SCOTLAND.
Lord Glenelg dined with a party of his friends at Inverness on Friday week. The speech he delivered on that occasion throws no light on the future policy of Ministers. A considerable part of it was taken up in describing the material prosperity of the country, and in arguing that it was in great measure, owing to good government, that secondary causes and human agency had improved the bounty of Providence. With vague and verbose eloquence he defended the ge- neral principles on which Ministers acted ;• and pointed out the incon- sistency of the Tories in their alternate struggles against and submis- sion to Reform.
"Ministers contended that Ireland had as good a claim as any other part of the empire to the just rights belonging to the British Constitution. The other party denied this principle, not only in argument, but in a manner and with an insinuation from which every truly British heart should have shrunk. But the Constitution, generally speaking, they assert is in imminent danger. This is certainly not even a specific accusation, but it is one of those vague and general remarks which are frequently, sometimes unquestionably, the asylum of defeated wisdom and ingenuity, but more frequently the refuge of con- scious ignorance or conscious fraud. It is certainly not very easy to mark out the conduct of those persons who are of opinion that the Constitution of this country has arrived at a definite period, by which improvement in practice is impossible. I shall be glad to know at what period they will fix the Constitu- tion in that condition. But they pronounce that the conditions that arc in- tended to improve the Constitution are attempts at innovation : they assert that we have reached at length the period, some even fixing it before the Re- form Bill ; and deeply do they lament that they have allowed that unfortunate measure which admits the principle of improvement to pass without greater opposition. Oh, gentlemen, many are the sorrows, I trust, of honest hearts and of tender eyes on that lamentable subject. Why, they say, did you pass the Reform Bill? Why did you sanction Catholic Emancipation ? You have interwoven yourselves with the principles of this unfortunate and absurd mea- sure. You talk of improvements that cannot be followed out, because you have already sacrificed the great principles of the Constitution. Why did you not make a stand when that inexorable power was before you? You cannot answer that question, perhaps, but you do not share in the regret. It is not for me to say how the wisdom of the wise slumbered on that critical night ; but haw was the buoyancy of ardent spirits foiled by the overwhelming voice of the whole country ? Why, because there is nothing retentive overwhelming the strength of a great spirit. The will of a great people, founded on just prin- ciples, is irresistible in its course and invisible in its execution. They may take their stand on any line which they may choose to make one of demarcation ; for it is the peculiarity of those minds to be above events, by which is meant to be untaught by the errors of those who strive to control the course of time, or who, in other words, arc blind to the signs of the times. By this control of popular opinion, is meant to shrink from that responsibility which is attached to high station and high functions. But then the opinion of the pimple, formed on enlightened principles, true to their King, country, and religion, ex- panding with the growth of science and intelligence, and with all the energies and improvements of the arts —to say that the opinions of such a people are truly formidable to all lovers of? constitutional freedom,—I should pronounce a libel on the Constitution if I were to answer that question in the affirmative. No, gentlemen, they are not so ; those are advances of public opinion ; and will you tell me that they are inconsistent with the Constitution ?"
Mr. Robert Steuart met a party of his constituents at Jedburgh, on the 26th of October. In his after-dinner harangue, he went over most of the proceedings of last session ; maintaining that a great deal had been done for the people, and dwelling especially on the advantage of having unmasked the Tory Conformers. On the subject of Peerage Reform he said— I tell you, gentlemen, that I consider that the present agitation of this question, while other means ought to be tried, is unnecessary and premature. Is it, in every question of difficulty, proper that we should think it necessary to proceed to an organic change in the Constitution? I shrink nut from giving my opinion. We have had organic changes, and if it should be necessary, we can have recourse to them again ; but for such measures there should be good grounds, and until these are shown to exist it would be unsafe to tamper with the Constitution. Let it be shown that you know your own strength, if an appeal should be made, by sending increasing majorities to the House of Com- mons ; and should the same measures be again brought forward, far be it from me, if the Lords still persist in the work of mutilation, and still turn a deaf ear to the just wishes of' the people, to say what steps should not be taken. But let me ask, how do the House of Lords know that the people are favourable to those great measures which have been rejected? I confess myself astonished that I have not seen the table of the British House of Commons groaning under the petitions in favour of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. I am astonished to think that those noble individuals, whose forefathers made a stand at Runny- mede in defence of liberty, and who resisted the encroachments of their Sove- reign, should consent to be led by a man whose only object seems to be to fer- ment discontent in the country. That man, by his great abilities, is but the more dangerous; exposed as his conduct has been in many quarters, he may be, however, taught to alter his opinions, and submit to the wishes of the people. The mooting the question of Peerage Reform cannot fail to have made an impression on the House of Lords. I will not say bow such a question is likely to ferment the hostility of the Lords; but you may ask, if this question he not mooted, how are we to convince the Lords that they are wrong in resisting the wishes of the people? I answer, by the same means which have hitherto been successfully adoptct—first, by the general expression of your opinions in respectful but firm language, through the medium of your Representatives; and secondly, by union among all true Reformers."
Previous page
