Page images
PDF
EPUB

and would make it compulsory on the officers to send in a list of the names of all qualified to vote. This would extend the present number of single voters from about 800,000 in a total population of about 16,000,000, to a body which he estimated at about 3,232,762. Taking those only assessed to the rate, he should exclude about a million of persons equally respectable with those included; therefore every lodger might register or be registered for the poor-rate for the house in which he lived, and so become entitled to the franchise like the

owner.

The present time, argued Mr. Hume, was most opportune for extending the franchise, the working classes being fully employed, and the nation free from alarms.

Ministers have strengthened the case by the concession they have made of a reformed franchise in Ireland, and by producing the correspondence on their proposed constitution for the Cape of Good Hope: the Bill of Rights for that colony. Lord Stanley had advocated, and it was now proposed to concede, the suffrage to every person assessed to the road-tax among the mixed population of that colony-Dutch settlers and their descendants, English colonists, free Aborigines, Fingoes, and liberated Negroes. The duration of the Representative Assembly was to be five years. Receding, on more mature consideration, from his former agreement with Major Cartwright in favour of annual Parliaments, Mr. Hume now proposed three years. The Colonial Representatives were also to be paid: in this respect the Government went beyond his proposal. In conclusion, he referred to the past in a tone of warning.

He recounted from memory the disturbances of 1796, when Fox and Grey congratulated the French people on their revolution ("Hear!" from Mr. Henry Drummond)—and when at every meeting the toast given was, "The People, the only source of all power;" the subsequent disgraceful measures by which reform principles were put down; the war in which 600,000,000l. was spent to put down such a commonwealth in France as now exists notwithstanding. The demand for reform in 1842 and 1843 was met by increased estimates, augmentation of the army and police, and a doubling of the expenditure: if such a time as 1842 should again occur, the people, with their increased intelligence, would not consent any longer to endure such injustice.

Having moved his resolution, Mr. Hume added, that though the abolition of the qualification of Members was not named in his motion as it stood on the paper, yet he hoped there would be no objection to its being included.

Sir Joshua Walmsley seconded, and briefly advocated, the resolu tion.

Sir George Grey gave the mover and seconder credit for praiseworthy intentions, but avowed that he was not prepared to remodel the House of Commons by a new Reform Bill. Such a large and indefinite extension of the suffrage would be inconsistent with any effectual check; the guard of registration might be evaded by collusive occupations, parcelling a house among an indefinite number of "lodgers." Sir George went over the points of the proposed Bill, with comments to show how little the scheme differed from that

of the full Charter advocated by Mr. O'Connor. In the course of this criticism. Sir George drew from Mr. Hume the admissions, that he had no objection even to extend the franchise to females, and that he would have not the least objection to substitute for a hereditary House of Lords an elective second Chamber."] These admissions Sir George fixed upon as effective topics for comment. In conclusion, he declared his opinion that the Bill would establish a pure democracy in the House of Commons; which would be inconsistent with the harmonious working of the constitution. He therefore asked the House to negative the motion.

Mr. O'Connor defended himself and the Charter against some remarks of Mr. Hume, whom he, however, thanked for bringing forward the measure.

Mr. Wood did not see why the principle adopted in the Irish Bill should not be applicable to the constituency of England. Mr. Hume's was a plain and simple proposition; and was it safe to go on, year after year, the Government opposing reform, and bring. ing forward no measure for remedying acknowledged evils? Was it wise to wait until driven, as in other changes, by some formidable convulsion? This measure was perfectly consistent with our Constitution; it was adapted to the habits of the people, to their system of Government, and to the direction their minds had taken. The question was, whether it was unsafe to trust a larger portion of the people with the franchise. Assuming Sir G. Grey's figures: there were 3,500,000 nonelectors, and were there none amongst them fitted for the

suffrage? If some were fitted, would they remain long tranquil, excluded from it? Men of the highest intelligence were found among the industrious classes, and he did not wish to see them bandied in an order with the mark of exclusion upon them.

Mr. Henry Drummond regretted that Mr. Hume had not separated the extension of the franchise from other matters, in order that he Mr. Drummond) might have supported him. Sooner or later, however, he believed, every one would be carried; the reaping time was coming of seed long sown; the Whigs had been preaching the doctrine of democracy for the last 150 years.

Mr. Roebuck thought the country was indebted to Mr. Hume for bringing forward this question at the present time. Sir G. Grey had resisted the motion because it would be a departure from the principles of the Constitution, and would make the House too democratic; but there had been a direct change in the representative system-a quiet and salutary revolution-by the Reform Bill. The motion did not controvert the English Constitution-that is, that there should be a body representing the people, and speaking in their name in the making of laws. He did not support this motion because he thought that House did not represent the feelings, opinions, and passions of the people; nor did he hold that taxation and representation should go together, which they never did; nor that the actual burdens of the people of England were greater than those of other people. His ground of support was, that a large body of our fellow countrymen fancied

themselves aggrieved because they were not represented, which engendered a feeling of discontent amongst the labouring population. The franchise proposed by Mr. Hume was not universal: it required various conditions and qualifications; and the notion that the intelligent labourer and mechanic would return men hostile to the institutions of the country was a mere bugbear. He believed, that if this franchise were given to-morrow it would be a harmless concession, and that there was really no danger in endowing a large section of our labouring population with this privilege.

Lord J. Russell vindicated Whig principles, and the motives and objects of the Reform Act, against the strictures of Mr. Drummond and Mr. Roebuck. With respect to the motion, he reiterated the argument of Sir G. Grey, that the proposed franchise was one disjoined from property. Mr. Roebuck's ground of supporting the motion went to the extent of universal suffrage; and whilst he (Lord J. Russell) denied that the maxim that taxation and representation were reciprocal should be literally understood and acted upon, he dissented from Mr. Roebuck's theory that the maxim was a fallacy; it meant only that the House of Commons legally and virtually represented the people, and in their name granted taxes. The proposed franchise would open a door to fraud, whilst it would be almost universal; and was he to infer from the conduct of the labouring classes, or working men, which deserved commendation, that if they had such a suffrage their choice would be a wise one? It might be ungenerous to seem to

distrust the people, but he believed they would be misled. With respect to inequalities in the representation, if they were to be remedied, the country must be equally divided into districts, or an increase of members should be given to counties as well as towns; but it was never proposed to cure the inequalities in counties; and he suspected that there was a desire to give a preponderating weight to the great towns. Although he negatived the motion, he did not therefore hold that the existing limits of the franchise must be permanently maintained; but he and his colleagues had thought it would be advisable in the present Session, not to put aside all other questions in order to raise one that must lead to long and protracted debates; but that the sentiments of the country should be matured and settled respecting other questions before this, which must create a great division of parties, and required fuller information and further reflection, was launched. Referring to recent events in other countries, Lord John contended that we should derive a lesson from their experience, and not grasp at too much at once, nor take a wide step without mature deliberation. Whatever change was made should be effected, not by a substitute for the Reform Act, but by a supplement to that law, which was adapted to the institutions of the country and to the wishes of the people. The course proposed by Mr. Hume was one of conjecture and uncertainty; his advice was to prefer to that conjecture and uncertainty the institutions we had, prepared to amend their defects, but refusing to enter upon a new career full of doubt and peril.

Mr. Osborne condemned the speech of Lord J. Russell, and lamented his apostacy from the cause of reform. He read some amusing illustrations of the purity of elections under the Reform Act, and asked what better remedy for this political leprosy could be devised than an increase of the franchise? The only question was, how far it should go? Household suffrage was the ancient system. If the ballot was deemed by the

people a protection, they should have it; and a return to triennial Parliaments, which were no novelty, would be a wise step. He concluded his speech, which was seasoned with humour and sarcasm, by stating, that he supported the motion because it would make the house in reality the Commons House of England.

The House having divided, the motion was negatived by 242 against 96.

CHAPTER II.

COLONIAL AFFAIRS-Constitutional Government for the Colonies-Increasing public interest in that subject-Development of the views of Government by Lord John Russell, in moving Resolutions in the House of Commons on the 8th of February-His able and comprehensive Speech-Remarks of Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Adderley, Mr. F. Scott, Mr. Hume, and other Members. AUSTRALIAN COLONIES BILL-Second Reading moved by Lord John Russell, on the 18th of February-Mr. Roebuck criticises the Measure-After a general discussion the Second Reading is carried-Committal of the Bill-Numerous Amendments are moved by Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Mowatt, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. C. Lushington, Mr. E. Denison, and other Members-The Bill, in its main features, is successfully supported by the Government— Various questions of Colonial Policy mooted in debate-On bringing up the Report Sir W. Molesworth moves the re-committal of the Bill, explaining at some length his views of Colonial Policy-Mr. Gladstone supports the Motion, which is resisted by Mr. Labouchere and Sir George Grey, and is negatived on a Division by 165 against 42-Mr. Gladstone moves the addition of a Clause giving to the Church of England in the Colonies a power of synodical action-Interesting discussion on this Motion-Speeches in favour of the Amendment are made by Mr. A. B. Hope, Mr. W. P. Wood, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr. Walpole, and Mr. Adderley, and by Sir George Grey, Mr. Hume, Mr. Roebuck, and the Attorney-General, contra-The Clause is rejected by 187 to 102-On the Third Reading being moved, Mr. Gladstone proposes that the operation of the Bill be suspended until the opinion of the Colonies respecting it can be ascertained-Mr. Roebuck supports the proposition, which, after a full discussion, is negatived by 226 to 128-Other Amendments are rejected, and the Bill is passed-In the House of Lords the Second Reading of the Bill is carried nem. dis.- Motion made by Lord Brougham that the Opponents may be heard by Counsel against the Bill-Opposed by Earl Grey, and negatived by 33 to 25-The Bishop of Oxford moves that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee-His Speech-Earl Grey opposes the Motion, which, after some discussion and a Speech from Lord Stanley, is rejected by 34 to 21.- Various Amendments proposed in Committee-Certain Clauses abandoned by Ministers-The Amendments made in the Lords are ultimately adopted by the House of Commons. AFFAIRS OF CEYLON-Proceedings of the Select Committee-Substance of the Report-Indignation expressed in the House of Commons at the conduct of Lord Torrington. WEST

« PreviousContinue »