years. Among the towns which were proposed to be comprehended were Macclesfield, Stockport, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Brighton, Whitehaven, Wolverhampton, Sunderland, Manchester, Bury, Bolton, Dudley, Leeds, Halifax, Sheffield, North and South Shields, and it was stated that the same principle would extend to the representation of such large cities as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. But the time was not yet come when such an extensive reform as this could be entertained in the British parliament.

BILL FOR REMOVING THE CIVIL DISABILITIES AFFECTING JEWS.

{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}