« ПретходнаНастави »
dissent to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. I am conscious of having detained you
and the Senate much too long. I was drawn into the debate with no previous deliberation such as is suited to the 5 discussion of so grave and important a subject. But it is a subject of which my heart is full, and I have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontaneous sentiments. I cannot, even now, persuade myself to
relinquish it without expressing once more my deep 10 conviction that, since it respects nothing less than the
Union of the States, it is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness. I profess, Sir, in my career hitherto to have kept steadily in view the
prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the pres15 ervation of our Federal Union. It is to that Union we
owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our coun
try. That Union we reached only by the discipline of 20 our virtues in the severe school of adversity. It had its
origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke as from
the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. Every 25 year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its
utility and its blessings; and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection
or its benefits. It has been to us all a copious fountain 30 of national, social, and personal happiness.
I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of pre
serving liberty, when the bonds that unite us together 35 shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself
to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union should 5 be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us,- for us and our children. Beyond that, I seek not to penetrate the 10 veil. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind ! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored 15 fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the Republic, now known and hon-20 ored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured; bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as “ What is all this worth ?" nor those other words of 25 delusion and folly, “Liberty first, and Union afterwards;” but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every 30 true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!
ON THE REFORM BILL; HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 2, 1831.
It is a circumstance, Sir, of happy augury for the motion before the House, that almost all those who have opposed it have declared themselves hostile on principle
to Parliamentary Reform. Two members, I think, have 5 confessed that, though they disapprove of the plan now
submitted to us, they are forced to admit the necessity of a change in the representative system. Yet even those gentlemen have used, as far as I have observed, no
arguments which would not apply as strongly to the most 10 moderate change as to that which has been proposed by
His Majesty's Government. I say, Sir, that I consider this as a circumstance of happy augury. For what I feared was, not the opposition of those who are averse
to all reform, but the disunion of reformers. I knew 15 that, during three months, every reformer had been
employed in conjecturing what the plan of the Government would be. I knew that every reformer had imagined in his own mind a scheme differing, doubtless, in
some points from that which my noble friend, the Pay20 master of the Forces, has developed. I felt, therefore,
great apprehension that one person would be dissatisfied with one part of the bill, that another person would be dissatisfied with another part, and that thus our whole strength would be wasted in internal dissensions. That apprehension is now at an end. I have seen with delight the perfect concord which prevails among all who deserve the name of reformers in this House; and I trust that I 5 may consider it as an omen of the concord which will prevail among reformers throughout the country. I will not, Sir, at present express any opinion as to the details of the bill; but, having during the last twenty-four hours given the most diligent consideration to its general prin- 10 ciples, I have no hesitation in pronouncing it a wise, noble, and comprehensive measure, skilfully framed for the healing of great distempers, for the securing at once of the public liberties and of the public repose, and for the reconciling and knitting together of all the orders of 15 the State.
The honorable Baronet who has just sat down, has told us that the Ministers have attempted to unite two inconsistent principles in one abortive measure. Those were his very words. He thinks, if I understand him 20 rightly, that we ought either to leave the representative system such as it is, or to make it perfectly symmetrical. I think, Sir, that the Ministers would have acted unwisely if they had taken either course. Their principle is plain, rational, and consistent. (It is this, to admit the 25 middle class to a large and direct share in the representation, without any violent shock to the institutions of our country.) I understand those cheers; but surely the gentlemen who utter them will allow that the change which will be made in our institutions by this bill is far 30 less violent than that which, according to the honorable Baronet, ought to be made if we make any reform at all. I praise the Ministers for not attempting, at the present time, to make the representation uniform. I praise them for not effacing the old distinction between 35 the towns and the counties, and for not assigning members to districts, according to the American practice, by the Rule of Three. The Government has, in my opinion,
done all that was necessary for the removal of a great 5 practical evil, and no more than was necessary.
I consider this, Sir, as a practical question. I rest my opinion on no general theory of government. I distrust all general theories of government. I will not positively
say, that there is any form of polity which may not, in 10 some conceivable circumstances, be the best possible. I
believe that there are societies in which every man may safely be admitted to vote. Gentlemen may cheer, but such is my opinion. I say, Sir, that there are countries
in which the condition of the laboring classes is such 15 that they may safely be entrusted with the right of
electing members of the Legislature. If the laborers of England were in that state in which I, from my soul, wish to see them; if employment were always plentiful, wages
always high, food always cheap; if a large family were 20 considered not as an encumbrance but as a blessing; the
principal objections to universal suffrage would, I think, be removed. Universal suffrage exists in the United States without producing any very frightful consequences;
and I do not believe that the people of those States, or of 25 any part of the world, are in any good quality naturally
superior to our own countrymen. But, unhappily, the laboring classes in England, and in all old countries, are occasionally in a state of great distress. Some of the
causes of this distress are, I fear, beyond the control of 30 the Government. We know what effect distress pro
duces, even on people more intelligent than the great body of the laboring classes can possibly be. We know that it makes even wise men irritable, unreasonable,
credulous, eager for immediate relief, heedless of remote 35 consequences. There is no quackery in medicine, reli