TOPICS OF THE DAY.
DISFRANCHISEMENT OF CORRUPT BOROUGHS.
CONDUCT OF EARL GREY.
EARL GREY has distinctly refused to give any support, in his capacity of Minister of the Crown, to the measures now in pro- gress for purifying the Corrupt Boroughs. On Tuesday night, in reply to a question from Lord DURHAM, who was determined to ascertain the intentions of Ministers on the subject, he is report2d to have delivered himself as follows.
He conceived that he was not now called upon to enter into the consideration of these questions ; and he should merely say, that it appeared to him to be a matter of very grave and serious consideration to that House, whether, in a case which might be considered as coming before it, like the present, in a judicial character, the House would proceed against a body of electors upon evidence taken elsewhere, without hearing them in their own defence.
And again—
He must decline stating, in his capacity of Minister, any thing upon the subject, as lie did not feel himself called upon to point out to the House any mode of proceeding. But, as an individual member of that House, when the time arrived for discussing the question, he should be prepared to give his opi- nion; although he must decline doing so, as he had already intimated, as a Minister of the Crown.
Lord DURHAM reminded the Premier, that the Duke of WEL- LINGTON considered it a part of his duty as Minister to superin-
tend the bill for the disfranchisement of East Retford, after that borough, like Warwick, bad been indisputably proved to be cor- rupt, before a Committee of the House of Commons. And cer- tainly it would not have been unreasonable to expect an equal
degree of zeal in filo cause of purity of election from Earl GREY. But there is a reason for the Premier's fastidiousness and extreme delicacy of feeling on the subject of the Corrupt Boroughs: he is
afraid of making it a Cabinet question ! He is no more in love with bribery and the intimidation of voters now, than he was two years ago ; but he has no wish to go through another scene of
sesignation and return to office—or, it might be, of resignation without the return; and therefore, if he can avoid it, will run no risk of a collision with the Conservative Opposition. This policy is somewhat mean-spirited ; may it not also be short-sighted ? Earl GREY and his colleagues are quite sure of national support in carrying through the principle of Reform. This the Conservative party know perfectly well, and it would defeat their game to drive the Ministry to extremities on such questions. They must therefore feel delighted with the course taken by Ministers, which will enable them to throw out the borough-purif) log bills with (as they imagine) very little risk. But there are other mea- sures, which must be made Cabinet measures. Earl GREY can- not go through the session without incurring some Minister:al responsibility. The Church and Corporation questions, and the amendment of the Poor-laws, are of this description. It is not improbable that he may suffer defeat on these. Should that be She case, how can he expect the strenuous support of the nation, when he pusillanimously deserts the popular cause, and virtually plays the game of Lords WARWICK and SALISBURY, and the venal men of all parties throughout the country ? Earl GREY'S conduct in respect to the purification of the :orrupt constituencies, must give unwelcome confirmation to .he now wide spreading suspicions, that he has become an obstacle in the way of Reform. The friends of improvement have been exceedingly unwilling to adopt such an opinion of Earl GREY. They have been ready to believe the stories about back- stairs influence at Windsor and St. James's Palace—of Royal obstinacy, and inclination to Tory principles. But they are now beginning to discover that they have done their Avon-meaning King injustice, and that it is the Premier, with the Tory section of the Cabinet, to whom the bitter disappointment of their high hopes and sanguine anticipations must be attributed. The King, to be sure, !tickles full royally for his Pension-list—and the motive, though mistaken, may be respected : but it is not so easy to give Earl GREY credit for respectable motives, when he halts, or turns -aside, playing into the hands of the enemy. Earl GREY said that the House of Lords would have to sit upon the Corrupt Boroughs in its judicial character. Sir ROBERT PEEL echoes this in the Commons; and that very curious Reformer, Mr.TENNYSOIV, entreats his brother Members to recollect that in dealing with the disfranchising bills, they are acting in their judi- cial character. The Morning Chronicle, too, strangely invests the House of Lords in this matter with an "appellate jurisdiction —a power, that is to reverse, not to register the votes of the Com- mons: and what is more strange, our contemporary makes this concession to the corruptionists at the very time he is endeavour- ing to prove that the House of Lords has no right to reject the bills which the Commons may have passed for the purpose of puri- fying the representation.
Neither the one House of Parliament nor the other exercises a judicial function in this matter. They are both legislative assem- blies. Their members are lawmakeri, not judges. They are to be guided, not by statutes and precedents, but by an enlightened and large consideration of the public good. Many affect squeamishness on the subject of disfranchising the corrupt freemen of Liverpool and Hertford. But it should be re- membered, that the possession of the elective franchise by these men at all, is an injustice to the honest portion of the community, whose station in life is similar to their own, but who have not en- joyed, and do not even under the Reform Act enjoy the privilege
of voting. The perpetuation of the old freemen is an insult and an injury to the honest portion of the community who& not reside in ten-pound houses, and are consequently debarred from the right ofvoting, which the vilest of mankind is allowed to exercise, pro- vided he rejoiees in the title of burgess or freeman. Earl GREY and his colleagues would at one time have swept away the whole class; but now, forsooth, it is a matter of" very grave and serious consideration, whether, in a ease which might be considered as coming before it in a judicial character, the house should proceed against a body of electors upon evidence taken elsewhere." Tho first Reform Bill disfranchised all the old freemen without any evidence taken anywhere. Oh, but then Parliament was not acting in its "judicial character." What paltry equivocation and quibbling upon phrases is this? To difranchise the corrupt freemen of Liverpool or Stafford, is an act of precisely the same kind, though not of the same extent, as the disfranchisement of time whole body of freemen by the first Reform Bill.
Ministers may rest assured that the nation will not be hood- winked on this subject.
Previous page
