3 OCTOBER 1835, Page 4

Ebt Countrp.

The Liberals of Newark gave a public dinner on the 25th ultimo to their Representative, Mr. Sergeant Wilde ; who took the opportu- nity of addressing them on the subject of his Parliamentary conduct and on several of the more important topics of public interest. Ile spoke of the use to which the Reform Bill was intended to be applied-

" That bill was passed, not for a toy or an amusement, but for the purpose of giving to the people of this country the opportunity of regenerating their institutions—the opportunity of setting about to do that which hitherto no country in the world ever did attempt, but which, I hope, following the example of England, many will hereafter be inclined to attempt. The Reform Bill, I say, was passed to give this country— a country great in prosperity, mighty in power, exalted in intellect—the opportunity of setting about to review her institutions, the offspring of ages—of far distant ages ; and framed for a people living under circumstances of a totally different nature from those now existing—to see how far they were adapted to the state of the inhabitants who now live under them. This was a work to be set about, not with a rude and violent hand—to demolish, but with a hand restrained, I trust, by an endearing recollection of past times and of the many blessings this country had enjoyed—to render those institutions only the more useful which hail already produced to society such great advantages. Strange indeed would it have been if the institutions of a country proceeding from so humble an origin, whose laws and constitution could be traced back into the darkest ages of its history, which had passed through the hands of politicians and admi- nistrators, and which, as ages rolled on, were varied, modified, and altered, sometimes for good, sometimes for evil,—the patriot hand occasionally seeking to repair and improve, the ruthlessIand of the tyrant at other times seeking to disturb, to pervert, and to destroy,—through such an ordeal as this could it be expected that these institutions should be adapted to such a state of things as exists in the present century ? Adapted as they might be to a great extent from their partial modifications from time to time, still there would be much that the wisdom and experience of the present day would see called for amendment— would see might be altered so as to render those institutions of infinitely greater advantage to the country than they had before been. That this alteration was desirable what sane man can doubt ? If the prudent or indeed the timid were willing to take them as they found them, the evil with the good, yet are there not always in every country where inquiry is free and where a certain degree of liberty exists, men who, restless under what they deem a wrong, and impa- tient under imperfect institutions, are likely to make the defects of those insti- tutions not only the ground of attack, but who, if you do not repair them, will make as the objects of their attack those institutions themselves? What lesson has France left us to draw from the page of history in regard to govern- ment ? Is it not that to the timid hand which was afraid to apply itself to the remedy of defects and the removal of abuses, may be fairly ascribed the destruc- tion of liberty itself? I say then, as prudent men, as wise men, even if you had not been Reformers, your interests called upon you to look into your affairs and see if they could not be put upon a better footing. The Reform Bill yeti had procured for that purpose. What have been its effects? The country had been ruled for a long time nominally by a Representative Government, but actually by the Aristocracy. The House of Commons was moved, impelled, urged, or restrained, according to the dictates of that Aristocracy. The institutions of the country and all her establishments had been too much moulded and ail:toed to the purposes of that Aristocracy. The Reform Bill was calculated to put an end to such estate of things. Your civil institutions, your literary institutions, your Church, and other institutions, were all, more or less, moulded by the means I have mentioned, to be simply subservient to the purposes of that Aristocracy. All this it was your object to correct by the Reform Bill. The Reform Bill did much. It enabled you to return a majority to the House of Commons professing Reforming principles ; but there existed bodies in thiscoun- try which greatly retarded the operation of that Reform Bill. It is true rotten boroughs were at an end—that is to say, rotten boroughs in the hands of 11:1111V1.. duals ; but there remained a power by which the Aristocracy still retained great

i

influence in the boroughs, fur there remained boroughs, rotten boroughs, in the hands of corporations. Reform iu Parliament could never be perfect—never could be in a state with which the country would be content while those bodies existed with a power and with a will to exercise that power for the purpose of main- taining those abuses which it was the object of the Reform Bill to put an end to. The Reform Bill would, therefore, have been useless unless followed by Corpo- ration Reform. That seems to me to have been a point well known by the Aristocracy." Sergeant Wilde proceeded to trace the recent political history of the country from the passing of the Reform Act to the dismissal of the Melbourne Ministry, in November last; which he said was the sudden execution of a design long entertained- " I have said elsewhere (he continued) that, in my opinion, the events of that day will form a very important part in the page of history. Who is responsible for the interruption that occurred in the government of this country at that time ? By whose advice was it that the Ministry were dismissed, without being advised that his Majesty had withdrawn his confidence from them, without knowing that any one measure which they had introduced was not perfectly approved of by his Majssty, and without themselves having in the least deviated from that conduct and that line of policy which had obtained for them the confidence of his Majesty ? Who, I demand, is responsible for the dismissal of a Government appointed upon particular principles, which Govern- ment were engaged in managing the concerns of the country according to those

principles' and which they believed met with the entire approbation of their master ? Who caused the dismissal of that Government?—Ii is not known to this day. In my opinion, the most important part of this transaction is this, that if the Government of a mighty empire like this can be dismissed from office at the mere caprice, it may be, of the moment, and nobody is to be responsible, constant apprehension will take hold of the public mind, and all confidence in the stability of government will cease. To say the least of it, it was a most ill-advised measure, whoever was the adviser. it has presented to the country a very dangerous subject for consideration. We are all interested deeply in the matter, especially as his Majesty's name is connected with

the consideration of the propriety or impropriety of it. The safety and peace f the empire, the permanency of the constitution itself, rest upon that measure. Not as it is sometimes foolishly supposed, when you hear it said that the King can do no wrong, that the King may, therefore, act according to his own will and pleasure, without censure. The teal meaning of the maxim is this, that the King, great and powerful as he is, :wined and pro- tected by prerogative of all sorts though he be, has yet no prerogative, nothing attachable to to his kingly state which will warrant his doing any wrong. That is the meaning of the maxim that the King ran do no wrong; that is to say, in England we live miler a Government where the King is restrained from doine wrong as much as any of his subjects. It is true there is a peculiar law for them, ieasmuch as th.l• have to govern, while the people are to be governed ; but the King is as much bound by the law applicable to his peculiar state as are his subjects. The proudest diadem a King can wear when reigning over a people is, that he reigns mighty in proportion as he reigns by that rule which gives to his subjects the most perfect seem ity with the-least poesible deviation front right on his part. While the King, therefore, can do no wrong in the sense thet no prerogative, no law, no right exists in him to con grit a wrong, yet, as I before said, his Majesty's name, by those who exercise a sound discre- tion for the peace of the country, never must be nilxed up in the discussion of the propriety or impropriety of any certain act. But might a Geyer nment to be changed without 'somebody being, responsible? Orreht the affairs of the nation to stand still and the peaceful pursuits of the subject be suspended for three months by the dissolution and restoration of a Government, with all the inconvenience and expense of a general election, and yet no one he responsible?"

He remarked at length on the inconsistency of Sir Hobert Peel in pretending to he a Reformer, although he sanctioned the dismissal of a Reforming. Ministry. Sir Robert Peel, he had observed, both when in office and since, had carefully avoided speaking distinctly and speci- fically on measures of Reform : he had dextrously dealt in ceneralities only, and therefore be could not place confidence in miss. The country had arrived at a fearful crisis. The two Houses of Parliament not merely differed on individual measures, but legislated on opposite prin. ciples. It Wits said that you must reform the House of Lords- " That is easily said ; but any Government that shall be established on the principle of reforming the House of Lords will find it no easy thing to accom- plish. I have expressed s rue opinions you may agree to ;rod approve of. It is possible I may new expiees :cone which will not have your concurrence •, but it Is my duty to express them. I will give you the result of my understanding on this -subject as at present ioffirmed, with a desire to be instructed. But what is to be done in the present crisis, now that we have begun reform? What is to he dime with the House of Lords? I apprehend the passing of the Munici- pal Reform Bill will increase the majority of the House of Commons so as to give it such an imposing position as must materially operate upon the Honse of Leads. But then some nett go further and say, the fioese of Lords must be refremed. I have before stated the extreme difficulty thet belongs to that pro- position. It is a queedion as to the wisdom and effectiveness of an hereditary legislature. I have ceneidered that subject ; and the result of my consideration is, that it would he impossible, though that form of the Legislature may be open to many objection,,, to form any other less objectionable. If I were asked my opinion of an hereditary legislature, I should say in ri ply, Yuu do not give in the statement of your question sufficient premises t enable me to give an answer. I cannot say whether an hereditary legislittole is d priori good or bad. Tell me the country in which it exists. Tell me the habits, the feelings, and the associations of the aristocracy with the main body of the people of teat country ; their means of knowledge of the wants, feelings, and circumstances of that people; their sympathy with those wants and feelings. I must know all this bethre I can answer whether an hereditary legislature is better than any other. One thing to he looked at in considering this question is the d ffictety which beiceigs to the limitation of any other different system. Would you have it to elective body ?—That is but another House of Commons. You would he thus having two Houses of Commons in principle, a:though you may call ore of them the House of Lords, because both Houses would be elected for a certain period only. But it may be proposed to be elected fur life. If so, then you will have no better than an hereditary legislature, fir an hereditary legislature only acts for life. To elect for years, then, is only to have another House of Co:unions; to elect for life is making a change without any advantage. But there is an advantage in having a second branch of the Levielature—a toast materiel advantage, arising from the circumstance of its being constituted dif- ferently from the first branch. You have a House of ClOPUMWS with the expe- rience and knowledge derived from the existing state of society. It should seem desirable that before any measure passed by such an assembly became a law, another body differently constituted should pass their judgment upon it, who would vier: its provisions in a different light. All that is 'elle:red in the con- stitution of that other body is, that they should have the samecommon object with the House of Commons. Let tile general gocd of the country equally operate upon the second body and the House of Commons, and then it seems to me there is no danger. But you have an hereditary House of Louis; you have therefore a different body of men with different associations, and acting under circumstances so different as to give them all the advantages of a different body of men which you can possibly have under any possible circumstances. Yo7. cannot, I repeat, say in the abstract whether an hereditary House of Lord is good or bad. You have a House of Lords. Do not fancy that 1 differ in Cie general censure and strong disapprobation expressed of them, or that I am in- sensible to what has lately taken place. But how does the present House of Lords stand ? The House of Lords at present is very much mixed up with the Commons; and when you look at the tnarriages of the younger sons of the nobility you will find that the House of Commons is very much mixed up with the House of Lords. But how are the individuals forming the House of Lords educated ? !apprehend in the best possible mole speaking generally; for they are educated for the most part in the !toile of Counn g ots. The eldest sons of Peers are generally desirous of becoming Members of Parliament. What effect has that upon their minds and habits? Let us see. There is a noble lord, an intelligent and high-minded gentleman, who is Member for Liverpool, his coadjutor being Mr. Ewan. What is the education. which Lord Sando'n is receiving? Can he receive a better ? It is true that but comparatively few of the House of Lords are men of business: but by whom are their discussions re- gulated ? By also a comparatively few ; those few being the most active and Intelligent who have passed through the House of Commons, where they have learned all they know by being brought into connexion with the country, and

then passing up to the House of Peers, thus c • onstituting asgood a second

branch of the Legislature as can be conceived. It seems, therefore, to me, if

you only remove from the Linda all exclusive objects, you h we the most 'mewl

second branch of legislature that can be devised. It remains for their Lord- ships to say whether I ant right or not ; whether they are so wedded to preju- dices that they cannot legislate with an independent House of Commons. If they should prove to be so, then I think it will become a matter which must be most seriously considered. But I do believe, when the new Town-Councils are formed, we shall, for practical purposes, have a different House of Lords than what we hitherto have had. Always holding the opinion that change merely for the sake of change is never to be desired, and that the reform of the second branch of the Legislature is to be effected by the means I have men- tioned, I do not think there is any necessity for an alteration in the constitution of the House of Lords."

Several toasts and speeches followed, and the company broke up.