TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE DEBATES OF THE WEEK.
NEW arguments in the discussion of the Reform Bill may be desi- derated, but the public can no longer complain of languor in carry- ing it on. The vigorous conduct of the Opposition on Tues- day, throws all bygone exploits- of either side of the House, at least for many years past, into the shade. • Mr. Lastaross once got up a debate on a motion for fresh candles, and the Minister was com- pelled to give in, under the penalty of pleading in the dark. But that memorable contest fell short of the exhibition of Tuesday. Lord CASTLEREAGH gave in at half-past five ; • Mr: MACKWORTH PRAED did not capitulate till a quarter before seven. There was also a small difference in the object as well as in the issue of the two struggles. Mr. LAMBTON was contending against a Cabinet which the people hated very heartily ; Mr. PRAED was contending for the Boroughmongers, whom the people hate more heartily, and contemn more entirely than they ever did any Ministry, not excepting even. Lord CASTLEREAGHS• Mr.' LAMBTONS conduct was 'bold ; that of Mr. PRINGLE and Mr. PRAED was only impu- dent. The rule of the House, by which any member niay'move an adjournment as often as he sees fit, was framed as a safeguard for the people. It was meant to enable those tai delay who were too feeble' to• 'withstand. It is an expedient, and a rude one, for .checking unlawful power—not for upholding it. It is. gisien to the Minority in the House for the protection of the majority. with- out. When the niajorAy without sympathize with the majority within, the minority must give way to physical if not to moral compulsion.- This is the only rule of social government. If no restraint of common sense will prevail on the nominees of the Boroughmongers to behave with common decency, they must be expelled—sent forth to breathe the common air, for eight days, that they may cool their tempers and lit themselves for the com- pany of the people's representatives. Let them persevere in their factious obstruction a little longer, and the majority must, in self- defence, turn them out of the House like a discarded bill.
The Ministers have impressed on their friends the propriety of not replying to the speeches of the Opposition ; and they have been obeyed. But there is a prudent limit to silence. We ought not on every occasion to answer a fool according•to his folly, but if he wax presumptathis in consequence of our forbearance, we must apply the rod. Because Sir CHARLES WETHERELL abuses the King's English and despises braces, it does not follow that Ministers should neglect their grammar and their hose : but fhey may, and ought, notwithstanding, to silence Sir CHARLES WETHERELL'S eternal babble. His impudence of assertion, his bald witticisms, his blundering metaphors, his arrogance, and his ignorance, his contempt of fact, of reason, and 'of courtesy; should receive" their due castigation. • Last session, Mr. HOBROUSE showed up his poor jokes most successfully, and Sir FRANCIS BURDETT chastised his insolence 'as it deserved. Let the same course. be parsued•this session-4ew cuts, but well-directed and unsparingly applied—and we engage that he shall sing dumb for a week: There is another personage whom it would be well to silence— the ex-member for Weymouth. This gentleman has all the empti- ness and pertinacity of Sir CHARLES, without his moping and mowing. You can laugh at the latter, if you cannot laugh with him. But Sir EDWARD SUGDEN has nothing of the nature of a laugh in hini or about him—he is prig., and nothing but prig. Think of this•dapperlino. creeping under the ropes and throwing up his hat in the face of all England! And think of his minikin backer, Mr. J. KNIGHT, with his 5001. worth of representative dignity in his pocket, telling Ministers that they dare not venture on a round with his honourable and learned friend!
What is the value of the objections that have been urged against the Bill since the motion for the Committal ? Have they any re- commendation of novelty ? Is there either soundness or plausibility in the pick of them ? Let us hear the puffer of little newspapers, Captain GORDON. "The Bill will augment the influence of Dis- senters and Rothan Catholics." It augments the influence of pro- perty doubtless. Is the Episcopal Church as poor in worldly pos- sessions as it is rich in heavenly wisdom ? Is all the land of Ireland in the hands of the parish priests and their followers ?
What says Lord MAITLAND ? The Bill.is in its principle perni- cious, and in its details absurd ; but he will be content to accept it nevertheless, if Ministers transfer Appleby from Schedule A to schedule B ! Then comes the grand argument of all—" why take as a standard the return of 1821 ? " Why not ? It is impartial at least ; no consideration of the question of Reform could mislead those who made it. The contrary is notoriously the fact with respect to the returns of 1831.
"But might not the breaking down of the mail some night in 1821," says the witty Sir ROBERT PEEL, ."be the cause of adding that convenient five which saves Melton from disfranchisement?" But might not the breaking down of the mail before it reached Melton be the cause why the five was nut ten ?. Unquestionably, accident might here and there affect the returns of 1821 ; but it was quite as likely to affect them the one way as the other. We do not seek to exclude accidents, unless, like those of the returns of 1831, they are made on purpose. But then the number of 101. houses, it is said, would have been a more rational criterion. It might; had it-been ascertainable ; but it was not, from any existing returns. -And if returns had been ordered, they would have been open to ten times more abuse than even the population returns are. We are told, for the thousandth time, that Ministers themselves have repeatedly. changed their views in respect to the standard laid down by them.
This is simply a falsehood. With the exception. of Downton and St. Germans, where, on inquiry, it has been shown that that part
of the Bill which requires every borough to have -at least 300 voters can by no means be fulfilled, not one borough is included in Schedule A which has more, nor in Schedule 13-which has less
than 2,000 inhabitants. But what if they had ? There is no magic in the number 2,000, more than in 2,500. The boroughs in Schedule A are disfranchised on the assumption that they can- not exercise the franchise to the advantage of the public. In some of them, a decline of population leas produced patronage ; in some, patronage has produced a decline of population ; but they have all one common feature—they do not possess in them- selves the means of independence. Either they must he cut off, or patronage must remain.
" But," screams Mr. WYNNE, "you reform boroughs because of the changes that have taken place in four hundred years—why
not because of the changes that have taken plaCe in ten ?" Would then the Final-measure men have a fresh Reform Bill every ten years ? Do such reasoners aim at our understanding, or only at our patience ?
The same gentleman would fain on Wednesday have prevailed on the House to determine the number of members required for the towns and districts on whom members were meant to be be- stowed, before it proceeded to disfranchiseat all. This was putting disfranchisement on a new footing. A place was to be deprived of its members, not because it was incapable or unworthy of the franchise, but because another place was equally capable and worthy. Of course, if it were determined that no extension was called for, Sarum and Gatton must remain ; if two members only were wanted, one of these immaculates must capitulate ; but the other was secure from molestation. The man who gravely offered this proposition, we need not say, is one of our -Parlia- mentary oracles, and when he open his mouth there is not a puppy in the House dare venture to bark.
Previous page
