Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

ought to have; the answer was easy. None What weight ought to belong to petitions coming to that House in those circumstances, carrying every appearance of concert and system, combined in the same prayer, and expressed nearly in the same language? The fraud was too gross and palpable, and it was evident from what quarter they came, and with what views they were presented. All the circumstances in France and this country pointed out the present as a season unfavourable even to a temperate reform. The gentlemen who supported the motion had been engaged in a society for a twelvemonth for the purpose, as they themselves stated, of allaying the violence of those who might be misled by a blind rage of innovation, and enlightening the people with respect to the nature of their true claims. Such had been the objects which they had held out at their commencement; they had proposed to make a fair experiment, to allow the people of England a full opportunity of procuring a rational and moderate reform; and if they should find that they could not succeed, and that the people should be disinclined to any plan of reform, and not disposed to prosecute the measures which they should recommend, they were then to abandon their purpose. They had now gone on for upwards of a twelvemonth, publishing to enlighten the people, and using every means to promote their own influence, and during all that time they had not been able to make a convert of one man in England.They had been obliged at last to come forward with a petition of their own, introduced to the House VOL. XXXV.

on the very day that the debate was to take place. The other petitions which united in the same object of demanding parliamentary reform carried a suspicious and dangerous appearance. Ought they not then, consistently with those principles which they had avowed in the outset, to have come forward upon this occasion, to have acknowledged their mistake and their conviction, that the people of England were not desirous of a reform; to have given up their object in which they found they could not succeed, and to have joined with us in opposing a reform which is not even desired, and which could not be granted with any propriety in the present moment, or even with the chance of advantage to those for whom it is demanded? But what are the grounds upon which they now bring forward this question of reform? First, they state, that, from the general burst of loyalty expressed by the nation upon the first alarm, there is no reason to fear that the people will pass beyond the bounds of discretion, and that no season can be more favourable for a temperate reform than that in which they have so strongly testified their attachment to the established order of things, and their reluctance to any change. Of this temper they recommend to us to take the advantage. But how stands the case? The fact, I grant, is indeed true. But it is also true, that societies in this country have been anxiously seeking not to obtain reform, but to find cause of dissatisfaction; not to allay the violence of innovation, but to inflame discontent. Is it then out of deference to that small party, actuated by such principles, [M].

and

and pursuing such a line of conduct, that we are to grant a reform, and not out of respect to the great body of the people of England, animated by a spirit of the purest loyalty, and too much attached to the blessings of the constitution and the present government, to wish to hazard them by a change? What then is the question at issue? It is the same question which is now at issue with the whole of Europe, who are contending for the cause of order, of justice, of humanity, of religion, in opposition to anarchy, to injustice, to cruelty, to infidelity. I am sensible that ninety-nine out of an hundred of the people of England are warm in those sentiments, are sensible of the security which they enjoy for these blessings from the frame of our excellent constitution; and so far from wishing to touch it with an innovating hand, are prepared to defend it against every attack. Are we to yield then to the clamours of dissatisfaction and discontent; and are we to disregard the voice of satisfaction and gratitude? Are we, in order to gratify the caprice, or sooth the insolence, of a few disaffected men, to neglect the benefit of the common body? Are we, at a moment of emergency like this, when the great cause of all is at stake, to suspend our cares for the public welfare, and attend to the discussion of petty claims and the redress of imagi nary grievances? Are we, at such a moment, in order to please a few individuals, to hazard the consequence of producing alarm and distrust in the general body, firm and united in the common cause? -After entering into the doctrine

of representation, and several other topics connected with the subject before the House, he proceeded in the following manner:-The merit of the British constitution is to be estimated, not by metaphysical ideas, not by vague theories, but by analysing it in practice. Its benefits are confirmed by the sure and infallible test of experience. It is on this ground, that the representation of the people, which, must always be deemed a most valuable part of the constitution, rests on its present footing. In the history of this country, from the earliest period down to that in which I now speak, the number of electors have always been few, in proportion to that of the great body of the people. My plan went to regulate the distribution of the right of electing members, to add some, and to transfer others: when such was my plan, am I to be told, that I have been an advocate for parliamentary reform, as if I had espoused the same side of the question which is now taken up by these honourable gentlemen, and were now resisting that cause which I had formerly supported? I affirm that my plan is ten times more contrary to that of the hon. gentleman, than his is to the constitution: nay, I go farther; I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Windham) that to adopt the system now proposed, is to adopt the principles of the French code, and follow the example of their legislators. these principles are unknown in the history of this country, it is to France only that we can look for their origin. The same principle which claims individual suffrage, and affirms that every man has an equal right to a share in the representation,

[ocr errors]

As

sentation, is that which serves as ful and efficient to the destructhe basis of that declaration of tion of every individual and of rights on which the French legis- 'every community; but to every lators have founded their govern- good purpose null and void. He ment. We ought to recollect that would find that those rights which there are 250 persons who possess entitle all to an equal share in the an equal voice in the legislature government, are rights which only with that of this House; that there serve to remove them from useful is a king, who, to the third of the labour, from sober industry, and legislative, adds the whole of the from domestic connections, and executive power; and if this prin- which abandon them to be the ciple of individual suffrage be slaves of every idle caprice, and granted, and be carried to its ut- of every destructive passion. The most extent, it goes to subvert the government that adopts such prinpeerage, and to depose the king, ciples, ceases to be a government; and, in fine, to extinguish every it unties the bands which knit tohereditary distinction, and every gether society; it forfeits the reprivileged order, and to establish verence and obedience of its subthat system of equalising anarchy jects; it gives up those, whom it announced in the code of French ought to protect, to the daggers of legislation, and attested in the blood the Marseillese, and the assassins of the massacres at Paris. The of Paris. Under a pretence of question then is, whether you centering all authority in the will will abide by your constitution, or of the many, it establishes the worst hazard a change, with all that sort of despotism. Such is the state dreadful train of consequences of that wretched country, France, with which we have seen it at the detestable policy of which has tended in a neighbouring king- added new words to the dictionary, dom? Abide by your constitution, such as the phrases of municipalidid I say? It cannot be necessary ties declaring themselves in a state for me to add a word more. But of permanent revolution, and the I would not stop there if it were nation itself in a state of sovereign possible to go farther. If it were insurrection! In what is called the possible for an Englishman to for- government of the multitude, they get his attachment to the constitu- are not the many who govern the tion and his loyalty to the sovefew, but the few who govern the reign-if it were possible for him many. It is a species of tyranny, to lose all those generous feelings which adds insult to the wretchedwhich bind him to his country and ness of its subjects, by styling its secure his obedience to its laws-own arbitrary decrees the voice of if it were possible for him to sacrifice all these to those principles which are brought forward to support a change of government; yet, if he should attend only to reason, he would find them wild and illusive theories. He would find the principal of individual will power

the people, and sanctioning its acts of oppression and cruelty under the pretence of the national will. Such is the nature of those principles connected with the right of individual suffrage: and how far you are prepared to give countenance to that measure, by referring it to

[blocks in formation]

a committee as a subject of deliberation, you are now called to determine.

Mr. Sheridan enlarged, with his usual ability, on the extent and power of parliamentary influence. That ministers might find it necessary for the purposes of their avarice or ambition; but that if the representation of the people in that House was complete, the king would be firmer upon his throne, than he was even at this moment, He declared that he had no delight in unfolding the abuses of government; but it was his duty, and he would fulfil it. He then entered into a detail of that influence which obtained corrupt majorities in parliament, and destroyed the representative energy of the people, by which the constitution must, in a great measure, look for improvement and support. Mr. Sheridan concluded by stating that the object of reform, he and his colleagues had in view, would be persevered in until it was effectually accomplished.

Mr. Fox began by attacking, in very pointed terms, the consistency of the chancellor of the exchequer, respecting his former and present conduct on the business of parliamentary reform. He then proceeded to declare his dislike to universal representation; but that was no reason, he said, for charging it with more mischief than was fairly imputable to it. It had not been the cause, as had been alledged in debate, of all the evils in France. The first, or constituting assembly, was not elected on this plan, but on old usages and old abuses; yet that assembly had done some of the most unjustifiable things done in France: it had de

spoiled the clergy without regard to situation or character, and destroyed the nobility. The second, or legislative assembly, was not chosen by individual suffrage; for when the constitution was framed, wild as the French were, they had laid many restrictions on individual suffrage, and made the distinction between active and inactive citizens. It was, therefore, unjust to charge on it what was done by assemblies elected before it was brought into use. France, after doing great honour to herself by shaking off her old intolerable despotism, had since been governed by counsels generally unwise, and often wicked. But what had this to do with our reform? It had been said, that French principles, though not more detestable than the principles of Russia, were more dangerous and more to be guarded against, because more fascinating. Would any man now say that French principles were fascinating?-What then had we to fear from what no man in his senses would wish to copy?

Mr. Fox observed, that in some of the petitions on the table, the accumulation of the public debt was imputed to a defect of the representation, and he was sorry to see such an absurdity in them. The accumulation of the public debt was the necessary consequence of the wars which we had been obliged to maintain in defence of our constitution, and our national independence; and he had no scruple in declaring, that every war in which we had been engaged, from the revolution to the American war, was both just and nenessary. He would, therefore, acquit the House of all the debt con

tracted,

tracted, except for the American war, and as much as might fairly be imputed to too remiss a superintendence of the expenditure of public money; for all the debt contracted to support the American war, after that war became unpopular, the House of Commons was undoubtedly answerable. It was not enough for preventing wars, that we were disposed to cultivate peace, if our neighbours were not as peaceably disposed as ourselves. When, therefore, the petitioners talked of preventing wars by reforming the House of Commons, they forgot that the work would be but half done, unless they could give as good a constitution to France as England would then be possessed of. But when he mentioned this, he raised no argument from it against the general prayer for a reform in the representation. A right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke), on presenting his plan of conciliation with America in 1775, made a speech, in which the virtues and the efficacy of representation were displayed with a force and clearness unequalled. Were the people of Ireland uncivilised and unsubdued after a forcible possession of their country for ages, what was the remedy? Representation. Were the Welsh in perpetual contention among themselves, and hostility to Englishmen, what was the remedy? Representation. Were the counties of Chester and Durham full of discontent and disorder, what was the remedy? Representation.-Representation was the universal panacea, the cure for every evil.

Having endeavoured to shew, that the House of Commons, as now constituted, was neither ade

quate to the due discharge of its duties at present, nor afforded any security that it would be so in future, what remains, said Mr. Fox, to answer, but general topics of declamation? He had sufficient confidence in the maxims he had early learned, and sufficient reverence for the authors from whom he learned them, to brave the ridicule now attempted to be thrown upon all who avowed opinions, that till very lately had been received as the fundamental principles of liberty. If such writings as were now branded, as subversive of all government, had not been read and studied, would the parliament of 1640 have done those great and glorious things, but for which we might have been now receiving the mandates of a despot, like Germans, or any other slaves.

Mr. Fox concluded by obserying, that the petition presented facts into which the House was bound to enquire, both in its legislative and its inquisitorial capacity.

Several other members spoke in this debate; the House at length divided-for referring the petitions to a committee 41-against it 282.

The citizens of London having presented a petition to the House of Commons, praying that the duty laid on coals, in the reign of queen Anne, might be referred to a committee, that they might report their opinion, It was, on Wednesday the 13th of March, taken into consideration, on the motion of Mr. Alderman Curtis.

Mr. Pitt said, that there were two points of view, in which the petition might be considered. The one was a question of policy, whether the duties in question ought to be repealed at the present season; the other, whether the duties had

been

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »