7 MARCH 1835, Page 12


THE Standard maintains that the vote on the Address is no indi- cation of the feelings of the majority of the People of England, because twenty-nine of those Members who voted for the Amend- ment, and whose colleagues voted for the Address, stood lowest on the poll at the elections; while in eleven cases only did the sup- porters of the Address poll fewer votes than their colleagues who voted for the Amendment. The balance-18—the Standard argues should be placed to the credit of the Ministers, and thus the Oppo- sition majority of 7 would disappear.

This may be a very ingenious puzzle for the tyro in political arithmetic, but we cannot exactly see how it makes out that the majority of the People of England went with the minority in Par- liament. Let us try another method of ascertaining, or rather guessing at the opinions of the majority of the People, as indicated by the vote on the Address. Take the ten largest counties and the ten largest towns in England, and let the votes of their Repre- sentatives be the test of the feelings of the masses. Here is the result.

Counties. Population.

Middlesex 1,358,000 Yorkshire 1,370,000 Lancaster 1,335,000 Devonshire 494,000 Surry 983,000 Kent 478,000 Stafford 410,000 Somerset 902,000 Norfolk 390,000

Gloucester 386,000 Now of these counties, Surry, Somerset, Stafford, Norfolk, and Gloucester, were neutralized by the votes or the absence of those who ought to have represented them. Of the others, the Opposi- tion had Middlesex ......

Yorkshire ......


With a population of 3, 1 2'2,000

The Tories had Lancaster ......

Kent With a population of 1,813,000 On the counties, therefore, the Oppo- sition had a majority of 1,309,000 The ten largest towns, independent of the Metropolitan districts, which we can afford to throw out of the calculation, are Manchester (with Salford) 227,000 Liverpool 165,000 Birmingham ......... 147,000 Leeds 123,000 Bristol 104,000 Sheffield 92,000 Wolverhampton ....... 67,000 Nora. i eh ............ ......... 62,000 Newcastle-upon- Tyne.. ...... 53,000 Portsmouth. 50,000 Liverpool, Leeds, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, were Of the others, the Reformers had Manchester Bir • gham Sheffield - Wolverhampton Portsmouth With a population of 583,000 The Tories had Bristol Norwich IVhose population is ...... 166,600 • 417,000 neutralized.

This is the majority on the large towns—independent, it must be borne in mind, of the Metropolitan million and a half. The same result would be obtained on a comparison of the votes of the representatives of the large counties and boroughs in Scotland and Ireland.


AT the close of the Elections, this was our estimate of the strength of parties-

Anti-Ministurialists '370 Ministerialists 2:37

Doubtfuls ITL


This calculation (which was far less sanguine than that of most of the Reforming journals) gave to the Opposition a majority of 82 even on questions on which the Ministers might receive the support of all the Douhtfuls. Two such questions have been de- cided; and the result has been majorities of 16 and 7, instead of 82. Our readers may fairly ask, how is this ? were the anticipa- tions of the Spectator unreasonable in their grounds; or have they been unreasonably disappointed, by the treachery or waver- ing of supposed Reformers? It is our intention in what follows, not so much to detCnd the accuracy of calculations which never indeed pretended to certainty, but to explain in what manner the expected majority of s2 has dwindled away to 7.

In the first place, let the account be stated briefly.

Anticipated majority is a fidl House, on the supposition that all the Douhtfels supported Ministers 82 But four Doubefuls—Messrs. A NGERSTEIN, KENNEDY, and MACTAGGART, and Sir C. COCKERELL—voted with the Opposition ; and for the purposes of this calculation their

. numbers must be doubled 8 Reformers absent The Speaker Supposed Reformers who have voted with Ministers, 25 1 37; making a difference on the balance of the

division of


100 But the Ministers lost, by Doubtfuls absent 9

By Tories absent 8

17 83 7 In this way the result of the division on the Address was ob- tained.

It is to be observed that we have as yet no means of testing the accuracy of the calculation of the majority on those questions which are not considered pushing ones. On some of these—Cor- poration Reform, for instance—it is to be expected that what is called the STANLEY Section, and most of the other IVaverers, will be in Opposition. But our present concern is with the division on the Address.

It appears that the principal defalcation arises from the junction of supposed Reformers with the Tory Ministry, to the number of 37—making a difference to the Reformers on a division of 74. The question is, whether there was a reasonable ground for placing these gentlemen in the Opposition ranks. In order that our readers may judge for themselves in this matter, we subjoin a list of those whom we sty -led Reformers, but who have voted with the Tones.

D. Barclay Sunderland W. B. Baring Winchester J. Benett Wiltshire, S.

Lord G. Bentinck Lynn Sir R. Bulkeley Anglesea E. Buller Staffordshire Sir C. Burrell Shoreham Sir S. Canning Lynn Alderman Copeland . . . Coleraine S. Crawley Bedford J. Cripps arencester J. Davenport Stoke.upon-Trent Sir R. Ferguson Londonderry C. S. Forster

S •

J. Halse t. Ives R. Ingham South Shierls Sir J. Johnstone Scarborough

Dungannon J. Knox J. Lee Lee It'effs

Lord J. G. Lennox li 'est Sussex Sir R. Lopez irestbury J. Alartin Sligo Sir 0. Mosley Staffordshire F. Not th Hastings J. Richards Knaresborough Sir M. Ridley Newcastle- upon. nix J. IV. Scott Hampshire, N. Sir E. D. Scott Lichfield Sir S. Spry Bodmin Eerl of Surry Sus•ex, C. R. Al. Talbot Glamorganshire W. Turner Blaaburn Sir H. Verney Buckingham G. H. Vernon East Retliwel

• ;q141t, 11:

1.1. l-oti 6. F. Young Tgnemouth


H. Walker Now, with the exception of Arr. FORSTER of Walsall—who, upon closer examination into his votes and professions, we now think ought not to have been classed among the Reformers—we feel at a loss to point out a Member in this list, whom previously to the vote on the Address we should have been justified in considering as other than an opponent of the Tory Ministry. They all profess to be Reformers; several of thetn even voted against MANNERS SUTTON, and many have long been deemed good Whigs. Should we not have been charged with gross btnorance, or misrepresenta- tion, if We had called Mr. BENETT, Mr. Nonni, the Earl of SURRY, Mr. E. But.sEE, Sir 0. AlisssEr, Sir J. J OHNSTONE, Mr. CRAWLEY, Mr. WALKER, or Mr. .1. \V. SCOTT, supporters of an Ultra Tory Administration ? Mr. 1.3siter.sy of F,:underlinel, and Sir II. VER- NEY, in letters to the newspapers, Eiclaiwed the intention of voting with the Duke, and seemed to be quite offended at the im- putation ; as they hatvowed themselves Reformers, and beers elected as such. Alderman COPELAND spoke like a thoreugh- going Reformer to his constituents at Co!eraine ; and besides, from a letter which he addressed to ourselves, we felt no doubt as to the course he would take. The following extract front the Belfast Northern Whig will show what is thought of his recent votes in the neighbourhood of the place which the Alderman represents- " We were disposed to bear a good deal from Alderman Copeland. We said little about his having signed the Loudon Tory address. We were told that a sathifiretory explanation had been given ; and we were very well in:44,M to be persuaded of the fact. But transgressions teratedArce themselves upon us ; and we can no longet submit in silence to have the Alemher for Celeraine sooth- ing Us with Reform speeches when he wishes to carry his election, but giving us a Tory prologue and epilogue. We do not mean to say that he should be filially condemned fur this last act—we are disposed to grant hint any excuse which can he extended tu any other Reform Member : hut we must tell him, that two Tory efforts, in succession, are rather too much ; and that, if he will not re- trace his steps, and give most decided practical proof of the sincerity of his Ballot, Anti-Tithe, and general Reform declarations, on the hustings at Cole- raine, he must suffer without benefit of clergy."

There are other names on the list of the Duke's new allies, which could not reasonably be expected to be found there. For instance, we find that during the last session Sir S. SPRY voted three times ter the revision of the Pension-list ; that Mr. G. F. YOUNG voted for Mr. IIsievice's motion, and Mr. STRurr's on the same question, and for inquiry into the bribery at Liverpool, for ad- mitting Dissenters into the University, and other Liberal mea- sures; that Lord G. LENNOX voted for inquiring into Baron Ssrern's cenduct, for a revision of the Pension-list, and for dis- banding the Yeomanry. Lord G. BENTINCK and Sir S. CANNING, as we were informed at the time of their election, declared them- selves to be decided Reformers; that they were so considered by many of their constituents, we feel perfectly certain ; and it was by Liberal professions on their part that Sir J. S. LILLIE was thrown out.

It will appear, we think, from the above, that we were not over- sanguine in expecting that the gentlemen whose names we have mentioned, as well as others in the list, would have been opponents of the Tory Ministry. That they will oppose them on many ques- tions, we yet believe. In most cases we had only their public pro- fessions and conduct to guide us ; and certainly do. not think that their recent votes have been consistent with their previous cha- racter. But of this the constituents who elected them are the judges.

There is a balance too of 17 against the Reformers on the Ab- sentee list. Surely this must be amended. The constituencies should accept no excuse for repeated neglect to attend. Where confirmed ill health is the cause, the Member should resign his seat, and not disfranchise his constituents by his absence from Parliament.

We subjoin the names of a few of those who have been absent from both the late important divisions.

Mr. Campbell Argykshire Mr. Ellice Coventry Sit S. R. Glynne Mr. Gore Langton Flint

Somersetshire, E.

Lord A. Lennox


Mr. Ponsonby


Mr. Pryse Cardigan Mr. Sanford Somersetshire, Mr. J. A. Smith Chichester Lord James Stuart . . . Ayr Burghs Mr. Bish Leominster Of the Doubtfuls, whom we hoped to find generally in oppo- position to the Ministers, there have been absent on both di- visions—

Sir F. Burdett Westminster W. Cobbett Oldham

Mr. Tapps Christchurch Mr. Dillwyn Glamorydn.slare Mr. Ridley Colborne 1Vells Mr. J. Fielden Oldham Earl of Belfast Antrim

Excuses, of course, can be offered for the absence of most of these gentlemen ; but some of them are such as no constituency ought to be satisfied with. We allude more especially to the cases of Sir FRANCIS BURDETT and Messrs. COBBETT and FIE L DE N. The Reformers should follow the example of the Tories, who at- tend in their places as if they really were aware of the importance of the crisis, and knew that it would be hazardous to be away even for an hour.

Avowed, consistent, thoroughgoing Tories, we can understand and respect. But it is impossible to regard any professed Re- former, who, by his vote or absence, assists in maintaining the Tory Ministers in power for a single day, otherwise than as deficient either in honesty, or in the faculty of discriminating between right and wrong. This question is the simplest in the whole range of poli- tics. The Tory Ministers ought to be turned out at once—because 1st. It is by a violation of all public morality and faith that the Impostors hold their places: 2d. The community will not that these men rule over u,s and there can be no peace in the land till they are expelled.