SCRUTINY OF THE VOTES.
THE machinery of which we may into allowed to claim the inven- tion, has been brought practically play in estimating the -cha, meter of the reat division that led to the retirement of • Ministers. Our " Anatomy" has been taken 'advantage of by one Or two of the more laborious members, for the purpose of Showing to the country what manner of Men they are whom it has intriiSted with the power of making its laws and regulating its expenditure. The lists that have appeared in the Daily Journals do credit to those who have given their honest endeavours to the working of our tables. They are, perhaps, more accurate, and certainly more in- teresting, than any that have been hitherto published. We are bound at the same time to. say, that none of them are so correct* as that which our own columns now contain; and that, zealously as our Parliamentary friends have availed themselves of Our as- sistance, in order to give to the people of England a detailed ac- count of the division, they have proved, in their application of our principles, inventore rninores. Mere is a clumsiness and com- Oexity in their tables, which render them, at any rate, not ready of individual reference. . These defects we have remedied. The view which we subjoin will be found to exhibit the whole of the truths, and none or very few of the errors of our contempora- ries, in a distinct, lucid, and intelligible form. And while we nave given our own peculiar arrangement, we must, in justice to our- selves, state, that the materials of which it is made up are equally our own, though much of them do not appear for the first time in our pages : for we not only gave the general principle in our Par- liamentary Tables, but privately supplied the materials by which the particular division of Monday was noted. It was by means of tables drawn up by us, that two or three indefatigable mem- bers, who have acted as our coadjutors in this instance, were able to give to the public; through the medium of our con- temporaries, even the imperfect information of which it is in nos- -session. • Before we enter on the analysis of this remarkable division, we cannot help reverting to a subject which we treated of in conjunc- tion with the "Anatomy," under the title of "The. Votes." . We complained in that article, on the behalf of the people of England, that the House of Commons should continue to cover itself. with idleness and apathy as with ataxment, in respect of the Most im- portant of its obligations.. Not only is there no assignable reason why a regular roll of attendance should not be kept in the House of Commons—in the House of Lords the proxy system ren- ders it unnecessary—but the most ordinary andrecognized rules of fair-dealing imperatively demand that it should. Whit right can any man have to solicit the votes of the select few, or the inclie- criminate many, to ask to represent borough or corinty.,:orien or close, who will not—from. laziness interest, or any other cause— attend to the duty he has undertaken? Putting the .case Most favourable to . the negligent member, can any thing be more un- reasonable than the purchase of a seat by a man whom no in- ducement can persuade to occupy it Now what do we, what .do the voters, and not the voters only, but the whole of the people of England, demand ?—Not that deprivation should be inflicted on the fool that has paid, or punishment on the knave that has pledged and promised and flattered for his honours, and yet refuses to use them ; but simply that we shall be made ac- quainted with the names of the offenders—that we may be favoared with the means, if inclined to use them, of distinguishing between those that de not and those that do their duty to the nation. And if it be the duty of the House to acquaint the nation, whom it re- preserits,. with the 'names of th-ose by whom its affairs are nightly managed, a fortiori is it the duty of the House, in cases where difference of opinion prevailS, among its members, to tell who ire for, who are against a motion, whose consequences involve !he interest of twenty millions of people. If, by a iverildess fiction, we are to be told that where there is no division of saembers there is no division of opinion—that those who are ab- sent on such occasions are Niiitually consenting—still, what -is to be said of the determined silence of the House when there. is a division or Members. as well as opinion? We hear from Mr. BROUGHAM, • and. • from the sciolists who take their cue from him, much fine speech about the ballot, and its • alleged iniqui- ties: we aretold of the meanness 'arid un-Englishness of secret voting. "Let- me,"•says Lord WINCHILSE A, "never see the day when my honest countryman cannot boldly advance to. the hust- ings, and in open day give . his vote against me." "Would you have an Englishman's life,"- 'cries the member for 'Yorkshire; :" one entire lie?"- Whence do these noises proceed ? From-the Lords, from the Commons of Englaridfrom assemblies whose -name is mystery—whose. standing orders declare it a breach of privilege for a stranger to enter the place where they sit—whose sayings the public have no. Means of learriing,. but what they enjoy by stealth —whose doings are net only- unreported to the nation, but even.un- known to.tlieir own body! ..TheSe gentlemen, wild obstinately 're- fuse to tell-where they sit, how theyvote, or whether they sit or vote at all,, yet :rhetaricize touching publicity and the advantages derived to the poor openly disobliging their superiors ! In the insteriee of Monday; one • little ,step has been -made to put an -end to a sys- tem that disgraces the times m which we live. If 'three or • four' * OUe of-these • lista, under -the -head of "Absent Members;" netnatiy the name ot-wiCHARI:ES -MANNERS SUTTON !' And4hiallet has ran the Merl Ot all the
papers thout suspicion or challenge. • • ' - • • • • - • • • • •
honest members—we shall not ask speaking gentlemen, for they are .too ,much 'taken up with their own oratorY—but if two or three *flint members would follow up that step for the remainder of the Session, we have no doubt that the Honour- able House would be compelled at length to accept of the plan which we have submitted to its consideration, and to record its sitfingS and its divisions regularlyand accurately. Now to our Tables. • The numbers on the division, from the most careful comparison of names we have been able to make, appear to have been '235 and 206. They are stated in the " Votes" as 233 and 204. The latter numbers, it is well known, are gained by the good old pas- toral plan of counting out and counting in, as if the honourable Members were a 'flock of sheep, and. the leaders bell-wedders. The .total number of members, deducting the two Vacancies of Liverpool and Southwark, the double return of Queenbo- rough, the twice-returned Members of Knaresborough, Ta- vistock, and Haslemere, and the resignations in the cases of Wigan, Peterborough, and Beeralston, is 649. There must have been some necessary absences from sickness—Alderman WOOD has made an excuse of that kind ; but we- cannot pre- tend to :even a guess at their number. Taking the number of members as we have stated, we find, on a question which was to decide the fate of the Executive . Government Of the country, 205 men—a very Considerable portion of them residing at the time in London—one third of all the members of the United Kingdom— so indifferent to their duty and to their friends, that not even from curiosity could they be persuaded to devote half a dozen of hours to either ! Let us note, as we pass, a few of the names of the Dons who Were among the absentees on this remarkable occasion. We take them indifferently from either side—the absence of the men of high profeSsion is equally inexcusable, whatever way they vote. We have first the great Mr. BARING, famous for speaking on both sides of a question, and giving his vote to that which has had least of the eloquence of his support. Next comes West- minster's Glory, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, who :aid not take the oaths'. even until Tuesday—true to his old practice of making a mighty racket and display on half a dozen of claptrap questions, and leaving the real business of the House to go—where it listed. Then comes the Tory leader, the Marquis of CHANDOS ; followed by the father of the House and prop of Whiggery, Mr. Cont of Norfolk. The Anti-Slavery orator, Mr. BUXTON, kept aloof, and his brother else. Sir RONALD FERGUSON had not finished dining. The Eighth Champion of .Christendom, Sir HARRY INGLIS, was praying that the Church might be saved from Dr. PHILLPOTTS, and he &add. not ,be .diSturbed. Mr. MA- BERLEY, the mover of the Finance domniittee, could not afford his vote on so congenial a subject. Mr. GEORGE OGLE MOORE and Mr. FREDERICK Ssraw,•the patriots of the Dublin- Corporation, were not there. Sir JOHN NEWPORT, Sir CHARLES' WETHERELL, Sir JOSEPH YORRE—Tragedy, Comedy, Farce—were alike want- ing. The Marquis of TAVISTOCK, the hope of the house of RUSSELL, was otherwise engaged. The cheap-beer patriot of Southwark, Sir ROBERT WILSON, begged to be . excused. . Mr. JOHN WIL- LIAMS (410, with all his devotion to beauty, would rather serve the King than the Queen) was absent for cause The BANKER family acted after the good old •Scotch plan in the Pretender's time—the father voted for the Committee, one son voted against it, and the other, pleasing all parties, was absent. . The difference between what-maybe called the essential value of the minority and majority on the late great occasion is very re- markable. In the minority, we can find only about a couple of dozen f names, including all the Government officers, that have i everbeen recorded before n any document but such as that before us :. the rest are not small, not infinitessimals, they are abso- lute nonentities. In the majority; again, we have noted seventy- three names, familiar to our ears as •household words,' and some of theni the best known and most esteemed in Europe. In popu- lar value, there is as great a contrast between the two lists. Out of eighty-two English county' members, • the Minister had only six- teen. Of about one hundred and fifty boroughs that are commonly esteemed open—that is, that are not subject to the direct control of oneni two families, but return men who, whether Whig or Tory members, at least pretend to public principle—only 25 voted with Mr. GOOLUDRN. In the Irish counties, the tables of division are equally instructive ; many of them are practically in the hands of one or two noblemen, and yet the Minister could only command 10 votes out of 64. Even in Wales, where the system is, though not absolutely, very nearly close, he could only persuade 5 out of 24 members to lend him a helping hand. The success of the Cabinet, where they were successful, is not less curious than their failure where they failed. They were vigorous in corruption—strong in rottenness. Scotland, which the very shadow of popular represen- tation has never visited, sent the Chancellor of the Exchequer 21 conrity members; and had -not, her Sens been for once tardy to the calls .of interest, 7. more would have swelled his ranks on the day of his trial.- Out of 15 boroughs, belonging to the same country, 9 Were found where they have-ever been found—on the right side.; and of the three hundred Gattons and Newports and Salamis of' the rest of the -empire, he had about 120 in his favour, and only abOut 70 againsthim. - " Such is a short summary . of this great and important division division *hi& will be long remembered in thenounhy, from the 'changes, not Of men which have arisen, but -of systems which Ore confidently eipeeted to. Onse out: of it.
Previous page
