for its abolition, which it was not the practice of that house to enact. These amendments, therefore, were merely calculated the better to carry into effect the principle of the bill. With respect to the amendment in the preamble, leaving out the words, declaring the trade to be contrary to justice, humanity, and sound policy, it would not be imagined after what he had said upon the subject, that his opinion had sustained any alteration. It having, however, been thought right by the house of commons to make this alteration, in order that the feelings of those concerned in the trade might not be wounded, he had no objection to it.

The Bishop of Landaff rose to deliver his opinion of the bill, which he had not till then an opportunity of doing. The right reverend prelate observed, that in judging of the propriety of the preamble as it originally stood, or of the amendments that had been made in it, the different states of slavery as they existed at different periods of the world should duly be considered. Certain conditions of slavery existed in the antediluvian world full 700 years before Noah; and such must have existed both before and after the formation of civil society. Under the circumstances of those times, multitudes must have existed, who could derive sustenance only from their labour, and who, in order to secure their means of support, were willing to surrender up that labour, and with it their freedom. Such a state of slavery might not indeed be considered as contrary to justice and humanity, because it was a voluntary act on the part of those who submitted to it; but, although that state of slavery might not be judged inconsistent with justice and humanity, it did not follow that other descriptions of it might not be highly inhuman and unjust; for what could be more contrary to justice and humanity, than to excite civil war in a country, and then take advantage of the calamities arising from it to force away the miserable inhabitants into an hopeless captivity? Such he conceived to be the nature of the trade which it was proposed to abolish. Its abolition was an act of national humanity and justice; it was an act that would never be blotted out in the records of divine mercy. He was ready to confess, that the most keenly exploring eye might not be able to dive into the consequences of such a measure; but as it evidently sprang from the root of undissembled piety and humanity, it should not be supposed to be productive of evil; but, on the contrary, that it must be healing and beneficial to mankind.

The Earl of Westmoreland could not let slip this last opportunity of entering his protest against the bill; he must therefore repeat some of his former objections to it, though he was aware that the repetition must be in some degree irksome to the house. At least he must remind them that one more occasion presented itself to allow them to rectify their opinions, which they should be the more induced to do from the awful warning contained in the petition which he had that day laid on their lordship's table. From that petition they might collect the dreadful consequences which even the resolutions of last year were producing in Jamaica. Every thing there seemed to indicate the approach of an organized insurrection, which might receive a new stimulus and encouragement from the bill now on the eve of passing. It, therefore, called again for the most serious consideration of their lordships, and that consideration would shew them that the proposed clauses involved the greatest inconsistencies, absurdities, and even impossibilities. As to the preamble, nothing could reconcile him to it. No good could be expected from it, while it might be attended with much mischief: he was, therefore, for leaving it out altogether. As to the consequences of the measure, they certainly appeared to him most alarming. If ever St. Domingo and Cuba were in the hands of our enemies, and if they resolved to carry on this trade, that alarm would prove but too well founded. He would even venture to say, that it was to the existence of the slave trade that their lordships were indebted for their being now sitting in that house. Our existence depended upon the strength of our navy, and the strength of our navy was chiefly derived from the slave trade. Their lordships must be convinced of it, if they but reflected that the town of Liverpool alone now sent out a greater number of privateers than were employed by the whole of the country against the enemy, in the time of Queen Elizabeth.

The Marquis of Sligo disapproved of the clauses, and contended, that the preamble contained a gross calumny.

The Duke of Norfolk was not very anxious on former occasions to support the measures of the abolition; because he knew that many of those who were loudest in its praise, were far from being sincere in their wishes for its success. Now, however, when it was taken up by ministers who had his confidence, and, who, he was satisfied, were incapable of any duplicity, the bill should have his most cordial support, and he should rejoice to see it pass. The question was now

put on the several amendments, and agreed to. - Lord Grenville then moved, that the bill, with the amendments, etc., as agreed to, be sent to the commons, and on the motion being agreed to, his lordship again rose, and congratulated the house on having now performed one of the most glorious acts that had ever been done by any assembly or any nation in the world.

(Parliamentary Debates, ed. Cobbett, Lond., 1807. IX, 168.)

CHAPTER XXXI

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

218. Speech on the First Reform Bill

(1831)

Russell

The speech of Lord John Russell, when on March 1, 1831, he introduced the First Reform Bill, opened a debate which practically lasted until June 5, 1832. The Whig ministry knew that the fate of their party depended upon that of the Bill, and they came to realize that the fate of the dynasty itself might depend upon the same thing. The Opposition were no less desirous of victory, seeing in the Bill a measure which threatened the prosperity of the people and the very existence of the State. country was divided into two hostile camps, regarding each other with feelings of increased exasperation. On the one hand, the anti-reformers, though comparatively few, were immensely strong in position and prestige... On the other hand, the reformers could count upon the support of the great mass of the people."

The

The object of ministers has been to produce a measure with which every reasonable man in the country will be satisfied

we wish to take our stand between the two hostile parties, neither agreeing with the bigotry of those who would reject all Reform, nor with the fanaticism of those who contend that only one plan of Reform would be wholesome or satisfactory, but placing ourselves between both, and between the abuses we intend to amend and the convulsion we hope to

avert.

The ancient constitution of our country declares that no man should be taxed for the support of the state, who has not consented, by himself or his representative, to the imposition of these taxes. The well-known statute, de tallagio non concedendo, repeats the same language; and, although some historical doubts have been thrown upon it, its legal meaning has never been disputed. It included "all the freemen of the land," and provided that each county should send to the Commons of the realm, two knights, each city two

burgesses, and each borough two members. Thus about a hundred places sent representatives, and some thirty or forty others occasionally enjoyed the privilege, but it was discontinued or revived as they rose or fell in the scale of wealth and importance. Thus, no doubt, at that early period, the House of Commons did represent the people of England; there is no doubt likewise, that the House of Commons, as it now subsists, does not represent the people of England. Therefore, if we look at the question of right, the reformers have right in their favour. Then, if we consider what is reasonable, we shall arrive at a similar result.

A stranger, who was told that this country is unparalleled in wealth and industry, and more civilized, and more enlightened than any country was before it; that it is a country that prides itself on its freedom, and that once in every seven years it elects representatives from its population, to act as the guardians and preservers of that freedom, - would be anxious and curious to see how that representation is formed. and how the people chose those representatives, to whose faith and guardianship they entrust their free and liberal institutions. Such a person would be very much astonished if he were taken to a ruined mound, and told that that mound sent two representatives to Parliament - if he were taken to a stone wall, and told that three niches in it sent two representatives to Parliament if he were taken to a park, where no houses were to be seen, and told that that park sent two representatives to Parliament; but if he were told all this, and were astonished at hearing it, he would be still more astonished if he were to see large and opulent towns full of enterprise, and industry, and intelligence, containing vast. magazines of every species of manufactures, and were then told that these towns sent no representatives to Parliament. Such a person would be still more astonished, if he were taken to Liverpool, where there is a large constituency, and told, here you will have a fine specimen of a popular election. He would see bribery employed to the greatest extent, and in the most unblushing manner; he would see every voter receiving a number of guineas in a box, as the price of his corruption; and after such a spectacle, he would no doubt be much astonished that a nation whose representatives are thus chosen, could perform the functions of legislation at all, or enjoy respect in any degree. I say then, that if the question before the House is a question of reason, the present state of representation is against reason.