TOPICS OF THE DAY.
COLLECTIVE WISDOM.
Mr. PEEL objected to the unmanly course which Mr. HUMS pursued in the debate upon the Army Estimates. " That honourable gentle- man stood upon his pri‘ deice, and uttered in the House what he dared not utter out of it. The member for Westminster had been more chivalrous."—Mr. Hums. is chivalrous enough to beard Mr. PsEr. and all his supporters, the Attorney-General included, in an arena where truth is not a libel ; and Mr. PEEL'S consolation is, that if truth uttered there were punishable, the member for Montrose would have little to boast of.
Mr. PEEL declared Mr. Hume's speech to be such as had never "before been uttered in that independent and honourable assembly." Honourable they all are in virtue of their seats ; and their independ- ence—on public opinion—on the people whom they profess to repre- sent—was the burden of Mr. HUME'S speech. B at Mr. HUME'S arguments were fallacious—how ?—because the aka- faders of those who supported Mr. PEEL were as pure as Mr. Hums's. The Right Honourable Secretary is edifying on the subject of Reform. He has learned from BURKE and CANNING that "it is dangerous to tamper with the constitution. The people of England must live under a limited monarchy."—History lies, of course, in saying that they ever lived under an-absolute monarchy or a common- wealth.
Mr. PEEL holds Reform to be unnecessary, because popular repre- sentation would not secure the country from the expense of wars. All our wars, he added, have been popular at first. But does Government, in good sooth, deem the popular sanction of its mea- sures indispensable ? Well, then—Do the tax-payers call upon Mr. PEEL to support the army in time of peace ? Is the Corn Bill popular? Is the East India monopoly popular? Let Government give as much weight to the wishes of the country on these points as on the subject of war, and they may then plausibly enough lay their errors to the door of the people. -Mr. PEEL has discovered an argument against universal suffrage and popular representation in the existence of some cruel American laws against slaves. That is to say, he holds it unnecessary to repre- sent all the interests in this country, because in America every class but one is represented, and that class alone is trampled upon.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS deprecates concessions to the Jews, because such concessions imply "the separation of Christianity from the Le,gislature." If Christianity be an integral part of the Legislature, is not Christianity responsible for the crimes and follies of which successive Legislatures have been guilty ?—The dilemma is Sir ROBERT'S.
Mr. HUSKISSON declared himself "no Parliamentary Reformer." "He knew how easy it was, how childish he might almost call it, to select any part of our Constitution and condemn it; he knew how hope- legs it was, when thus separated, to enter into any defence of its separate parts ; but he also knew that as a whole it was defensible."—Then a whole is no.longer equal to the sum of all its parts, and Mr. Hus- EISSON is a Reformer of EUCLID'S axioms, in spite of himself. "The whole is defensible, though not any of its parts is defensible." We apprehend, however, that this wonderful whole, which differs from all its parts, will be better defended by the influence of Government than by Mr. HUSKISSON'S logic. Mr. HUSKISSON, moreover, "would defend the Constitution. Were so complicated a machine once pulled in pieces, it might be difficult to unite all its parts again." The Constitution is a wonderful machine. Its parts were disunited long ago, yet it serves all sorts of purposes now as well as ever. Free trade and Catholic emanci- pation are no parts of it. What remains, then ?—Close boroughs, the Corn Bill, and a standing army.
Mr. Twiss observed, that if the principles of Reform were ad- mitted, "no one could tell where they would stop." "He was op- posed to theoretical innovations."—Yet how very theoretical he is ! he is not content to decide the practical question, are these principles good or bad? but he must lose himself in a curious speculation as to where they may " stop."
Lord VALLETORT remarked, that "They had heard the sufferings of the- people of Birmingham and Man- chester ascribed to a defective representation ; but he would ask, what dif- ference was there between the condition of the manufacturers of Nottingham and Norwich, which had been represented from time immemorial, and those workmen and manufacturers of towns which were not represented?" The question might be retorted on Lord VaLLEromr—what is the difference between the actual condition of all these places, and their probable condition had their influence in Parliament been sufficient to enable them to resist the monopoly of the landlords ? Would they be paying heavy taxes on imported corn? And does dear food cause less of suffering in Birmingham and Manchester because Notting- ham and Norwich suffer along with them ?
Mr. PEEL and his party discover that as Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester, have thriven without direct representation, therefore they do not require representatives. How odd that Mr. PEEL should not have discovered, at the same time, that as the American slaves have not been exterminated by the laws to which he referred, there- fore they cannot require protection I—But since the Borough mem- bers hold virtual representation sufficient, why do they object to the virtual representation of such places as Westbury? Manchester would be gratified by the privilege of sending representatives to Par- liament; and the small boroughs would, according to Mr, Pau, suffer nothing by disfranchisement The expediency of abolishing the office of Paymaster-General, and of lowering tlw salary of Judge-Advocate, having been hinted at, the Paymaster-General and the Judge-Advocate opposed the suggestion, on grounds that proved quite satisfactory. Would virtual' repre- sentation, in its best form, hasedone as much for the interests of Mr. CALCRAFT and Sir J. Ilscssrr ?
The Marquis of 13L ANDso RD hates economists and bookmakers ; yet he quotes BACON without mercy, on reform, on taxation, and on the state of the country. In as far as BricoN's opinions on these points are worth anything, he must, we apprehend, rank among the despised economists : but why should the Marquis refrain from quoting at the same time the opinions of SOLOMON?
The" Constitution," according to Mn HUSKISSON, is a machine. According to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it is a Gothic building—not a Grecian temple. Sir GEORGE MURRAY admits that it is- so, and likes it the better for being Gothic. The Constitution used formerly to be the " wonder of the world ;"—but whether as temple, castle, or machine, was not in those days specified by its admirers.
Lord STANHOPE'S picture of the state of the country may appal: the stoutest heart. Landlords can get no rents ; farmers no profit.; poor-rates eat up both rent and profit. The labouring classes at least ought, one should think, to be well provided for in this state of things ; but it is not so. All the rent and all the agricultural profits of the country are not sufficient, it seems, to keep the unemployed labourers from starving. No wonder that our manufacturers export, even though, according to Alderman WArnimAx, the exporter loses by each venture somewhere about a half of the value of his Foods. The home trade must, according to Lord STANHOPE'S account, involve a total loss.
Earl STANHOPE and the Duke Of RICHMOND appealed to their Lordships, whether, "in some places, the labourers had not been yoked in carts like cattle to draw loads for their taskmasters? Was this a state of things that could be endured? Is it more degrading to drag a cart, than to follow a plough, or propel a wheelbarrow ? If it be beneath the dignity of human nature to labour like a horse, . what a terrible misfortune it must be to wait upon a horse—to be a groom or a dragoon? Manufacturing labourers are still more to be pitied ; they labour like machines. How very difficult it is to please men of such delicate sensibilities as Earl STANHOPE! When the poor are unemployed, he weeps that they should want food ; Five them employment, and he is ready to weep at their loss of dignity.
The Duke of WELLINGTON bids the agriculturists be of good cheer, for he can prove to them that agricultural produce brings as high prices now as it ever did. He has nothing so gratifying to commu nicate to the manufacturers ; but, for their consolation, he assures them that the reduction in the prices- of agricultural produce has kept pace with the reduction in the prices of all manufactures. The Duke stated, that it was the object of Government on all occa- sions to save the public money by filling up vacancies in the public service from the half-pay and pension lists. Lord Kura explained how the saving was effected: "First they made the offices, then they reduced the officers to make pensioners, and then they gave the pen- sioners-offices again."
Previous page
