Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

est men in the kingdom, he most distinguished representaties of te commercial wea, mi de rest of its living orasies and statesme have found a place in the heretary legislature. Not only we ne years now more mam fer ames 25 mmerons as ter verz ne

Rebeloon, bus mer andet grinery is at least ten times as a mi greatly exceeds the aderant veu of the wine Buse of Commons Among its ranies are a be sound ae descendants like if we are, and of move wory: fde gene rals who have let or armes a tietory, the atmirus vio 1874 TVADE the ocean wa mr fers,—die avyers vio late swaned our inerties by their exertins-the statesmen War 18′′* nagraned Mr TI

perty by aer vsum

are is not adornet mi” y de bond of the Elviris, de Zerra un ne Scottsvegi 1 sent ODT IN DE TRE Jossessions or le vaestre Sortunner and at Buecerca: but maners among is members he imetiate tescantants of the magnet lames of Britain. VYAS I HNCH ir diegean irn-firina atham, met Sor-r Tacent tartvek,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

e

gh

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

thin

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

tronage of India into the hands of ministers, would have perpetuated the Whig ascendency as effectually as the extinction of the one hundred and sixteen Tory members proposed in the present Reform Bill. The first measure of the Whigs in both periods was the same, viz. to make the first use of their installation in office, by intrenching themselves for ever in power. Mr Fox pro posed to do it in direct violation of all the principles of his life, by throwing an enormous and fatal addition of patronage into the hands of the existing administration, without regard either to the interests of freedom in this country, or the chartered rights of the India Company in the Eastern world: The Reformers propose to do it, in opposition to the chartered rights of a hundred and eight boroughs, and in defiance alike of historical evidence and experienced utility. Ambition equally blinded the leaders of administration in both periods: had the first measure succeeded, it would have sunk the Whig influence under the weight of sovereign despotism; if the last prevails, it will bury it under the waves of popular ambition.

But at that critical period, the firmness and sagacity of the House of Peers saved the constitution and liberties of England from destruction. Removed from the strife of ministerial ambition, and permanently interested in the liberties of the country with which their fate was indissolubly connected, that intrepid body boldly threw themselves into the breach, and the event soon demonstrated how rapidly popular favour will incline to those who bravely defend the constitution.

On the 8th December, 1783, the Whig India Bill was carried in the House of Commons by a division of 208 to 202. The Peers, however, did not despair. On the second reading of the bill, a minor question was carried against Ministers by a majority of 87 to 79; and on December 17th, the bill was finally thrown out on the third reading, by a majority of 95 to 76.* Ministers immediately resigned-the seals were given to Lord Temple as Secretary

of State, and Mr Pitt was created First Lord of the Treasury.

The House of Commons immediately took fire: the situation of the new ministry was singular, and indeed unprecedented since the Revolution, being formed in immediate opposition to the majority of the Lower House. Mr Fox immediately carried a resolution in the House of Commons (December 24th) to address the Crown, praying that the House should neither be prorogued nor dissolved, and the King, in answer to this address, promised that he would do neither the one nor the other. The majority in the Lower House proceeded to still stronger measures: on January 12th, they passed a vote preventing payments from being issued from the bank for the public service; and on the 23d, they actually adjourned the Mutiny Bill.

But Mr Pitt and the Peers were not discouraged. By resolutely maintaining the contest, they brought fortune round to their side, even in circumstances of increasing and apparently hopeless adversity. On the 14th January, Mr Pitt brought in his India Bill, which Mr Fox threw out by a majority of 222 to 214: and in the committee on the state of the nation, Lord Charles Spencer moved "that the continuance of the present ministry was injurious to the interests of his Majesty and of the nation." This resolution was carried against Mr Pitt by a majority of 205 to 184. On February 2d, another resolution was carried against Ministers, expressive of the sense of the Commons," that the continuance of the present Ministers in office was an obstacle to the formation of a firm, efficient, extended, and united administration." On the 18th of the same month, the supplies were refused by the House of Commons; and on the 21st, an address for the removal of Ministers was carried by a majority of 21.

But these vehement proceedings of the Lower House only roused the indomitable spirit of the British Aristocracy. On the 24th February, they passed two resolutions, expressing at once their decided disapprobation of the conduct of the Commons, and their own determination to support

* Campbell's Annals, ii, 170.

the new minister, whose dignity they considered as identified with that of the crown. This demonstration of firmness saved the constitution. Finding that the Crown and the Nobles were firm, the Commons, recently so vehement, gradually relaxed in their assumed tone of superiority. The majority began to decline against Mr Pitt. A resolution, denying that the Crown had a right to choose its ministers in opposition to the declared opinion of the House of Commons, was carried by a majority only of one. The supplies were all voted before the 10th March. On the 24th, Parliament was prorogued, and next day dissolved. The new Parliament gave an overwhelming majority, as is always the case, to the new minis

ters.*

The history of this memorable contest demonstrates the extraordinary addition of weight which,in the course of a century and a half, the House of Peers had acquired in the constitution. It was enabled to maintain a long, and, at first sight, almost desperate, contest with the Lower House, and at last came off triumphant in the struggle. Its details are of vital importance at the present mo

ment.

The Peers now are, incomparably, in a more favourable situation to maintain such a contest than they were in 1783. Since that time, above an hundred members have been added to their ranks, and a large portion of plebeian vigour and ability infused into their veins. Almost all the greatest men, of whatever description, have been gradually elevated from the Lower House, the army, and the bar, into the hereditary legislature.

Farther, the results of the last election have completely altered the relative situation of the two branches of the legislature, and the success of the democratic party in the Lower House not only calls for, but justifies, a firm conduct on the part of the House of Peers. This is a matter of vital importance, to which we earnestly request particular attention.

The Tories have always maintained, and till within the last six months the Whigs have uniformly concurred in the assertion, that the influence of

the Peerage and of property was best exerted indirectly in the Lower House, because that prevented the different branches of the legislature from being brought into open conflict, and rendered the Commons the arena where the powers of the constitution balanced each other. It is not their fault if this salutary and pacific state of things under which the nation has reposed a century and a half in tranquillity and happiness, has not continued. They clearly saw the advantages of this unobtrusive contest; they forcibly pointed them out; but their opponents, blind to all the lessons of experience, deaf to all the dictates of wisdom, forgetful even of their own early principles, have compelled them to abandon this pristine scene of combat, and to bring the democracy into open collision with the aristocracy.

By having done so, they have augmented greatly the popular, or innovating party, in the House of Commons; but they have proportionally strengthened the hands of the conservative influence, in the upper branch of the legislature.

Formerly the Peers, by means of the nomination boroughs, possessed an extensive influence in the House of Commons. It was the constant theme of the reformers, that a majority in the Lower House were nominated by the nobility. Whether this was actually the case or not, is of little importance now to enquire. Suffice it to say, that this influence, so much the subject of complaint, is now all but extinct. Its decline was signally perceptible on the election of last autumn. Its extinction has been witnessed in the late contests.

Everywhere, almost, the influence of property, rank, and possession, has been thrown overboard. The whole counties, with the exception of Salop and Buckinghamshire, have returned reforming members, although the county declarations against Reform shewed that the great bulk of the landed proprietors decidedly were opposed to the measures of ministers. Warwickshire has returned six radical members, though almost every landed proprietor within its bounds has signed the declaration against Reform. Essex, Kent, Sus

* Campbell's Annals, ii, 170-179.

sex, Northumberland, Cumberland, Cornwall, Devonshire, Hamsphire, have done the same, although the immense majority of their proprietors are strongly attached to the conservative party. Northamptonshire, after a severe contest, has followed the example, although its anti-reform petition embraced two-thirds of the landed property of the county.

On the other hand, Cambridge, Oxford, and Trinity College, have returned the anti-reform candidates. The distinctions of Whig and Tory, of Churchman and Liberal, have been there forgotten in the peril of the constitution. The graduates of the Universities, comprehending all the rich educated men in England, of Whig and Tory principles-the most distinguished of its philosophersthe most learned of its historiansthe flower of its country gentlemen -the rising talent of the bar-the respectability of the church-the ornaments of the Peerage-have, by a great majority, arranged themselves under the banners of the constitution.

In Scotland, the ascendency of the same principles has been signally evinced. The boroughs, indeed, which are in a great degree in the hands of incorporations accessible to the menaces and intimidation which have been directed against them, and composed of men of no education, and incapable of discerning consequences, have, with some honourable exceptions, swum with the tide. But the counties, who are governed by the real property of the kingdom, have in general, in defiance of outrage and intimidation, unknown in other parts of the empire, firmly resisted the innovators. The great and opulent counties of Mid-Lothian, Roxburgh, Lanark, Perth, Fife, Stirling, Aberdeen, and Ayr, as well as the smaller counties of East Lothian, Berwickshire, Linlithgow, Dunbarton, Peebles, Selkirk, Cromarty, Kincardine, comprehending ninetenths of the landed property of the kingdom, have returned anti-reform members. The influence of the President of the Board of Control, and the necessity of providing for needy younger sons, has given Invernessshire to the reformers, although it is

* Burnet, 188; Hallam, i. 104.

well known that three-fourths of its proprietors are hostile to the bill, and have signed petitions against its leading clauses; but with that, and the exception of Sutherland, Argyle, and Dumfries, where the influence of the reforming families of the Staffords, the Argyles, and the Johnstone Hopes, are predominant, almost all the other counties have sided with the constitution.

This state of things is most remarkable-wholly unprecedentedand pregnant with the most important instruction. Wherever property, education, thought, and intelligence, had a voice, the cause of order has been triumphant. Wherever the numbers of the lower orders have been let in, the Demon of Anarchy has found an entrance. Extraordinary as this may at first sight appear, it is not to be wondered at, when historical experience is referred to, or the ruling motives of human actions considered.

Ministers have obtained a majority by the same means which enabled Henry VIII. to dissolve the monasteries, and which gave the reforming administration of Neckar an absolute ascendency over the French nation. This method consists in rousing the ambition of the many, by proposing to divide among them the influence or possessions of the few.

It is stated by Burnet and Hallam, "That, when Henry VIII. commenced the dissolution of the monasteries, their territorial possessions amounted to a fifth, and that their rent was a third of the whole landed revenue of the kingdom."* How did this tyrannical monarch, in opposition to every principle of justice, succeed in carrying through this great measure of confiscation? By the simple expedient of promising their spoils to the temporal Peers, and enlisting Ambition and Cupidity on the side of Violence. His courtiers were rewarded by grants of the confiscated lands;-the barons were bought off by large slices of the church property; and at this day, the chief families in the kingdom date their elevation from this grand measure of feeble robbery.† In all the subsequent changes, they held, with a tenacious grasp, the posses

† Hallam, i. 107.

sions thus acquired; and even upon the restoration of the Catholic nobility, in the time of Mary, it was found necessary to concede to their possessors the confiscated estates.

In like manner, when Neckar, the reforming minister of Louis XVI., was called, in 1789, to the reins of government, he immediately recommended the convocation of the States General, and, by a royal ordinance, doubled the numbers of the representatives of the Tiers Etat of France. This fatal edict, issued six months before the assembly of the States General, rendered the revolution inevitable; because it roused democratic ambition to the highest degree in every part of France, and inflamed the lower orders, by the immediate prospect of triumphing over their superiors. The people were not so dead to ambition as to refuse the gift of sovereignty thus presented to them; and thenceforward, the elections all ran in favour of such democratic representatives, that their ascendency in the States General was irresistible; and within a few months after they met, the king, after narrowly escaping death at the hands of his subjects, was led in melancholy state a prisoner to his own capital.

The case is the same now in this island. The lower orders, inflamed and directed by the democratic press, at once perceived, that by means of the L.10 householders, and the extinction of all the Tory boroughs, their ascendency would become complete. The sweets of popular sovereignty-the dazzling heights of power-the substantial advantages of liberation from tithes and taxesthe prospect, at no distant period, of a division of the estates of the nobility, danced before their eyes, and produced an universal intoxication. Under the influence of these highly wrought feelings, the elections took place, and every body knows the result. All the established relations of life were set at nought-the ascendency of centuries was overturned-benefactions for ages were forgotten the tenantry almost universally revolted against their landlords -the little urban freeholders followed in the career of the great democratic towns-antiquity of name, generosity of conduct, splendour of talent, fidelity of service, were alike set at nought, and nothing became a

passport to popular favour, but a direct pledge to secure for the populace the glittering prize thus placed within their reach.

The present House of Commons, therefore, is differently constituted from any which have preceded it since the foundation of the monarchy. It is no longer the mirror of the united wealth, intelligence, and numbers of the people. The Crown, the Peers, the landed proprietors, the merchants, the shipping interest, no longer find themselves fully represented-the majority has been returned by the populace, in defiance of all these interests, and for the express purpose of annihilating their influence in the Legislature. We do not say that the gentlemen returned are for the most part inclined to support such extreme measures-a large body, in despite of the public frenzy, have still been elected, steadily attached to the constitution; and even of the reformers, a large part, doubtless, are men of sense and infor mation, who will strive to moderate the transports which have heaved them into power. But still the composition of the House is avowedly and undeniably different from what it ever was before: the number of the tribunes of the people is fearfully augmented: the influence of property has been destroyed: the ancient working and balance of the constitution is at an end.

In these circumstances, the strongest argument against a resolute stand by the Peers is removed. When that body, on former occasions, as on the Catholic relief question, threw out a bill which had passed the other branch of the Legislature, the objection to such a proceeding was, that the nobles were now twice exercising their influence; once by means of their nominees in the Lower House, and again directly in their own branch of the Legislature. If a bill is sent up to the Peers, it was said, it is a proof that the sense of the nation is in its favour: an assembly composed of the representatives of all classes have passed it, and therefore it would be a dangerous stretch for the Peers to interpose their negative. But the case now is toto cælo different. The present House of Commons is avowedly returned, not by the Peers, but in spite of the Peers-not by intelligence, but in

« AnteriorContinuar »