Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, Vol. II, pp. 1061–1063, 1090–1111. World History

417.

Speech of Lord John Russell (March 1, 1831)

Mr. Speaker:

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. . . .

A supposititious visitor to England

Let us now look at the question as one of reason. Allow me to imagine, for a moment, a stranger from some distant 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.