Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

by the language of the fierce, the malignant, and cowardly demagogue, who had written the document on the Table." He could name the individual, if he were not beneath contempt. But he called upon the House not to form their opinions from the language of that individual, but to judge of the conduct of that large class, whose conduct had been borne witness to by a Gentleman opposite, who had borne so patiently their long sufferings, and the daily oppression to which they had been subjected; from this conduct of theirs he would beg the House to judge of their countrymen, and not from the hasty wording of the idle and foolish document before them. And if he were right, why anticipate the anarchy described by the last speaker? If the people entertained the opinions imputed to them, could any physical force in the country at this moment keep them down? If 3,000,000 should rise up as a man to insist upon what they considered their just demands, what army that you could raise could avail to keep them quiet? But what was it that produced this feeling on the part of the people? It was a conviction on their part of the benefits which would arise to themselves from peace and obedience to the laws. Or let him put the evils of an aristocratic Government against the evils assumed by Mr. Macaulay; when the country was distressed, when the Government and the people asked for a reduction in the price of food, the exclusive and aristocratic body that formed the majority in that assembly did everything they could to keep up the price of provisions: was there no spirit of rapine in that?

Lord Francis Egerton, believing the petitioners to be sincere, found that 3,000,000 persons had signed what Mr. Roebuck had called a trashy and contemptible petition; and he concurred in Mr. Macaulay's reasons against taking that trashy and contemptible document into consideration. Mr. Hawes said, he could not concede power to masses of people, blindly led by the very men for whom Mr. Roebuck had expressed such merited contempt. Mr. Hume re-asserted some of the allegations in the petition as undeniable; and said, that the best mode of avoiding revolution was to listen to the well-founded complaints of the people.

Mr. Wakley observed, that it had been expected that the newlyenfranchised boroughs would return some very troublesome men; but, assuredly, they never would be annoyed with men of extreme opinions, if they took their leaf of Reform out of Mr. Hawes's book. He had expected, on a question so interesting to the working-class, that it would have been hailed with rounds of Kentish fire and other manifestations of sympathy from Members on the Ministerial side, who had so often denounced the Whigs for harshness towards the poorer classes. The motion ought to be granted, if it were only that the House might have an opportunity of discovering, that the people were not such sanguinary monsters as Mr. Macaulay had painted them.

Lord John Russell, after adverting to some inconsistencies between the arguments urged by Mr. Roebuck, and the description given by him of the petition and its authors, said, it was quite true, that instead of regulating their

affairs by a public assemblage in the market-place, the people now delegated their power to others. This was a great and admirable invention; but then it was one that would subject the people to this inconvenience, that if the people should make a choice of those who might deceive them if they put themselves into the hands of those who might be deserving of the epithets applied to the author of this petition-if the people gave to such persons the power of legislation-then they would be without a remedy; then they might see carried into effect attacks on that property which they were disposed to respect; then they might find institutions destroyed which they themselves might approve of; and then that very respect for the law, that very quality which Mr. Roebuck had so truly and so justly extolled, that ready and constant obedience to law, might be one of the means used to their prejudice; for if they placed themselves in the hands of designing men of men whose object was plunder-and if rapacious leaders obtained the powers of legislation, that very characteristic quality of the people might be taken advantage of to effect their ruin. He felt confident, that if all the adult males in a place were assembled, and were made to understand that the present public creditors had obtained their claim on the faith of the country for a valuable consideration, they would repudiate the project of applying a sponge to the public debt; but he was not so sure that those who had induced them to sign this petition might not mislead them to choose as representa tives men who would call such an act necessary for the public good.

The improved representation of modern times made it the more necessary that they should be careful as to those in whose hands they placed the power of choosing representatives. As for "the indefeasible and unalienable right" to vote for a Member of Parliament, he was at a loss to understand it. Why should every adult person be entitled to elect a Member of Parliament any more than to sit upon a jury? It was a question of policy. Though, generally, wealth might be considered in elections under universal suffrage, yet he saw no security against a popular ferment in the case of a general election. The constitution was too precious to be put to such a hazard. It might be safer in the United States, where no monarchy exists, where every officer in the state is elected, where there is no established church, and no great masses of property collected in few hands; but, in this country, thẹ many institutions which hold society together would be held up as prizes to the people in times of distress, The present demand would be best met by a direct negative.

Sir Robert Peel was quite prepared to resist the motion for the hearing on the ground of his opposition to the Charter, as it was called; as he did not mean to awaken hopes on false grounds. The honourable Gentleman had said that the petitioners only demanded inquiry; but this petition was nothing more or less than an impeachment of the constitution and of the whole frame of our society. The petition said it was wrong to maintain an Established Church; and, after many other statements, declared as a postscript that the people of Ireland were

entitled to a repeal of the Union. How could he be justified in listening to such demands, or what could be the practical result of hearing four or five speeches at the Bar on such topics? Were the speeches to be made at the Bar of the House to be replied to? Supposing that they failed in producing their effect, was the demand then to be, that he should enter into an inquiry with respect to every allegation which might be brought forward? should he admit that inquiry, or refuse it? The petition had been characterized as not representing the sentiments of those who signed it

as a document at variance with the judgments, with the good sense, of the three millions and a half of petitioners; and as a document which had been imposed upon them by a cowardly and malig nant demagogue,' whom the honourable Member in question knew, and from his personal knowledge was entitled to speak of with disrespect. He knew not to whom the honourable Gentleman alluded he would take the description from the honourable Gentleman. And should he permit the author of the petition, the man described in such terms-the man who had so perverted to his own evil purposes the minds of the intelligent, the industrious, the labouring classes of England-should he admit that man to the Bar of the House?-and he, of course, would be the man who would come forward to defend the allegations of the petition-should not he be countenancing gross delusion if he permitted him, the author of the petition which put forth an hundred points, the acquiescence in each of which would be an evil to the interests of the

person

petitioners? Was such one whom he could admit to the Bar of the House, to establish the rights of the labouring classes of England?

What was it, he asked, that gave to the law that influence over the people which Mr. Roebuck had described ? —

It was a conviction on the part of the people that it was just. Did they believe that, if the people of England were in that condition in which the petition as serted they lived-did they believe that if the spirit of the country was justly decribed in that memorial, which stated that Your honourable House has enacted laws contrary to the expressed wishes of the people, and by unconstitutional means enforced obedience to them, thereby creating an unbearable des potism on the one hand, and degrading slavery on the other'-if such (he said), was a just representation of the feelings of the people with respect to the law of England, would that people acknowledge that tacit influence of the law which gave to the decrepid constable the power which he now possessed? Did the House imagine, that the high-spirited people of England would have that respect for the law which they now exhibited, if they did not believe that the law was such as guaranteed the rights of property, and preserved the blessing of liberty-as a law for the poor man as well as for the rich?

The English people had been contrasted by a preceding speaker with those of foreign nations, as being superior in patience, in intelligence, and in spirit; but what had formed that character, if not those laws and institutions which were impeached by the present petition? And on the other hand,

how could he trust to that high character which was given of the petitioners, if they had agreed to such a petition as Mr. Roebuck had described? He agreed with Lord John Russell, that if the people had been deluded in this instance, they might be deluded again, when they had acquired that power which others might abuse. He believed Universal Suffrage to be incompatible with the maintenance of a mixed Monarchy, under which the people had obtained for 150 years as much practical liberty, and enjoyment of social happiness, as any form of human government could affordnot excepting that of the United States of America.

He concluded by expressing his sincere sympathy with the present sufferings of the people, but his firm resolution not to consent to those momentous changes in the

Constitution, which could yield no relief, but rather produce an aggravation of the evils complained of.

Mr. Muntz declared his intention of supporting the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Oswald opposed it as delusive.

Mr. Villiers spoke in favour of the motion, which went no further than a hearing of the case alleged in the petition by counsel at the Bar.

Mr. O'Connell explained that his vote would be given on the same side, on the ground of his being a decided advocate of Universal Suffrage; a doctrine which he had not heard successfully combated, either in this debate, or at any other time.

Mr. Duncombe replied.

The House divided, and there appeared-ayes, 49; noes, 287: majority, 238.

CHAPTER VII.

Lord Ashley's bill for restraining the Employment of Women and Children in Mines and Collieries-Extracts from the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry - Impression made by Lord Ashley's statement upon the House of Commons-Speeches of Mr. Fox Maule, Lord F. Egerton, Sir J. Graham, and other MembersLeave given to bring in the Bill nem. con.-Rapid progress of the measure in the House of Commons-It is passed with slight opposition-It is introduced in an altered form in the House of Lords. Debates on the Second Reading-Lord Wharncliffe states the intentions of the Government respecting it-Lord Londonderry moves, that it be read a second time that day six months, but the Motion is not seconded. Speech of Lord Brougham before going into Committee-Various amendments are proposed and negatived, and the Bill passed-Debates in the House of Commons on the Lords' Amendments-Charges against the Government made by Lord Palmerston and Mr. C. Buller-Sir R. Peel vindicates the Ministers-The Amendments agreed to-Bribery at ElectionsSingular result of proceedings before Committees - General reports respecting compromises of petitions-Mr. Roebuck undertakes an inquiry He addresses questions to the Members for Reading, Nottingham, Harwich, Penryn and Lewes-Their answers -Mr. Roebuck states his charges and moves for a Select CommitteeMr. Fitzroy seconds the motion-Adjourned debate-Speeches of Mr. Wynn, Mr. Ward, Lord Palmerston, Sir R. Inglis, Sir R. Peel, Lord J. Russell, Lord Stanley, and others-Mr. Roebuck amends his motion, which is then carried without a division-Mr. T. Duncombe proposes a test for the Committee, which is rejectedNomination of the Committee-An Act of Indemnity for Witnesses passed-Presentation of the Report of the Committee-Particulars of compromises in the cases of Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Reading, Penryn, and Bridport- Mr. Roebuck moves Resolutions founded on the Report-Speeches of Mr. C. Russell, Major Beresford, Mr. Fitzroy, Captain Plumridge, and Lord Chelsea-The Solicitorgeneral moves the previous question-Sir R. Peel states reasons for opposing the resolutions, which are negatived on a division-The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses Lord Chelsea's application for the Chiltern Hundreds-Lord Palmerston finds fault with the Government-The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir R. Peel vindicate the course adopted for frustrating the Compromises published by the Committee-Statement of Captain Plumridge-Suspension of the Writs for Nottingham, Ipswich, Southampton, and Newcastle-underVOL. LXXXIV.

[M]

« AnteriorContinuar »