« ForrigeFortsæt »
advance rather than frustrate their means of co-operation, whenever they may be required. The existing communication need not abate; it may be improved, and provided for: and I cannot understand why, (if I may measure other minds by my own), there may not exist with a complete magisterial independence, the same devotion to the government, and the same regard for its members that there would be under the greatest degree of supposed submission to the existing authorities of the day.
In concluding these observations, I have only to advert shortly to a possible reflection which may ensue from their perusal. Some may imagine that I entertain, and wish to encourage expectations from the effects of police, which neither the state of society, nor the nature of man, will warrant.
We are told that “ offences will come,” and we know too well that criminal propensities will produce criminal acts, which no human means can prevent. It is undoubtedly so, with regard to those more atrocious offences, which spring from a long-continued and deep-rooted depravity ; but these do not constitute the great mass of offences which are prevalent in a wealthy and vicious metropolis; they are few indeed, comparatively with those, to which bad habits, rather perhaps, than bad hearts, had originally contributed. It is to the idle, desultory, profligate, and marauding race of freebooters, that the present state of London is principally attributable; and it is to this race which an efficacious police will alone apply. Rightly understood and administered, it will reach nine-tenths of such offenders.
Upon every consideration, then, of humanity and of sound policy, let us begin its trial; if we use not police with its milder influences, we must resort to laws with their severer inflictions. They may terrify for a moment; they may produce a pause; we may in a few instances carry our laws to extremity, but when the lives of our fellow-subjects are at issue, we cannot in this country long expect to find those who will be the willing instruments of their execution.
The consequence must be, again to let loose upon the public, a race which we had hoped to intimidate, with re-animated vigor and with more than former confidence in their future security. The question then is, punishment, or prevention.
Electors' Remembrancer ;
VOTES OF EACH MEMBER
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
FIRST TWO SESSIONS OF THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT.
To be continued at the Close of every succeeding Session.
IT was Dean Swift, we believe, who suggested the following Recipe for the cure of a Glutton :-“ Fill two plates with equal quantities from each dish he feeds upon. Give him one, and put the other on the Sideboard. As soon as Dinner is over, lay the latter before him; and, after two or three such exhibitions, I warrant you, unless he is a desperately bad subject, he will reform.”
We have had a strange conceit in our heads for some time. It gave rise to this Pamphlet—we will communicate it to our Readers.
We fancied a round Number of the Members of a certain Great House to be great Gluttons. We fancied them to have been feeding on a Dish that could not fail eventually to poison them.-We determined to step forward to their Rescue.—But we were dilatory ;-at last, the Sufferings of those who had the providing in the different stages for the Appetites of the aforesaid Gentlemen roused us to the task of Advice. Yet we knew that
Members were incorrigible. But there was no alternative.—They were UNCONSCIOUSLY feeding on Disgrace: and could we coldly balance against the duty of preventing Moral Suicide, the danger of remonstrating with powerful Selfishness ? No;-we said here is a Case which Swift alone can cure, we will fearlessly try even on such despotic Patients his Recipe. In administering it we are painfully anxious—not on our own account, but on theirs. In the hope, however, that some few Individuals, at least, out of so large a Body,' may sicken at the sight of their own Grossness, and reform, we have resolved to serve up to them, at the close of every Session, a Summary, faithfully compiled, of their Votes.
1 The round number mentioned above.
we are not of the number of those who defend libel on the principle that,
“ Si mala condiderit in quem quis Carmina, jus est,
“ Judiciumque," and who feel no remorse because they boldly run great risks of punishment,—and particularly as we are anonymous writers, we think it incumbent upon us, at the commencement of this work, to pledge ourselves, that in it, nothing, of the truth of which we have not a moral conviction, nothing that in the remotest degree reflects on private character, nothing that tends to wound the feelings of individuals unnecessarily, shall ever be inserted. We abhor slander, and wish to perform simply a public duty. Doubtless,' many of those gentlemen on whose Parliamentary behaviour we have very strongly animadverted, are most exemplary in their private characters.
We trust that the zealous vindicators of Parliamentary privilege will admit, that we have been scrupulously careful not to attack the potent corporation, of whose purity they are so proud ; --they would hardly wish to shut out the new light which we are endeavoring to throw on their proceedings. Our views are limited to the illustration of individual character, and the facilitation of reference; and should there ever appear sufficient authority for believing that, though unintentionally, we have misrepresented either the words or conduct of any member, we shall always take the earliest opportunity of making reparation. Our readers will not fail to observe that we have carefully abstained from using, except in one instance, the term Placeman; we have done so, because it has become a custom latterly to apply it in a disreputable, low
We willingly mention Mr. Wilberforce as an instance.
BEDFORDSHIRE.' Marg. of Tavistock. Voted for the Queen; for Catholic Emancipation; against Grant of the 18,0001. to Duke of Clarence; for repeal of Malt tax;' and for reductions.
The public has long stood in need of a Guide to the Votes of Members of the House of Commons. To make our readers acquainted with the method we have adopted, it is necessary to state, that such votes only as were given for or against “the Queen-repeal of taxes-reductions of Establishments-grant of the arrears to Duke of Clarence-or Catholic Emancipation," are recapitulated in this pamphlet.
Where, however, members of doubtful politics, or who commonly support ministers, have sided with the Opposition on other points, their votes are also detailed.
The public are little concerned in the great party divisions, which were well enough suited to the ad cuptandum school of the
old Opposition, but have scarcely even a tendency to advance the Common Weal. We say the public are little concerned in such divisions; because, though the object to be attained is frequently by no means unimportant, yet, in as much as it lias been the custom to make no efficient opposition in any other shape, such debates and divisions are rather convenient for the disguise of an indisposition to real usefulness, than creative of public advantage. Hereafter, we hope that we shall not have occasion to draw this distinction, but that party motions will have merged in a bona fide opposition.
The votes on Reform in Parliament, and on Sir Francis Burdett's motion on the Manchester meeting, will be given in our next number, which will be compiled on a scale of much more extensive reference than the present pamphlet.
Will not some patriotic member favor us with lists of majorities during the present session ? Our address is, “The Compilers of the Electors' Remembrancer, at Messrs. Sherwood, Neely, and Jones', Paternoster Row.”
2 Did not vote for repeal of House and Window duties, or for repeal of Agricultural Horse tax, on FIRST division. As no list of the ad division has been published, we are only able to collect from their speeches, that some members voted for the repeal on the second division, whose names do not appear in the minority on the 1st division.