ON WHICH SIDE ARE THE PEOPLE?
THE author of an article on the State of Parties, in Fraser's Maga- zine for November, has made ample use of Lord Baounnesi's " important contribution to the Conservative cause " in the last number of the Edinburgh Review. The Tories find it very con- venient to take Lord BROUGHAM, whom Fraser indecorously styles " his tipsy Lordship," as the mouthpiece of the Reformers ; and chuckle over his assertion or admission, " that a large majority not only cf the Peers, but of the property of the country, is alarmed at, if not positively averse to, reterm." They argue, fairly enough, that if the Peers aud the men of property are on their side, the People, of whose support. Lord BROUGHAM and the Reformers boast, "must obviously be the mass or multitude of those who have no property." But we refuse to allow that Lord BOUGH AM is entitled to call i.hiniself or to be considered an organ of the Liberal party. He is a disappointed and a slippery politician, still looking out for place ; and we agree with the writer in Fraser's Magazine, that Isis notorious paper in the Edinburgh Review speaks clearly to the following effect—" There is much to be said on both sides ; I could make out a good case for either; and if I am to be on your side of the question, I must have a tangible and sufficient reason for it:' A writer so characterized is not to be held up as an au- thority on doubtful points of party politics.
Having assumed Lord Beounirem's very questionable postu- late as an admitted truth, it is easy to make out a case in favour of placing the Government in the hands of the Tories ; for no man of sense will pretend that "the mass or multitude of those who have no property" can control the conduct of affairs in such a country as England. We deny, however, not only that there is any proof of this great preponderance of property on the Tory side, but, for the reasons subjoined, we dispute the proba- bility of such being the fact.
Look at the Peerage. Of what materials is the Tory majority composed ? Strike out of the list the pauper Lords—the pen- sioned sons of lawyers, soldiers, diplomatists, and olficials,—most of whom are men of far less substance than thriving shopkeepers, —and we believe that the preponderance, perhaps of numbers even, would be found on the Liberal side. There cannot be a greater mistake than to suppose that a numerical majority of the whole House of Peers carries with it the greater portion of the wealth of the Peerage.
Turn then to the Electoral body. It is undeniable, that at the last election the Reformers were taken by surprise, and many thousands were found to be unregistered. This disqualified the householders—not the old freemen ; and it was to the freemen that the Tories were indebted for their increase. The masses were against the Ministry ; as we proved at the time, by a re- ference to the comparative numbers of the constituents of Liberals and of Tories. 'Without the freemen, the Tories had not, as they have not, and never will have, a chance. This the Tories know right well ; and hence the desperate struggle for the freemen by these sticklers for the supremacy of property. The Liberals would gladly by any lawful means sweep away all who vote on such a tenure; but the Tories will not permit them. Why ?—Because the Tones depend upon the votes of those venal paupers. But if at were true that the independent men of property were on their side, there would not be the necessity of keeping up the race of freemen. At Liverpool, Bristol, Norwich, Yarmouth, York, Ipswich, Hull, and other places were the freemen abound, the Liberal candidates uniformly poll the majority of votes of those who have any thing to lose: the houseless and the penniless are brought up by the thousand to vote for the Tory candidates. In London, too, if it be true that the districts of Saffron Hill, Field Lane, and such like, furnish more Liberal than Tory votes, it is also a fact that the poorer order of freemen in the City support the Tories. Numbers of these, as Alderman WOOD stated publicly on the hustings, are or have been in the habit of taking bribes from the Tories.
From one end of the country to the other it will be found,. that the Liberals rely on the householders, men of substance to a greater or les% degree—all of them to a certain extent having something to lose; while the Tories would be thrown out of nearly every borough in England, were it not for the purchaseable votes of the poorer freemen. These facts render it very improbable that the mass of property is on the Tory side, though there may be more rich individuals in their ranks.
As regards the right of peer nem to have an equal influence with the wealthy in the government of the country, there is not much use in arguing the point; because they cannot have it. In every country, and under every form of government, the superior influence of property over poverty is apparent. The owner of Burlington House may have only one vote in his own name, the same as the shopkeeper in Burlington Arcade ; but bow many are there whose vote a word from the great man would turn one way or the oilier! It is unprofitable to discuss the question of abstract right, in a country where the inequality of conditions is so great as it is in England. The writer in Fraser's Magazine seems to admit that the vast numerical majority of the nation is Anti-Tory; for he says that a
Universal Suffrage Parliament would make Mr. \Yemen, Prime Minister, and Mr. O'CONNELL Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The late Registration has given the Retbrmers a majority of the Electors ; of those Electors, the majority who have any thing to lose—the householders namely—are also Reformers. This being the ease, we think we are entitled to say that THE PEOPLE are with us, in the some sense as we say that the Peers are with the Tories,—that is, the majority of the People are Anti-Tory.
Previous page
