Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

THE

Parliamentary and Political Miscellany.

No. VI.

The best Security for Government-Extract from an Essay ascribed to Lord John Russell, published anonymously, 1820.

The argument of the friends of liberty is, that no security for government can be so good as an easy and ready vent for all the opinions and all the grievances of its subjects. By such means those who are in authority may remove discontent before it grows to disaffection, and consider of a remedy before a grievance has become incurable. They acquire a knowledge of the designs and a measure of the strength of every party in the state. No secret plots disturb or arrest their career; the winds may blow, and the waves may rise, but no hidden rocks and no lee-shore threaten the existence of the navigator. But if this is an advantage for the government, it is a much greater one for the people. Every one who has a mind to think, and a heart to feel, must have the desire of knowing the dangers, and of expressing his opinions on the policy of his country; it is the natural feeling of man who has risen above the rudeness of barbarism, and has not suffered the debasement of corruption. What is it which throws open to the student all the works of ancient and modern genius, and gives scope and vigour to his thought? Freedom of the Press. What is it which insures to the humble artizan a security that the profits of his industry will be protected, and that no rank or office is shut to his just ambition? Personal Freedom. What is it that gives the injured citizen a right to be heard by his country, and to make his complaint ring in the ears of his oppressor? Political Freedom.

1852.-No. 6.

How we are to judge whether a Government is well adapted to a Country.

House of Commons, May, 1793. Mr. JENKINSON (afterwards Lord Liverpool) said, he was not so entirely ignorant of human nature as to suppose that every country could enjoy an equal share of liberty. The liberty of a country must depend on its government; and very little experience, indeed, would teach us that different countries require very different governments; that, in considering what government would suit a country, the extent of it, the population of it, nay, the climate, must in some degree be attended to. How then were we to judge whether the government was well adapted to the country? By the effects it produced. Is property secure? Is the administration of justice correct? Are the laws mild? Do the lower orders of the community appear contented? Wherever these blessings exist, the government from which they originate must necessarily be good.

How only any Government can be kept pure and unabused.

House of Commons, May, 1797.-Mr. Fox: Mr. Speaker, all the writers of eminence upon forms of government have said, that, in order to preserve them, frequent recurrence must be had to their original principle. This is the opinion of Montesquieu, as well as of Machiavel. Gentlemen will not be inclined to dispute the authority of the latter, on this point at least; and he says, that without this recurrence they grow out of shape, and deviate from their general form. It is only by recurring to former principles that any government can be kept pure and unabused.

Metaphysical Opinions have never produced a Revolution.-Unless the People are most grossly abused, no apprehensions are to be entertained from any speculative Opinion upon Government.

House of Commons, May, 1793.—Mr. WHITBREAD: I take upon me to say that metaphysical opinions have never, in any instance, produced a Revolution. The engine with which Providence has thought fit to operate these mighty events has been of a different description-the feelings of the governed, rendered desperate by the grinding oppression of their governors; and there is no saying more strictly true than this, "that times make men, but men never make the times." What brought about that great event the Reformation?

Not the theories or speculations of philosophers, but the impolitic avarice and injustice of the Church of Rome. What brought about the catastrophe of Charles the First? What the Revolution in this country? the oppressions of the executive government. To the same cause America owes her freedom. Lastly, what brought about the Revolution in France? The misery of the people; the pride, injustice, avarice and cruelty of the Court. The great characters who have acted in these different scenes have had but little power to produce them. Luther, Cromwell, or Washington, the illustrious persons who appeared at the era of the English Revolution, or the wild visionaries of France, could never have persuaded the people to rise, unassisted by their own miseries and the usurpations of power. When the feelings of men are roused by injury, then they attempt innovation; then the doctrines of enthusiasts find ready access to their minds. The people are always long-suffering; and unless they are most grossly abused, no apprehensions are to be entertained from any speculative opinion upon government.

Support ought never to be given, or withheld, on account of Men but of Measures.

House of Commons, February, 1783.—Mr. BURKE said, that in his opinion support ought never to be given, or withheld, on account of men but of measures. Some honourable gentlemen, however, seemed to think differently, for they were resolved to consider men and not measures; now, for his own part he would say, that in general it was with reluctance that government ought to be opposed, and that the measure should call forth support, even where the men were disliked; and no government should ever have his support, whose measures should not be such as would make even the most reluctant give them the strongest support.

Inefficacy of Changes of Men.

House of Lords, March, 1797.-Debate on the Earl of Suffolk's motion for the dismission of Mr. Pitt. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, he confessed he had no confidence in a mere change of men. He considered one punishment of a minister, where it was merited, of infinitely greater public advantage than any change that could take place. He had formed this opinion both on principle and practice. He was for a strong executive, and a vigilant, independent legislature,

mutually checking each other, and in this balance he considered liberty to consist. The history of the changes that had taken place from the removal of Sir Robert Walpole to the present day, had proved the inefficacy of changes of men. Sir Robert was removed by popular clamour at the time he was carrying that admirable scheme, the Sinking Fund, into execution; and the country suffered by his removal. The consequence of that change was, his successors plunged the nation into a Spanish and a French war, and dilapidated the Sinking Fund. At the close of the seven years war a change also took place, and the new minister squandered 75 millions of the public money in carrying on the very measures he had reprobated when out of place. At the end of the American war violent clamours had been raised against the peace that was concluded, which time had proved to be ill founded; and the person who had been most forward in that clamour would probably have come into office as one of the most popular ministers that ever was in this country, but for the coalition with Lord North which then took place. With him, therefore, a change of men was not that panacea which some considered it to be. He was for a fundamental change of system. He was for a complete acknowledgment of past error. He was for a government conducted without influence, and whoever were ministers, if they had integrity, honour and purity, he was not doubtful of the result.

A. D. 1841.—Annual Value of Real Property assessed to the Poor Rates.

From a Parliamentary Paper.-Net Rental or Annual Value of Real Property assessed to the Poor Rates for the year ending Lady Day, 1841:

England
Wales

....

£59,685,412
2,854,618

Total

£62,540,030

Property rateable to the Poor, 1847.

From a Parliamentary Paper.-The annual value of the Property rateable for the poor in the year 1847 was £67,320,587.

Respecting this passage, and those which immediately precede it, see subsequent numbers of this periodical.

Statement showing the Total Amount of Money levied for Poor Rates in England and Wales in each Year, from the earliest period for which authentic Parliamentary Returns have been received, to the year 1850

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

The Returns for the year 1803 were obtained under an Act of the 43rd Geo. III. c. 144, and those for 1813, 1814 and 1815, under the act of 55 Geo. III. c. 47. For the years 1816 to 1834 inclusive, the Returns were made in pursuance of Orders of the House of Commons; and from the latter period to the present time, they have been called for by the Commissioners under the Poor Law Amendment Act, forming an unbroken Parliamentary series from the year 1813 to the present time.

In this year the expenditure for the relief of the poor was at the maximum.

+ The Poor Law Amendment Act received the Royal Assent on the 14th August,

1834.

The expenditure for the relief of the poor was at the minimum in this year.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »