Our brief account of the Peerage Reform meeting at Lambeth,
last week, and remarks on the proceedings, appear to have been taken in high dudgeon by the worthy editor of the Morning Advertiser ; who (it is no breach of isourtesy to mention, as the fact was avowed,) had taken some trouble to bring about the meeting, and performed cer- tainly not the least conspicuous or creditable part in its proceedings. We are sorry for this; having meant no offence, personal or political. " Amore unfounded report," says the Advertiser, " never appeared
j
in any journal, than the abridged report of the proceedings of the Lam- beth meeting in the Spectator, or more unfounded comments made than those which appeared in the same journal." The following extract from our report is then given in evidence- " Several persons wished that a declaration in favour of the Ballot and Suf- frage Extension should be made ; and the vote of confidence in Ministers was strongly opposed. The noise and tumult were very great. Little that was said could be distinctly heard."
On which the Morning Advertiser remarks- " The' several persons' alluded to never exceeded twenty-one out of the t.-hole number assembled in a room computed to hold nearly two thousand per- sons; and with regard' to the vote of confidence in Ministers being strongly opposed,' there never was a vote in any independent meeting of any public character which was passed with such unanimous applause. Again, ' the noise and tumult were very great '—Ay, during a small portion of the time certainly, in consequence of certain hired agents of the Tories on the one hand, in the guise of Radicals, and certain indiscreet Radicals on the other, having, along with a few persons not belonging to the borough, attempted to interrupt the proceedings of the meeting : but it is utterly false that ' little that was mid could be distinctly heard.' The Chairman was heard from the beginning to the end of his speech, with the greatest attention ; Mr. Hardie and his se- conder were listened to in the same manner ; the resolution of Justice to Ire- land' was carried, not only with acclamation, but without a dissentient voice ; and the mover and seconder of a vote of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers cheered to an extent of which, considering their humble professions of ability, and still more humble performances, his Majesty's Ministers might justly be proud."
A passage from our " topic " on the Lambeth meeting is then given, with a commentary more abrupt than civil-
" No speech, except the opening one of the Chairman, was heard even with patience, (false;)—most of the speakers were not heard at all, (false; )—and after hours of tumult, the rioters dispersed, having passed the resolutions indeed, but in a state of languor and dejection," (false.) We said that the vote of confidence in Ministers was the apple of discord : this also is flatly denied. We said that this resolution led to " a determination amongst those who were first refused a bearing that the others should not be heard :" to this it is replied, " that nothing, in fact can be more false " than that the parties, " electors and itihabi- bitants of the borough," were not, with two exceptions, "heard with patience." Again we said— "All the mischief arose from the bungling of a somewhat Whiggish Com- mittee. No disturbance would have taken place but for the proposed affirma- tion of unconditional confidence in the Ministry."
It is denied that the meeting was convened by a Whiggish Commit- tee ; the members of that Committee being always ready to appear in the field for Triennial Parliaments, Ballot, and Extension of the Suf- frage, " when policy demanded that they should be enforced." Lastly, we are called upon to give distinct proofs of our assertions, if not also of the source from which we derived a foundation for them. We shall do both. Of the Lambeth meeting, from personal observation we know nothing : we did not attend the meeting, we had no reporter there, no communication from those engaged in the pro- ceedings was sent to us. Our brief account of what occurred, was written from a perusal of the different accounts in the morning papers, and from the current conversation in town. Being so directly and solemnly called upon, however, to prove a statement, the accuracy of which we never doubted, though we had not the proofs in our own hands; and observing that Mr. JOHN CRAWFURD—a gentleman as well known for his honour and respectability as for his thoroughly Liberal opinions and popular sympathies—had attended the meeting ; we re- quested that gentleman to read the complaint against the Spectator in the Morning Advertiser, and favour us with an impartial account of what really took place. Mr. CRAWFURD has obligingly sent us the following letter—
"TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
" 27. Wilton Crescent, 9th December 1836.
" SIR—I feel no hesitation in replying to your questions respecting the Lam- beth meeting. I was present, and on the platform, by invitation of a member of the Committee. The great room of the Horns Tavern, in which the meeting was held, might, I think, contain about 1000 persons; and it was nearly full. Even when I quitted it, after sitting four hours, it was still two- thirds full. The parties who composed the meeting, judging by their appear- ance, were highly respectable ; but, notwithstanding, the meeting was by far the most boisterous I ever attended. The great majority consisted of those favour. able to the resolutions; but there was also, if not a numerous, certainly a very active minority. As far as I could distinguish, there were no Tories, and the quarrel seemed to be between Reformers of different shades of opinion. The only resolution carried with unanimity was that fur Justice to Ireland : there was neither a hand nor a voice raised again t it. The principal opposition was to the resolution of confidence in Ministers; and it appeared to toe to owe a great deal of its success to the calm and temperate manner in which it was in- traduced by the mover. The conduct of the Chairman was judicious and tin- Glory. Gayner, from the Cape. Off the Wight, 7th, Ann, Griffith. from Bombay. off partial. Not so that of the meeting. The majority refused t i give a healing Cori, Hero, Dawson, from Manilla. At Liverpool, 6th, Mary Bibby, Cummins, from to almost all their opponents—indeed, twice over came to a formal vote that they should not be heard. When the minority found-they could not be heard, they determined, generally, that the majority should not have a hearing, and the uproar became superlative.• The speakers who obtained a hear- ing were the Chairman, Mr. HARDIE, (who, by the way, made a very good speech,) Mr. ANDERSON, and the two Members, with Mr. FALL alone on the opposition side. My conviction at the time was, and it is now, that the whole of the resolutions, including a vote of confidence in Ministers in discreet terms, would have been passed with unanimity, had they included one in favour of the Ballot, Short Parliaments, and Extension of Suffrage. I am at a loss to understand why the resolutions did not embraoe such a one ; for I am told that most of the requisitionists are favourable to these three reforms, which in their nature are surely not more Radical than an organic reform in the House of Peers. I will venture to predict, that should the example of the Lambeth meeting be followed by any other Metropolitan constituency, (it has not been so as yet,) a resolution in favour of Ballot, Short Parliaments, and Extension of Suffrage, will be indispensable to success; and if any respectable speaker can testify that a Cabinet opposition to one or two of them has been abandoned, I am satisfied that the vote of confidence in Ministers will be carried at such meeting by acclamation. " I am, Sir, your faithful and obedient servant,
• The Italics are Mr. CrawbiriPs.
In this account we find a complete confirmation of our own, as to those points where ours is contradicted by the editor of the Advertiser ; and that gentleman must excuse us if (making every charitable allow- ance for a little soreness on his part) we rely on Mr. CRAWFURD'S as the preferable testimony, under the circumstances. Other confirma- tion, we learn, might be found among the ranks of the speakers and managers, some of whom acknowledge their disappointment. But it is needless. The failure of the Lambeth meeting, in its main object, appears from the fact that it has yielded no fruits—there has not been a second meeting, though almost a fortnight has elapsed : if the affair had been better managed, we might have seen, by this time, meetings called, if not yet held, in all the districts of London.
J. CRAWFURD."
Previous page
