The Morning Papers contain reports of the proceedings at the
two great Reform dinners—to Lord Morpeth mid Sir George Strickland at Leeds, and Mr. Ewan at Liverpool.
Among the speakers at the Leeds dinner, there were no Ruth . call, but we suspect that there was a portly sprinkling of them at the table. The largest room that could be procured for the entertainment held upwards of a thousand persons, but there were applications Joe two thousand tickets. Lord Morpeth seems to hove acquitted himself very creditai4, and noun to the stitisttie;- tion of his audience. Having the choice Of his own topics, he of course eschewed all ticklish points, and especially those on which the Liberals and the Ministers differ. He very happily ridiculed the bombastic oratory of the Tories; and demanded their reasons for not turning out a 'Ministry whose power was so con- temptible, and whose propensities were so vicious, as that of Lord Melbourne. Were they not, he asked, the most unblushing libellers, or the most pusillanimous recreants ? Was there ever before so much swaggering, with so much shrinking, such a %lowing of trumpets be- fore the charge, and such a failtire in the onslaught ? Very faddy did Lord Morpeth take credit to Lord 1%10:o live and himself for their go- vernment of Ireland. The result of Lord Lyndhurst's efforts to crush agitation might be seen in the activity, more prominent than ever, of the " normal schools." Lord Morpeth bad no difficulty in proving that his Irish Church Bill was in fact a very pitiful nu asure, and more favourable to the Establishment than the next that would be offered. But, though be spoke of the necessity of speedily settling the Tithe question, lest the Establishment should be irretrievably lust, be did not state distinctly that Government would bring forward another bill in the ensuing session. On the question of Irish Poor-laws he was more explicit. He declared his deep convic- tion that no question approached in urgency to that of adopting sound. measures of practical relief for the Irish poor. For himself, Lord Motpetli said he was prepared to pursue the same course he had hitherto trod in- " I value and will do may utmost to maintain the Constitutiou ; but, under its broad and expansive shade, I would remove every obstacle and clear every- avenue of access to every class, to every creed, and every race that owns its sway and courts its shelter. I would proceed in reducing and re- moving all the remainder of exclusive privileges and monopolies, hay which one class of our countrymen may be benefited to the detriment of the rest. I would give to religious as well as to civil freedom the most unobstructed range ; and. above all, I would desire to banish from our temples and our altars the clash of soolid disputes and secular bickerings. And while I would thus advance with the age in which I live, adapting the framework of our polity to surrounding cirrunistauces, clinging to no abuse because it is ancient, and shrinking from no improvement because it is a change, I own, at the seine time, I should feed little dis - po,,.d to disclaimer to desert that party of which it pleases some to predicate that it v a ging upon extinction, and can never again emerge to power or popularity. in Emland. Well, then, be it so. The destinies and issues of individuals, and of pal acs, alit of empires, are beyond the ken and scan of common calculation ; but, to whatever depth of obscurity my friends or myself may be consigned, it will be sufficient for me, as an individual, to remember that in four succes- sive elections I have borne your colours to victory ; it y ill he sufficient for nie, as Cie member of a party, to recollect that in four short years we have re- furnwd the Representation of the People in Parliament, ref4med and opened the :Municipal Corporations of England and Scotland, swept from our blushing rye,: Is the &anon code of slavery, opened wide the seas and Iti11111.es of the gW.e to British trade and British enterprise—in a word, that we have done all the, upon the imperfect and tardy assent to which Sir Robert Peel. their ablest champion, rests the sole defence of the policy of the House of Lords. And this the legislation of four short years—the far-off and still dimly-foreseen effects of which will enrich and bless generations yet unborn and ages yet un- counted—has been—let both the over-timid and over-bold mark this—achieved without one form of the constitution being violated, without one breach of the law tieing countenanced, without one drop of human blood being spilled."
Sir George Strickland is an improving personage. We shall have him a thorough Radical by and by. He indeed interlarded his speech with a few aristocratic phrases—such as "wild Democracy," " balance of the Constitution," and "established principles of the Constitution," which provoked hisses as well as cheers : but, on the other hand, Sir George came out as a Peerage Reformer, and took the pains to ex- pound a nice little scheme of his own for making the Constitution work smoothly. lie proposes that about 300 Peers—the oldest creations —should be retained, and that the King should have the power of making Peers for life—all to retain their " high-sounding titles." As to the House of Commons, Sir George declared it to be his conviction that the Reform of that House had not gone far enough. lie had the sense to reject the new Whig nonsense about Quinquennial Parlia- ments, and was for the repeal of the Septennial Act, with some precaution against much wore frequent elections than once in three years. Lastly, Sir George Strickland advocated the Ballot. He thought that the 501. tenant-tit-will clause virtually carried the Ballot along with it ; for when the Legislature gave dependent tenantry the right of voting, without protection in the exercise of that right, " it passed upon them the grossest insult." Bravo, Sir George ! This was said, be it observed, in Leeds, where in 1833 Mr. Macaulay, brimful of insolent and successful Whiggery, said that nobody men- tioned the Ballot, except some poor, crazy Radical, who was pelted in the streets for his absurd and unpopular notions. The other speakers at the Leeds dinner were Mr. Parker, Mr. Baines, and Mr. Gaskell ; who were rather prosy, and the two first very Whiggish. Altogether, this Leeds dinner seems to have been a well-managed affair. The Liverpool dinner was given by the Tradesmen's Association to their excellent and useful Member, Mr. Ewart. Upwards of a thousand persons :ate tided this banquet, and hundreds were disap- pointed of admission. The tone of the speeches here was more gene- rally Radical than at Leeds. Every body spoke out about the Ballot and Peerage Reform. Mr. Ewart very elaborately dissected the Peel oration at Glasgow. Ile ridiculed the exhortation of the expectant Minister to his audience to stand by the " old Constitution "- " Our worthy ft sends of Scotland will tell Sir Robert Peel, that either he has not rand the history of his country, or does not recollect that the vet y best fea- ture in the character id the Constitution of this country is its self-adaptation to the necessities of the time ; and that it has nut this vain attribute itt 'Immuta- bility which, if it really had possessed, and had nut possessee inlieieotly the power of self-adaptation to circumstances, the Constitution would have perished many a day since. Sir Robert Peel tells our fitends in Scotland that they must not listen to the language of theorists, who propose further changes in the Constitution. Never mind, geutlemen : there is another sort of theorist h- sides the theorist who speculate* oil the future—there is this theorist, and eaTtier theorist exists than the blind ailhereut to an old Gumititut ion. Sods a pet soli ni 9. be said to be a theta at of the pag—may hie called it political anti- quarian - may be defined to be a otatt.w.titau who, lit guiding a vessel of the sate, looks the wiong way, and resolutely turns his back on the future." It had beets said by Sir Robert Peel, in order to frighten the people of England, that a revolution in this country would not be an Ames rican but a French revolution. But Englishmen were not to be branded as Dantons and Robespierres, because they call for a reform of the House of Lords. Mr. Ewart was convinced that greater scope must be given to the Democracy; and if he was called a speculative theorist, he would just mention one or two of the reforms which should, be thought, be carried, by the aid of the People. One was the abolition of the Corn.laws—what did the Tories think of that for a speculative theory ? He would have a Stipendiary Magistracy in the place of the present unpaid Justices, and the County business managed by repre- sentatives elected by the people—that was another theory. He would abolish the law of primogeniture—was that a speculative innovation ? Now he thou:;ht that a sound alteration in the House of Lords would be a practical innovation. (Here the whole company rose at once, and cheered vehemently for some minutes.) " It has been advanced by Sir Robert Peel, in his learned argument against Peerage Reform, that if you reform the Lords you give the whole ascendancy to the Commons. Now, if Sir Robert Peel could devise one plan more cer- tain than another to give the total ascendancy to the Commons, it would be to keep unreformed the present House of Lords. For it is quite clear, that any legislative body refusing to be acted upon by any other impulse than coercion, must at length become exhausted by its own efforts, and sink into a state of political paralysis. So much fur this learned argument against the alteration of the House of Lords. Having, :lox three years ago, put on the Notice-book of the House of Commons the first motion for some reform of the House of Lords, I feel every day more firmly convinced that it must come, and that such a reform as I then projected, though sufficient, perhaps, had it passed at the time, yet would now be infinitely inefficient—so far have they surpassed me in the rapidity of their suicidal legislation—so fast have they gone on in the slaughter of bills, headed in the pursuit by Lord Lyndhurst, that great suicidal Baron."
On the true policy of Ministers Mr. Ewart spoke as follows ; the hearty Reformers by whom he was surrounded testifying, by frequent plaudits, their entire concurrence on the views of their able and true Representative. After expressing his earnest hope that the Tories would find the Reform phalanx united and impervious to their attacks, Mr. Ewart said- " You will ask me, and you have a right to ask me, what course I intend to pursue. The same course that I have hitherto adopted I shall continue to follow. I shall either support or bring forward such measures as I deem con- ducive to the public good. I will not be guilty of any insincere friendship towards the Ministry, nor of any factious opposition. They shall find me, as long as they conduct themselves well in the eyes of the People of England, no hollow friend, no ungenerous opponent. I shall pursue the steady course of never shirking measures which I may deem conducive to the public good, or consider that my career is to be pointed out by the beck of the Ministry ; but that the Ministry itself should be controlled, and keep itself in unison and tune with the minds of the People. And now, gentlemen, I come to a point which has been much debated, both intra mura et extra, by the Minis. ters and by the People—how far certain measures should be made, in conso- nance with the wishes of the community, what is called open questions ; that is, not measures for Cabinet resistance. It appears to me, that as soon as a question is so strongly taken up by the People that the expression of their opinion is almost indubitable upon it, it becomes the duty of Ministers either to carry that question as a Cabinet question, or to leave the question open. Such appears to me to be the state of the public mind on the question of the Ballot. such I believe to be the state of the public mind upon the question of Trien- nial Parliaments, and certain other questions ; and it certainly strikes me, if I am correct in the view I take, and that the public mind is strongly in their favour, it would be well and wise to leave such questions open, not to make them points for Ministerial opposition."
Mr. Gisborne was the next speaker of note ; and the Morning Chronicle says that his speech was considered one of his happiest efforts. We have no doubt that Mr. Gisborne made every point in it tell, by his peculiar mode of delivery ; but the speech does not read like any thing very remarkable. The single topic which be selected was the difference between the two Houses of Parliaments on that occasion he said, he was " a man of one idea." The Lords bad been evidently alarmed, and had declared themselves the Representatives of the Poor— their " Tribunes "—would they stand election by the poor ? If so, they might soon come to terms ; and he would suggest that the Members of the House of Commons should be elected by the present constituen- cies, and the House of Lords by all below them. But the Lords were "responsible to God and their own consciences"- " So was Fieschi. (A unanimous cry of "Hear, hear ! " and tumultuous ap- plause.) But that was but a poor security for Louis Philip; it was a poor security for the Duke de Rovigo and the other unfortunate victims who fell before him. But be was responsible to the law, as well as to God and his conscience ; and the law took him and hanged him, to save the lives of those who might have been his future victims. Sir Robert Peel bad supposed that his sentiments were differently received when they were spoken in the House of Commons. Yes, it was so : and for the simple reason, that in one case he was speaking to an enlightened audience, and in the other to a set of stupid bigots, got together from every corner of the kingdom of Scotland, with a sprinkling from England to eke them out."
Mr. Gisborne denied that the Monarchy of England was in any peril ; but its continued security would be guaranteed were Peerage Reform and the Ballot obtained, with "Justice to Ireland."
Mr. Thornely, Mr. Charles Hindley, Mr. Rigby Wason, and Mr. Brotherton, spoke after Mr. Gisborne ; but their speeches are so im- perfectly reported as not tojustify extracts. Mr. Brotherton denounced the Corn-laws, and demanded an extension of the suffrage ; and Mr. Wason proposed " Vote by Ballot," which was drunk with enthu- siasm.
Previous page
