§ Mr. Humeremarked, that he was extremely unwilling that the House should separate without some observations from him as to the view he took of the situation in which they had been placed by the extraordinary proceedings which had occurred in the other House of Parliament. He could not but reflect on the many tedious hours which they had spent in that House on the many important measures which they had endeavoured to pass with the view of effecting reform in the various establishments of the country, and realising the expectations of improvement in its institutions which their constituents were warranted in entertaining from the passing of the Reform Act. He was mortified to see that two Sessions of the second reformed Parliament had elapsed with scarcely one tenth of the benefits to the people which they had a right to expect, according to the fair promises made to them. When reform of Parliament was granted, either it was intended that beneficial results should be attained, or those who were parties to the passing of the measure were guilty of abusing the confidence of the people, and holding out to them hopes which they never meant to fulfil.
§ Sir F. Trenchrose to order. He supposed that the hon. Member intended to utter one of his usual libels against the House of Lords. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was about to make any motion, as otherwise the pro- 1337 ceeding was quite irregular. After the hon. Member had finished his libel, nobody would be entitled to make any reply. He admired the conduct of the House of Peers, and considered that they deserved the approbation of the country.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. Gentleman was so much in the habit of associating with those who libelled others, that the hon. Gentleman could not suppose that he could rise without intending to utter a libel himself. The hon. Gentleman had no right to interrupt a Member of the House, and had no right to ask if he (Mr. Hume) were going to make any motion.
§ Sir F. Trenchwould appeal to the Speaker whether the hon. Member were not out of order?
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the Speaker had no right to interrupt him. If he should sit down without making a motion, the Speaker might complain that it was a breach of the rules of the House, but it would be time enough to consider that when he had concluded the observations which he had to make.
§ Lord John Russellthought that the hon. Member for Middlesex ought to state whether he meant to conclude with a motion. If he meant to make a motion for any return, his proceeding would be perfectly regular, but it was not fair to make a long statement without bringing forward a motion.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that it was his intention to move, that there be laid on the table a return of the number of days and hours during which the House had been occupied with business—a document which seemed to him to be extremely important, when he thought of what had taken place elsewhere. At the commencement of the Session great hopes of reforms and ameliorations were held out to the people, but the House was now about to rise, and those expectations were damped, those hopes were blighted, by a party who had done nothing but impede the progress of improvement during the whole Session, disappoint the wishes of the people, and frustrate the efforts of the Ministry. It appeared to him that if impudence itself could be personified, such a charge as had been made against that House by an individual elsewhere would admirably represent it. He did, on behalf of that House, appeal to their constituents for the falsity of the libel which had been uttered against the House, when they were charged with having neglected their duty, 1338 and refused to fulfil their promises. Though there might have been Sessions in which more labour was expended, he scarcely remembered a Session for twenty years in which he had devoted more time to the public, business, or been more anxious to effect reforms. Why did he defend himself thus? Because at the end of the Session, very little had been effected in comparison with what ought to have been done. What had been the opposing power? The other House of Parliament. The Commons had endeavoured to carry out the recommendations of his Majesty, in the speech which had been delivered from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, and to effect those alterations in the several institutions of the country which would give satisfaction to his people, and promote the benefit of his subjects. First of all, as regarded the Church of Ireland. He held in his hand the speeches of his Majesty at the opening of the last and the present Session, in which he recommended them to consider at an early period the state of that establishment, and to make such changes in the tithe system as should for ever settle the question, and enable his subjects to live together in harmony and peace. Last year the Commons had sent to the other House a Bill with that object, which was so mutilated as to make it utterly ineffective. This year they had also sent up a Bill which would have carried into effect the recommendations of his Majesty, and gratified his wishes. Who had stood between his Majesty and the fulfilment of his desires? Not the Commons, but the Lords, who had shown themselves determined to deny to Ireland that justice which his Majesty recommended them to grant. It had been said, that the passing of the Bill was really prevented by those who tacked to it a clause affirming an abstract principle which must be for a long time inoperative; but it was a noble Lord, and those who acted with him, who had stopped the reform of the Irish Church, and not the Commons, who had up to that period given the utmost attention to the wishes of his Majesty and the people. Whatever might come to pass in Ireland, if sedition should run riot, if blood should be shed, he held that the House of Lords, who had rejected the healing measure, and refused to second the efforts of the Commons, were alone to be blamed. Yes, let the people of England know it. An attempt had been made 1339 lately to persuade the people that Ministers and the House had not been industrious. He proclaimed, as far as his opinion went, that he himself was not liable to that charge, nor did he believe that Ministers were. The other House alone had been the cause that so little was done. To be sure they were supported by a large minority in that House, he regretted to say too large. For the majority of that House and himself he had only to say, as regarded the reform of the Church of Ireland, that those who affirmed that it had been prevented by the affirmation of an abstract principle, and those who had stopped reform in Ireland, reform in Scotland, and reform in England, were the parties who opposed it. The next subject to which his Majesty had called their attention was the situation of the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, which he recommended them to place on the same footing as the corporate institutions of England and Wales. He though that the Commons had done their duty with respect to this matter. Where, then had been the impediment to this reform? The House of Lords—who had mangled the Bill sent up to them on the silly pretence that those of the Irish people who were Catholics were not to be trusted with the management of their own local and domestic affairs. Was such a pretence to be listened to by any man who had supported toleration in that House? As well might this be said of that portion of the people of Ireland who were Presbyterians, and who were as much opposed to the Established Church as the Roman Catholics. And yet who would think it fair to say, that they should be excluded from the management of their municipal concerns? He said, then, that the denial of municipal reform was altogether contrary to the wishes of the House of Commons, and that all the mischief likely to arise from that source was to be laid at the door of those who had refused equal justice to Ireland. The House had endeavoured to carry into effect the principles laid down in that amendment which had turned out the Tory Government, and which would turn them out again, if chance should give them power. They had proved that those who were united in principle could maintain that union, whatever shades of difference on minor topics might exist between them. They had purged that side of the House of some of those who pretended to be Reformers, and he wished the Opposition joy of their accession. He considered a dis- 1340 guised enemy much more dangerous than an open foe. Thank God, they had got rid of those who had supported Parliamentary reform, and declared in that House that tithes should be extinguished in Ireland, and who had afterwards opposed the efforts of the Commons to extinguish them. In the amendment to the Address, which had ultimately turned out the late Tory Administration, and which was a profession of faith of Reformers against anti-Reformers, it was declared that his Majesty's faithful Commons acknowledged with grateful recollection that the Acts for amending the representation of the people were submitted to Parliament with his Majesty's sanction, and carried into a law by his Majesty's assent; that, confidently expecting to derive further advantage from those wise and necessary measures, they trusted that his Majesty's Councils would be directed in a spirit of well-considered and effective reform, and that the liberal and comprehensive policy which restored to the people the right of choosing their representatives, and which provided for the emancipation of all parties held in slavery in his Majesty's colonies and possessions abroad, would with the same enlarged views place without delay our Municipal Corporations under vigilant popular control, remove all those undoubted grievances of the Protestant Dissenters, and correct those abuses in the Church which impair its efficiency in England, disturb the peace of society in Ireland, and lower the character of the establishment in both countries. He contended that the majority of that House had asserted those principles on which they had formerly taken their stand, which were the bond of union between them, and which he hoped might long continue so, notwithstanding any little difference of opinion between them. He hoped that no man in that House, who had any claim to the name of Reformer, would be so weak, so base, as to join the ranks of their determined enemies, who had stopped all reform. Had not the Lords prevented all amelioration of the grievances of Ireland—had they not mangled the Registration of Voters' Bill—had they not refused to carry into effect those improvements which were necessary to make the system established by the Reform Bill work beneficially? It was vain to expect to conciliate the Lords by bringing in half measures of reform. He hoped that the Ministers would take a lesson from the transactions of the Session, and not suffer themselves to be deluded by such an antici- 1341 pation. Was it possible that that House could allow the Lords any longer to continue their opposition to all measures of real reform? They had lost nearly a Session. The noble Lord opposite was himself one of those who did everything in his power to prevent the measures of the reforming majority of that House from being passed into law. If he lamented one thing more than another, it was to see the high-minded noblemen of England led by such a man as the person who was now at their head. If he could suppose that principle had anything to do with that individual's opposition to all measures of reform, be they public or private bills, measures for the reformation of the church, for the improvement of the financial system of the country, or even for the regulation of the Post-office, he could excuse his conduct. He charged the House of Lords with having stopped all reform, and asked the people to consider the remedy. His Majesty had the power of creating an unlimited number of Peers, and if he would not exercise this right, they had no alternative but to stop the supplies, unless the people of England should send to that House a larger number of Reformers than it at present contained. It might then be possible that the moral effect of that majority would change the temper of the House of Lords. The institution of the Peerage was established for the good of the people, not for the private advantage of its members; and the question was, should they be allowed to continue? Utility alone could justify that House in allowing them to remain. The Municipal Corporations and the rotten boroughs were as old as the Peerage. These had been swept away; and why might not the Peerage be swept away? Could the other House reject a proposition for reforming themselves, when they had declared the corporations and the close boroughs unfit for their original purposes? He did not know whether Parliament were to meet again in November, but if Government meant to satisfy the wishes and expectations of the people, they would call the House together again as soon as possible, send up good measures to the Lords, and if they were rejected, then it would be for the House to deliberate on the measures to be adopted. Changes had been made in the powers of the Sovereign, and in the constitution of the House of Commons, and why should they not be made in the constitution of 1342 the House of Lords? It would be a mockery of common sense to say that they should not, and it was the duty of that House to see that all the branches of the constitution were in a state fit and proper to attain the results which they were intended to secure. A contest was now going on, let them call it by what name they pleased, whether aristocracy or democracy should prevail, whether the country was to be ruled by the representatives of the people or by the Lords. Let Gentlemen opposite, who seemed to smile, look back to the best days of this commonwealth, for so he would call it, and see the powers which were exercised by the people. Men thought now who never thought before, and even the noble Lord, the leader of that House, who most unnecessarily declared against organic change, would soon be compelled to consider the question of its expediency. It would be for him to reflect whether he had not taken his stand to soon, and whether he would be the only man in that House who would refuse to consider it. A bill which would have saved 40,000l. in the expenses of common-law courts had been thrown out by the Lords, who swallowed so much of the public money, under pretence that; the superannuation were on too extravagant a scale. All improvement in the Post-office had been stopped by the Lords. They had stopped that reform which was so much wanted—reform in the Court of Chancery—though he admitted that Ministers were to blame for not bringing the measure in sooner. Why had not the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill in the other House brought forward the plan of which he himself approved? He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would, by next Session, be prepared to introduce a Bill for the regulation of the ecclesiastical courts, which were so important for the interests of the community; and he thought they were chargeable with some degree of negligence in not having prosecuted the subject during the present Session. But he had never heard a more monstrous proposition than that laid down by a noble Lord, a Member of the other House, who said that Ministers alone were to blame for it. He had no right to say much about church reforms. A Bill on the subject had passed that House, which the Lords did not think of rejecting. Did it give any power to the people, or add anything to the incomes of the poor and starving clergy? Did it carry into effect the recommendations contained in his Ma- 1343 jesty's Speech from the throne? Ministers had been weak enough to agree to the measure, apart from any general system of reform—