415. The Emancipation that no man has the folly or the boldness to state it. Every one conceals his ignorance or his baseness in a stupid general panic, which, when called on, he is utterly incapable of explaining. if you Whatever you think of the Catholics, there they are cannot get rid of them; your alternative is to give them a lawful place for stating their grievances, or an unlawful one; you do not admit them to the House of Commons, they will hold their parliament in Potato Place, Dublin, and be ten times as violent and inflammatory as they would be in Westminster. Nothing would give me such an idea of security as to see twenty or thirty Catholic gentlemen in parliament, looked upon by all the Catholics as the fair and proper organ of their party. I should have thought it the height of good fortune that such a wish existed on their part, and the very essence of madness and ignorance to reject it. Can you murder the Catholics? Can you neglect them? They are too numerous for both these expedients. What remains to be done is obvious to every human being but to that man who, instead of being a Methodist preacher, is, for the curse of us and our children, and for the ruin of Troy and the misery of good old Priam and his sons, become a legislator and a politician. . . . The important clauses of the Catholic Emancipation Act, as it was carried in 1829, are as follows: Whereas by various acts of parliament certain restraints and disabilities are imposed on the Roman Catholic subjects of his Majesty, to which other subjects of his Majesty are not liable; and whereas it is expedient that such restraints and disabilities shall be from henceforth discontinued; and whereas by various acts certain oaths and certain declarations, commonly called the declaration against transubstantiation, and the declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass, as practiced in the church of Rome, are or may be required to be taken, made, and subscribed by the subjects of his Majesty, as qualifications for sitting and voting in parliament, and for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights. Be it enacted by the king's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the commencement of this act all such parts of the said acts as require the said declarations or either of them to be made or subscribed by any of his Majesty's subjects, as a qualification for sitting and voting in parliament or for the exercise or enjoyment of any office, franchise, or civil right, be and the same are, save as hereinafter provided and excepted, hereby repealed. III. THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 The conflict which filled the years 1830-1832 was begun by the following defiance uttered by the duke of Wellington, then prime minister, in the House of Lords, November 2, 1830. The speeches in the House of Lords are usually reported, as in this case, in the third person, and are so published in the Parliamentary Debates. This subject brought him to what noble lords had said re- 416. Speech specting the putting the country in a state to overcome the of the duke of Wellington evils likely to result from the late disturbances in France. The noble earl had alluded to the propriety of effecting parliamentary reform. The noble earl had, however, been candid Wellington's enough to acknowledge that he was not prepared with any measure of reform, and he could have no scruple in saying that his Majesty's government was as totally unprepared with any plan as the noble lord. answer to Earl Grey Nay, he, on his own part, would go further and say that he Wellington's had never read or heard of any measure up to the present high opinion of parliament moment which could in any degree satisfy his mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large, than at the present moment. He would not, however, at such an unseasonable time, enter upon the subject, or excite discussion, but he should not hesitate to declare unequivocally what were his sentiments upon it. He was fully convinced that the country possessed at the present moment a legislature which answered all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any legislature ever had answered in any country whatever. He would go further and say that the legislature and the system of representation possessed the full and entire confidence of the country,-deservedly possessed that confidence,—and the discussions in the legislature had a very great influence over the opinions of the country. He would go still further and say that if at the present moment he had imposed upon him the duty of forming a legislature for any country, and particularly for a country like this, in possession of great property of various descriptions, he did not mean to assert that he could form such a legislature as they possessed now, for the nature of man was incapable of reaching such excellence at once; but his great endeavor would be to form some description of legislature which would produce the same results. The representation of the people at present contained a large body of the property of the country, and in which the landed interests had a preponderating influence. Under these circumstances he was not prepared to bring forward any measure of the description alluded to by the noble lord. He was not only not prepared to bring any measure of this nature, but he would at once declare that as far as he was concerned, as long as he held any station in the government of the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist such measures when proposed by others. Some extracts from the speech in which Lord John Russell introduced the Reform Bill into the House of Commons, on March 1, 1831, are here given. 417. Speech Mr. Speaker: of Lord John I rise, sir, with feelings of deep anxiety and interest, to bring forward a question which, unparalleled as it is in importance, is likewise unparalleled in difficulty, without my apprehension in the least degree being removed by the reflection that I have, on former occasions, brought this question before the consideration of the House; for if, on the other occasions, I have called the attention of the House of Commons to this subject, it has been upon my own responsibility, unaided by any one, -involving no one in the failure of the attempt, though often completely gratified by partial success. But, sir, the measure I have now to bring forward is a measure, not of mine, but of the government in whose name I appear,—the deliberate measure of a whole cabinet, unanimous upon this subject, and resolved to place their measure before this House, in redemption of their pledge to their sovereign, to parliament, and to their country. It is, therefore, with great anxiety that I venture to explain their intentions to the House upon a subject the interest of which is shown by the crowded audience assembled here, but still more by the deep interest that is felt by millions out of this House, who look with anxiety, who look with hope, who look with expectation to the result of this day's deliberations. . . Let us now look at the question as one of reason. Allow A suppositime to imagine, for a moment, a stranger from some distant tious visitor to England country, who should arrive in England to examine our institutions. All the information he would have collected would have told him that this country was singular for the degree which it had attained in wealth, in science, and in civilization. He would have learned that in no country have the arts of life been carried further, nowhere the inventions of mechanical skill been rendered more conducive to the comfort and prosperity of mankind. He would have made himself acquainted with its fame in history, and, above all, he would have been told that the proudest boast of this celebrated country was its political freedom. If, in addition to this, he had heard that once in six years this country, so wise, so renowned, so free, chose its representatives to sit in the great council where all the ministerial affairs were discussed and determined, he would not be a little curious to see the process by which so important and solemn an operation was effected. What, then, would be his surprise, if he were taken by his guide, whom he had asked to conduct him to one of the places of election, to a green mound, and told that this green mound sent two members to parliament; or to be taken to a stone wall with three niches in it, and told that these three niches sent two members to parliament; or, if he were shown a green park with many signs of flourishing vegetable life but none of human habitation, and told that this green park sent two members to parliament? But his surprise would increase to astonishment if he were carried into the north of England, where he would see large flourishing towns, full of trade and activity, containing vast magazines of wealth and manufactures, and were told that these places had no representatives in the assembly which was said to represent the people. Suppose him, after all, for I will not disguise any part of the case,suppose him to ask for a specimen of popular election, and to be carried for that purpose to Liverpool; his surprise would be turned to disgust at the gross venality and corruption which he would find to pervade the electors. After seeing all this, would he not wonder that a nation which had made such progress in every kind of knowledge, and which valued itself for its freedom, should permit so absurd and defective a system of representation any longer to prevail?... I repeat that the confidence of the country in the construction and constitution of the House of Commons is gone — and gone forever. I would say more: I affirm that it would be easier to transfer the flourishing manufactories of Leeds and Manchester to Gatton and Old Sarum than to reëstablish the confidence and sympathy between this House and those whom it calls its constituents. I end this argument, therefore, by saying that if the question be one of right, right is in favor of reform; if it be a question of reason, reason is in favor of reform; if it be a question of policy and expediency, policy and expediency speak loudly for reform. One of the strongest speeches against the bill in the long debates that took place in the House of Commons on its first introduction was that of Sir Robert H. Inglis. Some extracts from the early and more general part of this address are here given. |