The Reformers of Bridgewater have given a public dinner to
their Members, Colonel Tynte and Mr. Leader. Among the preliminary toasts, "Lord Melbourne and his Majesty's Ministers" was the favourite. Colonel Tynte briefly returned thanks when the health of the ".Members for the Borough was given. He said-
" I cannot, gentlemen, bat congratulate you upon the present prospect of public affairs, in having at the head of his Majesty's Government an individual who is entitled to the fullest confidence. In my opinion, Lord Melbourne is by far the most able statesman of the dry, and eminently fitted for the present trying and difficult crisis. A man not to be defeated by delay, but one who will with firmness pursue that course which Le conscientiously believes will promote the welfare of his country, and from whose measures every reform so loudly called for by the advanced intelligence of the country, and the abuses which
time has suffered to creep into our Constitution, may with confidence be expected."
[The report in the Morning Chronicle states that Colonel Tynte was loudly cheered in the course of his speech : it is a pity that the speech is not given more at length.] AIL Leader referred to the proceedings of the past session, and ani- madverted on the conduct of the Peers— When the House met after Easter, the Reformers were in power ; they had promised to bring forward several measures of Reform, and they did so. The two of the greatest importance were the Irish Church Bill and the Corporation Reform Bill. These two great measures of Reform, and many more, were proposed by the Ministers and adopted by the House of Commons. What was their fate in the House of Lords ? One of them came back to us so altered that we hesitated for some time whether we should receive it or not ; the others Were never seen or heard of more. These were, I suppose, thrust by the Lords into some dark hole which they had contrived for such a purpose ; so obscure, indeed, was their fate, and so doubtful the means by which they came to their end, that the Attorney-General moved for a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the mystery of their disappearance. To leave the tone of levity, and to approach this most serious subject with that calm sad serious consideration which it deserves, is it possible, I ask you, and I aapeal to the whole country, that the Government can be carried oa if the Lards are thus to reject the bills which are sent up to them by the Commons? As the Constitution now exists, the Lords can reject any bill according to their own pleasure; if a measure please all the People, and yet displease them, they may reject it. The law is so : so long as it is law we must obey it. But laws were made by men and for men, not men for laws • and we have as undoubted a right to alter any law as our ancestors had a right to make it. If then, we find any laws which, though they bad worked well many ages ago, now work ill, why, we must alter such laws, and adapt them to the wants, to the intelligence, and civilization of the present age. As the case at present stands, you must either go back to the Unreformed House of Commons to suit the Unreformed House of Lords, or you must refin m the House of Lords to make it harmonize with the Reformed House of Commons. [At au point the meeting rose and cheered enthusiastically for some moments.) It is not for any sect or party of men to dictate to the People which they shall do ; the alternative is before you, and it is for the People of this country to make their own choice."
Mr. Burton, the Liberal Member for Beverley, was entertained by his constituents on Thursday week. Mr. Burton also referred, amidst the loud cheers of the assembly, to the necessity of reforming the House of Peers-
" I am not a Revolutionist, but I amit Reformer; and it was with heartfelt regret I have seen that which, if it did not actually take place, very nearly did —a collision between the two }louses of Parliament. It has been the fashion to say that collision did not take place ; in fact, perhaps, it did not ; but I might almost say, if it were not an Irishism, that it did. What was the con- sequence? Were not the most important bills that we of the Commons sent up, with one exception, rejected by the House of Lords? We are told—I mean we Reformers are told—that we wish to destroy the Church, and to do away with the government of King, Lords, and Commons. I, as a Reformer, and I trust an honest Reformer, say that is not my wish—it never entered my head ; and you, I am sure, will not desire it. Last year the Commons passed a bill to settle the Tithe question in Ireland. What did the Lords? They threw out the bill. The Commons voted the loan of a million of money for the Irish Clergy, two-thirds of which were paid. What did the Commons this session ? They passed a bill to give them that million. But what did the Lords ? They threw out that bill ; and would have starved the poor Clergy, had not his Majesty's Ministers passed another bill not to put that law in force,. and not to ask these men to pay that money. That is fact upon which I make no comment. But I will not sit tamely by, and hear it said that we are wish- ful to destroy the Church of Ireland, we it is the Cowervatives who would starve the ministers of that Church. The day is coming, and that fast, when there must be—I cannot say how it may be done—but there must be an altera- tion, I will call it, in the House of Lords. (Loud cheering for some time.) Gentlemen, if the House of Lords sets itself in opposition to the other two branches of the State—to the King and the Commons—are we to truckle nail bow down to them? :No. (Loud cheers.) Our Constitution is composed of King, Lords, and Commons ; but it is nut for a minorityto stand in opposition to the other two, and prevent the possibility of any reform being perfected. The Lords have stood in the way of every reform; and therefore, I say, the two Houses have come into collision. What may be the consequence, I know not ; but that the result will be an alteration somewhere, is an indisputable. fact. I trust to God that the Lords will see their folly, and reform themselves: I know if they do not, that the Reformers—that the People of En:A=1— mill do it for them. (Loud cheers.) For I should wish to know why one Rouse is not to be reformed as well as the other. Canning said that the House of Lords, as constituted, could not exist with 4 Rtfortuvl lime of Commons : nor can it—nor will it." ( Cheers.) Among the toasts enthusiastically received at this dinner, were if Mr. O'Connell," " Colonel Thompson and Mr. Putt," " Mr. Mathew Davenport Hill," and " Lord Mulgravc, with even-handed justice to Ireland," Mr. Charles Ilindley, Member for Ashton-under-Ls-tie, met his constituents, in the market-place of that borough, on the 13th instant, and gave a full and satisfactory account of his Parliamentary conduct. A series of resolutions, complimentary to Mr. Ifindley, were passed unanimously, by an assembly composed of at least 4500 person'. In the evening of the same day, Mr. Hindley was invited to a party of about 300 gentlemen ; among whom were Mr. Mark Phillips, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. H. Gaskell, and other persons of property and in- fluence in the town and neighbourhood. Many Liberal toasts were du k, and several speeches of the same character delivered. Among the former, was " A speedy and radical Reform of the House of Lords."
On Tuesday last, Mr. Potter, M.P. for Wigan, dined with 400 non- electors resident in that town. The toasts were of a Radical complexion ; " Household suffrage, vote by Ballot, and Triennial Par- liaments;" being the chief favourite. Mr. Potter, Mr. Mark Phillips, and Mr. Brotherton, were the principal spokesmen.
Captain Pechell met a large party of his constituents on Wednesday night, at the Sea Horse Hotel, Brighton ; where he took a brief re- view of the proceedings in Parliament during the last session, and explained the grounds on which he had voted. He was extremely well received.
Previous page
