§ On the motion of Lord John Russell, the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Reform Bill was read.
§ Mr. Crokerwished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord. The noble Lord had stated, that by consent of its noble proprietor, the borough of Downton was to be taken from schedule B, and to be inserted in schedule A. This change of arrangement, it appeared, had been determined on in consequence of a communication which another noble Lord had transmitted to the noble Pay-master of the Forces. Now he (Mr. Croker) had formerly moved for returns of all the correspondence received by Government in reference to these schedules, and it had been accordingly laid upon the Table of the House; but the communication in question, he found, had neither been mentioned nor alluded to in the returns so furnished. He wished, therefore, to be informed, first, what was the date of that communication; and next, whether it was in writing, or merely verbal?
Lord John Russellintimated, that he had not caused the communication alluded to to be laid before the House, because it was a private and personal note from the Earl of Radnor. With respect to the authority on which Government had acted, he might add, that subsequent to the introduction of the Bill, he had met the noble proprietor of the borough, who informed him in the lobby that he had great doubts whether 1197 the population of Downton was really of the amount at which it had been estimated.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that one point of importance had arisen out of the discussion of last night, to which he wished to invite the attention of the noble Lord and of his Majesty's Government. The House had decided against hearing Counsel in support of the allegations embodied in the petition from the borough of Appleby, but it appeared to him that that decision could not be understood as peremptory against receiving evidence in support of claims to be exempted from the operation of the Bill. He would put it to the noble Lord whether it was not very possible that Appleby, Ashbourne, or Wareham, for example, might petition for the purpose of being permitted to prove bona fide that they were really entitled to their present franchise, on the principle laid down by Ministers themselves, and not with the dishonest design of unfairly impeding, obstructing, or defeating, the Reform Bill. If any case should be proposed for re-consideration where mere vexatious delay was evidently the object sought, then surely it was open for the majority summarily to reject the proposition; but he could see no just reason why they should shut the door indiscriminately on every complaint of grievance, on the assumption that it must necessarily have originated in factious and improper motives. He wished, therefore, to know whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to lay it down as a general rule, that no borough was to be allowed to offer any evidence to the Committee, to show that it ought not to be disfranchised. In his opinion the Committee should be instructed to receive evidence, and it would always have it in its own power to reject that which was unnecessary, inapplicable, or proposed only to create delay. Another difficulty in connexion with this subject also presented itself to his mind, and he would take that opportunity very briefly to explain its nature, in the hope that the noble Lord might be induced to remove it, the rather, as the objection would still hold whether he were disposed to recognize the principle or not. Commissioners, it appeared, were to be appointed for the purpose of dividing the counties, with a view to carry into effect the provisions of the Bill; and pursuant to their report the House of Commons hereafter would be in 1198 some degree re-modelled. This report then must, of course, have a very material bearing on the question itself; for certain counties, according to the principle of the measure, were henceforward to be allowed four Representatives, and the distribution of these Representatives would entirely depend on the decision of the Commissioners. Now, if he could be informed by what principle the Commissioners thus appointed were to be guided in such divisions, it would, in some degree, simplify the subject, and enable him more distinctly to understand it, and help to disembarrass him of a difficulty which he could not at present satisfactorily get over. He was the more desirous of information, as a noble Lord, favourable to the principle of the Bill, had given a notice of motion, to the effect that such counties, instead of being divided into two separate districts, should remain undivided, and, as a whole, return their four Representatives. In the case of Warwickshire, for instance, it was highly important, to know whether Birmingham and Coventry were to be included in one division; as every hon. Member must see that the landed interest would necessarily be materially influenced by an arrangement which might give the freemen of those places a double franchise. He mentioned this one instance merely in order to illustrate the nature of his objection.
Lord J. Russellsaid, in answer to the right hon. Baronet's question, whether Ministers meant to resist the receipt of evidence in the Committee in all cases, that he should only observe, that he saw no great probability that a case would occur, in which a necessity to receive evidence would exist. If, however, there were a probability that any case of this description should arise, it would nevertheless not be requisite. for the House to instruct the Committee as the right hon. Baronet desired; for should it appear in the Committee, that any particular case did deserve a separate reconsideration, it would be easy for the House to resume, in order that the Committee might apply for power to receive evidence on the subject. As for the division of counties, that happened to be a part so essential to the Bill itself, that he could not then possibly give a satisfactory answer to the right hon. Baronet; but he might state, that it appeared to Government, that it ought not to act in a matter of so much delicacy and importance, without 1199 leaving it first to the arbitration of efficient and well-selected Commissioners, appointed for that purpose alone. There had certainly been many complaints made in the last Parliament, against the appointment of the body to whom it was then proposed to delegate such authority; but he trusted, that when the names of the Commissioners whom it was now proposed to appoint, were stated to the House, it would sufficiently appear, that they were all of them entitled to respect, for their knowledge, their capacity, and personal weight, both in that House, and in the country at large. Their names and characters would be a guarantee to the public, that Ministers contemplated no party purposes. The right hon. Baronet's objection, as far as it went, in fact, applied to the whole Bill; and he feared, therefore, that it would not be in his power to alter or remove it. I lad Ministers pursued any other course than that which they had adopted, they would, in effect, have involved the House in a tedious and protracted Debate, about the respective merits of particular divisions; and he thought it better, on that account, to leave the matter wholly to the Commissioners, who, it was to be hoped, would dispose of it in a sufficiently impartial manner to be satisfactory to all parties.
Sir R. Peelsaid, in explanation, that he had never expressed any suspicion of the partiality of the Commissioners; but merely complained, that it was a little hard to call upon him to decide upon the division of counties, without being informed on what principle that division was to be arranged.
Lord J. Russellreplied, that the right hon. Baronet, from knowing how the Commissioners would act with respect to one or two counties, such as Stafford or Warwick, would not be able to form any general conclusion on the subject; and as the details were to be left for the decision of the Commissioners, he was unable to give him any further information.
§ Sir C. Wetherellwas not quite satisfied with the answer. The decision of the Commissioners could not be appealed from, and they might divide counties as they thought fit. He had apprehensions, therefore, that the divisions might be so managed as to cause the commercial interest unduly to preponderate.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that further discus- 1200 sion of such a point, on that occasion, was irregular and irrelevant. It was entirely a matter for the decision of the Committee.
§ Sir E. Sugdensaid, one of the most substantial objections against the Bill was founded on the power given by it to members of the Privy Council; and now that these were to be turned into parliamentary commissioners, the objections were certainly not diminished.
Mr. C. W. Wynnobserved, that the House was about to grant an arbitrary power to these Commissioners, without affording them any data as to the mode in which that power was to be exercised; or whether they were to effect the division of counties on a geographical principle, on one of equal division, on that of population, or whether they were to be guided by the number of large towns, and the situation in which they were placed in the counties. All those highly important considerations were left entirely to the judgment of the Commissioners. He trusted, however, the Government would be ready, when this Clause in the Bill came under the consideration of the Committee, to state the principles by which the Commissioners were to be bound, in their exercise of this vast and extensive power—a power, such as that House had never yet granted to any body of men whatever.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the right hon. Member who had just sat down, was fully aware of the great difficulty which had been felt by the Ministers, with respect to the regulation of the powers to be intrusted to the Commissioners, because he had been present at several meetings which the Ministers had held on the subject of the Bill. They were ready to admit, that it was a most difficult and a most important point; and if any hon. Member was disposed to offer any feasible suggestions, by which it could be partly or wholly obviated, the Government would be most ready to listen to them, and to adopt them, if they were found to be practicable. If, however, no better mode of settling this difficulty was proposed, the Government would feel itself bound to carry the Bill into effect, under the arrangements now existing.
§ The Order of the Day was read, and Lord John Russell moved "that the Speaker do leave the Chair."
§ Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that in rising to assume the position in which he was 1201 last night, when the Motion of Adjournment was made, he wished to make a few observations as to what had then taken place, He had asserted on the evening before, and he repeated then, that the Motion for an Adjournment was unpremeditated, and not in any manner connected with any predetermined arrangement, nor was it brought forward with any factious intention. When he rose, about twelve o'clock, to speak on the principle of the Bill, he found the House was indisposed to hear him. He did not know from what that indisposition arose—whether from its feeling on the principle, or from a disinclination to the continuance of the Debate at that time; but in either case, he had thought it right to move an adjournment. He begged, therefore, to disclaim all factious motives. All that had occurred on the subject of his motion for adjourning the House was, the expression of a hope, by several lion. Members round him, that he would not withdraw his motion. He would never have degraded himself so far as to act from factious motives; and he was also convinced, that the Opposition with whom he had acted, were far from entertaining any such views. It was not his duty, certainly, to defend the Opposition in the course which they had taken, but he must be allowed to express his belief, that they had been no more actuated by factious motives than he himself had been. He could assure his Majesty's Government, that such opposition as he should offer to the measure, should always be fair and above-board. With respect to the measure itself, he would beg leave to address a few observations to the House, and endeavour to make them as short as the importance of the subject would permit. He was not one of those who were opposed to the very name of Reform; on the contrary, if an abuse of the elective franchise could be established in any instance, he was ready to give his support to any measure of disfranchisement; but in spite of what had been said on the subject, he continued to think that the word Revolution, and not Reform, was the proper one to describe this measure. But even when the defect was made out, he must contend, that the House had a right to look at the persons who brought forward the remedy; and if it was found, that they who proposed to amend the Constitution, were notorious quacks, who had always been opposed to 1202 the Constitution, it would be madness, because the Constitution had become a little diseased or defective, to put it into their hands for repair, and blindly follow all their recommendations. The Bill did not work the restoration of those boroughs which ever had formed part of our Constitution. It wholly annihilated them. He could not venture to foretel what might or might not happen, in the present temper of the times, or the rage for innovation. It was not altogether impossible that a parallel might be drawn between the validity of the tenure itself, by which the proprietor of a borough happened to hold the freehold of the borough, and the validity of those parchments or charters by which the borough was authorised, according to the Law and the Constitution, to send its Representatives to Parliament. However violent the temper which characterised those out of doors, who clamoured for a change, no such parallel had as yet been drawn; nor had the House been called on to pronounce, as in a somewhat similar period of our history had happened, that the Peerage was useless, expensive, and might be dispensed with, though, no doubt, that would be the next sacrifice of its duty to the public and to the Constitution, which it would be called upon to make. When such were the duties which would devolve on that House, it was not too much to assert, that the nomination boroughs had been very useful in checking the progress of public violence towards inroad and aggression on the other branches of the Legislature. He advocated no borough corruption or profligacy; but the Bill, he contended, would destroy the aristocratical influence in that House, which had hitherto formed the barrier to the surges of the popular will, and would reduce all to the same low level as that which caused the destruction. The present system was, he contended, an admirable system, far better than that which it was proposed to substitute in its stead; and when it was freed from the dirt and rubbish with which it had been smeared by radical virulence, and a revolutionary Press, it would be found, that this system contained the only conservative principle that had ever been introduced into Government. In looking at the effects of the measure, he wished particularly to know, what would be the consequence of enfranchising 250,000 Dissenters? If they were honest men, they must try to 1203 get rid of the Church Establishment; so too would the Roman Catholics. The tithes also would be destroyed, there existing already, in the mass of the people, a great hostility to them. He would refer the House to some extracts from a work published under the care of the "Society for Diffusing Ecclesiastical Knowledge," which consisted of Dissenters of the highest character, in order to show to the House what they already said of tithes. In one of these publications, tithes were spoken of as a detested cheat and delusion, which nothing could save from merited infamy. He wished, therefore, that the Ministers, before they proceeded with the Bill, should consider its probable effect on our best establishments. The Bill was the offspring of the petitions and clamours of the radicals, and of all that was infected, diseased and corrupted, in the kingdom. The hon. Member referred to the effects of the two French Revolutions, observing, that the effects of the last were similar, in this country, during the last year, to those which followed the first Revolution. Then there was a Corresponding Society; but a constitutional Minister and a constitutional King suppressed the revolutionary symptoms here, by suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. At present, there were societies formed in England similar to the Corresponding Society in 1793. There were the delegates of the National Union, who met in London. [Where?] They met in Oxford Market. He could assure hon. Members he was correct, and that when he made assertions of that nature, he did not quit terra firma. He was ready to prove what he said; and the hon. member for Preston should know of the existence of such a society, for it had voted him its thanks. The society was called the National Union. The hon. Member brought out a newspaper, apparently, and read from it an account of a meeting of the National Union, or meeting of the trades, in Oxford Market. He begged pardon, he observed, however, that the thanks he had mentioned were given to the hon. member for Preston, by a meeting at Manchester, and not at the meeting of the National Union; though he had a persuasion, that thanks had been voted to the hon. Member by that society also. He had thus established the existence of the society. He had read other accounts of delegates attending its meetings from the North Country and other parts 1204 of the kingdom; and one of them declared, that he had a petition to present to the House, and to the King, and he was instructed to tell his Majesty, that if the prayers of that petition were not granted, he could not answer for the obedience of the people. He found evidence of a similar organization of the people at Glasgow. The people there threatened to arm themselves; they had established signals between factories and towns; they had prepared black banners, and announced that they were ready to march at the first signal. Again, there was the Political Union of Birmingham, and there the people were all united and organized. They made it their boast, that, in a few days, they could have two armies on foot, all ready to march, as large as the armies that fought at Waterloo. There was then a complete organization of the people, and they were formed into large bodies, ready to attain their object by their own power. That power would be increased by the Bill; and was it to be supposed, that they would not use this increased power to accomplish their wishes? There was a revolutionary spirit in the country; and that was not the time to divest that House of the only influence which was capable of opposing neutralizing, and repelling the encroachments of popular feeling.
Colonel Lindsayregretted, that it was now the mistaken policy of his Majesty's Ministers to give energy and encouragement to the enemies of our ancient Constitution, in order to carry their favourite object of reform. He professed he was not vain enough to expect in rising, to make proselytes to his opinion, but he felt that in times such as these, it became an honourable man's duty, and his pride, to have his sentiments placed on record, on a question of such vital importance. He deprecated particularly the extraordinary haste with which Government had pressed forward a measure so important to the best interests of the country. He objected to the Reform Bill, because, in doing away with close boroughs, it destroyed one of the peculiar features of our Constitution. He meant to contend that it was that admirable Constitution which supported us in all our conflicts with foreign nations, and that foreigners themselves admitted this when they endeavoured to establish Constitutions similar to ours. There was one remarkable feature with respect to the 1205 Bill which ought to be noticed, viz. that many even of those who supported it, distrusted its effects. Some were known to say, that it was a sweeping measure, and they regretted that it was so much so; but they added that it was not their Bill, that if they had had the framing of it, it would have been a different measure; but all agreed in one thing—a desire to throw from themselves the responsibility of having originated it. He hoped from the bottom of his heart, that it might be found a blessing to the country; but he could not conceal his fears that it would be a curse, and that instead of giving liberty to the people, it would create confusion and anarchy. So long as he should have a place in that House he would oppose to the utmost of his power a measure which he deemed so prejudicial as this.
§ The Speakerthen put the question, "that I now leave the Chair."
Mr. C. W. Wynnwished, before the House went into the Committee, that all the Petitions from different boroughs referring to the details of the Bill, as well as the papers and memorials connected with them, should be referred to the Committee.
§ Lord Althorpagreed to the suggestion, and the papers were referred accordingly. The question was then again put.
§ Mr. Huntrose. He said he had no wish to delay the House from going into the Committee, but he felt called upon to say a few words, after the observations of the hon. member for Dundalk. He denied that there was any similarity between the National Union of Trades, and the Corresponding Society of the years 1793 and 1794. There was a National Union of Trades, and of these some four or five delegates came up from different parts of the country with petitions, which had been presented to the House; and if any of them attended at the meeting of the London Union, it was not from any connexion with that Union, for there was no correspondence kept up between them, but out of curiosity. He admitted, that he was a Radical Reformer, but in being so he considered himself, and those with whom he was connected, as far as he knew them, to be as loyal as any Members of that House, whether Reformers or otherwise. That Ministers were not influenced by the petitions of the people was evident, for their petitions prayed for Annual Par- 1206 liaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot, not one of which had the Ministers introduced into their Bill. But there was nothing in these inconsistent with the ancient principles of our Constitution. They were, except the Ballot, the same which the great Duke of Richmond had introduced in his Bill into the House of Lords, but the noble Duke forgot them when he was made Master General of the Ordnance. He next contended, that nineteen out of twenty of the people in the country had supported the Bill, not for the empty name of liberty, but from the hope and belief that they would be relieved by it from the burthens of taxation; and he would defy any Government to be able to go on after this Bill passed, unless the people were relieved. Adverting to the cry raised for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," he observed that there were parts of it now which no person not in the secret of Ministers could understand. He had no fears as to the consequences of the rejection of the Bill; but he had heard, and was not afraid to state what he heard, that if it should be rejected, there would be a refusal to pay taxes in the country. There was no excitement among the people now in the country— they were calmly discussing the measure, to which he admitted they were still warmly attached.
§ The question was then put and carried, and the House went into the Committee.
The Chairman(Mr. Bernal) read the first clause—" Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice, &c. that the boroughs enumerated in schedule A to this Act annexed shall cease, after the end of this present Parliament, to return Members to serve in Parliament; and that no writ or precept shall be issued or sent to any of the said boroughs to return Members to serve in any future Parliament."
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that notwithstanding his objections to this measure, he had, in the last as well as in the present Session, abstained from offering any opposition to its progress as far as its present stage, because he thought it was possible that it might be so modified in the Committee as to make it less objectionable. With that view he begged, before proceeding further, to draw their attention to the great importance of this the first Clause of the Bill. He had several objections to it, which he thought 1207 possessed some weight, and the first was to the form of words in which it commenced. He objected to a measure beginning with disfranchisement. No reason was stated for the disfranchisement of these boroughs, nor any cause shown why they should be selected from the other boroughs of the kingdom. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill into that House had informed them, that the objections to the present system were not founded on any hostility to the ancient form of Representation, but on the fact, that the great and populous towns and cities, which had grown into importance since the first summoning of Members to Parliament, were not entitled to participate in the right of electing their Representatives, and could not, in consequence of the Union with Scotland, be called on by the Royal summonses to do so. If that Union had not taken place, he was fully prepared to contend, that such summonses might have issued; and he had voted against the giving Representatives to three of the large towns last Session, not because he disapproved of the motion, or was opposed to the principle, but because they would by that means have added several Members to that House, when the number was already positively limited and declared. To the principle of representing such places he did not object, but he could not consent to pull down a large portion of the Representation of the country without seeing first what was to be substituted for it. The House had, indeed, now come to a determination that the Representative system must undergo a great alteration, and it was their duty, therefore, to consider, if the large towns were to be permitted to return Members, in what manner the right was most safely to be extended to them, and how they could make room for those Members without any inconvenient increase of the numbers of the House. The first thing they ought to do, in his opinion was, to see what places ought to be enfranchised, and next to inquire how room could be made for them. Certain principles were avowed in the Debate on this Bill, but from the beginning to the end, none of those principles could be found in the Bill itself. The Bill stated, that certain boroughs in schedule A should cease to send Members to Parliament; but it did not state on what ground this ought to take place. Not a word was said about 1208 the reason why they should cease to send. Surely the clause should, at least, say, because they do not come within the rule of possessing 2,000 inhabitants. Now this brought him to the question connected with the principle of this clause; for, as far as he recollected, the noble Lord and his colleagues had never fully explained to the House, whether they had taken the number of 2,000 as the very least number of persons out of whom the electors of a Member were to be selected, or whether they felt they must disfranchise somewhere, and had selected all the smallest boroughs to be sacrificed. If the noble Lord was prepared to say that 2,000 inhabitants were the smallest numbers in which they could find a nucleus of 300 10l. householders for the maintenance of their principle, then he would ask them, why they did not take the Population Returns of the boroughs now, rather than those of the year 1821. He knew these Returns would not yet be made for eight or ten days; but many of them had already been published in the country papers, and if a circular had been sent round by the Secretary of Slate, they could have been easily procured much earlier. What, he would ask, would be the consequence of their taking the Returns of 1821? Why, that many boroughs would be permitted to retain the right of returning Members which were not entitled to it, and many would be disfranchised which possessed more than the number required by the limit. He had not looked into many of the Returns, but he found by a very hasty glance, that if they had legislated in this manner ten years sooner, and taken, in the same way, the Returns of 1811, there were full eleven boroughs which now retain their Members, but which then must have been disfranchised. He would take the case of Calne as an instance, and apply to it the same test which would be equally applicable to many others. The population of Calne in 1801, was 3,700; in 1811 it had dropped to 3,540. Consequently, if the House had acted on the present principle in 1821, instead of 1831, although the population had then increased to 4,500, Calne would have been deprived of its privileges. And the population of Calne might at this moment be considerably below that of places which it exceeded in 1821. It might be said, that there would be some anomalies wherever the 1209 line was drawn, but he saw no reason why that line should be arbitrary, and should not rest on some principle, referring not so much to the population as to the number of householders. The principle being that of population, included males as well as females; but it might happen that the establishment of a cotton-mill, in which 300 or 400 children might be employed, would make a difference as to whether a given borough should have a Member or not. Or suppose that the proprietors of a cotton mill which had been established in a town, had failed a fortnight before the census of 1821, the children would have been sent home, and that would have made a difference in the return which might deprive the town of its Representatives. The better course would have been, to have appointed parliamentary commissioners to inquire into the state of the population of the different towns and districts, and the number of houses rated at 10l. and 20l., and on their report a more correct knowledge of the state of the wealth and population of those places would have been obtained. He meant to propose, that the House should postpone the consideration of the schedules A and B, and proceed to the third clause of the Bill, by which new Representation was to be provided. With respect to the number of Members which the places to be represented ought to have, he thought it better to abide by the ancient and known principles of the Constitution, and allow two Members to each. He was disposed to agree to a large and considerable addition of new Members; but he would first determine upon the proper number, and afterwards consider-how room was to be made for them. He thought it best to make room for them, rather than to add them to the present amount of Members, because it was generally acknowledged, that any increase of the numbers of that House would be attended with considerable inconvenience. He was inclined to think, that the best way of making room for the new Members was by uniting boroughs rather than disfranchising them. That principle was at present acted upon in many places in Wales and in Scotland; and it was proposed to be carried into effect in the instances of Deptford and Greenwich, and other places in England; and he did not see why it might not be extended, and the boroughs of Aldeburgh and Orford, for example, be united, and 1210 allowed to send Representatives to Parliament conjointly, instead of being entirely extinguished. He did not see why this plan of uniting boroughs might not be acted upon in this country as well as in Scotland. This, however, could not be done, until the number of new Members to be provided for was known, and he should therefore propose, that the consideration of the first clause (Schedule A) be postponed, intending, if his motion was carried, to make the same motion with respect to the second clause (Schedule B).
§ The Motion having been put by the Chairman,
§ Sir E. Sugdenrose and said, that the principle of the Bill having been agreed to by the House, it was now his intention to confine himself to the consideration of the mode by which it was proposed to carry the details into operation. He thought, however, he had a right to complain, that no member of the Government had explained the provisions of this new Bill to the House. The present Bill, he undertook to prove, departed, in all important points, from the former Reform Bills brought in by his Majesty's Government; and this showed, that haste would not answer in the formation of a new Constitution—that abilities, learning, and talents were not enough, but that time alone would produce a perfect work. The existing system had the benefit of time; it was the work of successive ages, and had operated, he would always contend, advantageously for the community. That there were anomalies in it he did not deny; but the system, taken upon the whole, worked well. Besides, the people were accustomed to regard with veneration old institutions; there was something about them which clung to the heart; and therefore, though anomalies might exist, they were not, and ought not to be, too minutely inquired into. But how could the anomalies in the new Constitution be defended? How could they be softened down? No veneration attached to it; and if the ten-pounder was allowed a vote, how was the nine-pounder to be persuaded that he ought to have none? The present Bill, as he had stated before, was a total departure in principle and in detail from all preceding bills; and, if he proved that important alterations had been made in it, he thought he should be showing reason for the House to pause before passing it. 1211 The first object of his Majesty's Ministers was, to cut off sixty-two Members from the Representatives of the people in that House. Who asked them to do that? It had been said that that proposition was made in deference to the eager demands of the people; but he wished to know what individual ever expressed an opinion that the numbers of the House should be diminished, before Ministers themselves made the suggestion. This, then, was a wanton inroad upon the Constitution, and where was it to stop? If sixty-two Members were taken away this year, what was to prevent 100 being taken away next year? It was generally acknowledged that all new bodies destroyed old institutions, and he did not believe, that the Reformers returned to Parliament under the Bill would pay much attention to the number which had been fixed upon by Ministers, as the amount of diminution. But had Ministers adhered to their own rule? They at one moment declared, that the number of the House should be diminished by sixty-two, and in another they turned round, stated that they had changed their minds, and they now declared their will, relying on a majority to back them, that the decrease should be limited to thirty-one. That was one of the many changes which had taken place. Ministers had taken care to exclude from the present Bill the grounds upon which the Bill proceeded; and when posterity came to inquire for what reasons this great measure was introduced, in vain would the Bill, be examined to discover one single ground upon which disfranchisement had taken place. When the House came to look into schedule A, it would find, that Ministers had made an alteration in that, in consequence of other information which they had received, of the loosest description, and upon which, if the Members of the House acted, he solemnly declared that they would be trifling with the feelings of the people of England. Upon the strength of certain information which Ministers had laid upon the Table, they had taken five boroughs, which had been condemned to entire extinction, out of schedule A, and placed them in schedule B, by which transposition these boroughs would retain a Member each; and, then, as a sort of counterpoise, they took two boroughs out 6f schedule B and placed them in schedule A. Now he asked, when Ministers brought in their first Bill, did they or 1212 did they not proceed upon sufficient grounds with respect to disfranchisement? That they did not, was now perfectly evident from the alterations which had been made; and he certainly did think, that more caution ought to have been used in proposing so great, so radical, a change in the Constitution. If this subject was important to the people—excited as they were at present—he did implore the House not to allow them to be trifled with, nor submit to have the Representation shifted about from hour to hour at the caprice of the Ministers. It was then proposed to introduce into some counties the novel experiment of what he might call triangular Representation. Certain counties were to be allowed to choose three Representatives. A certain number of boroughs were, on the other hand, only to have one Member each. Now he was sure that in all places so represented, contests would be carried on to the latest moment; no compromise would be entered into, and the effect would be, that though the majority would be represented to their liking, a great minority would be defeated and discontented.—[Some interruption was here occasioned by a noise at the bar of the House.] The hon. and learned Gentleman, noticing the interruption, expressed his determination to be heard. He said, it would be a disgrace to the House for ever, if they did not preserve order during the discussion of such an important and vital question as the present. He felt deeply upon the subject as an Englishman; though, as regarded himself personally, he cared little whether or not he ever entered the House again. He gained nothing by being a Member of that House but trouble pain and anxiety; yet, while he remained there, he had a great duty to discharge, and that duty he was determined to perform.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleyrose to order. He knew the hon. and learned Member to be indisposed, and he was anxious that the noise at the bar should cease.
§ Order at the bar having been restored,
§ Sir E. Sugdenresumed. He felt great regret in pointing out the changes which had been made in the Bill, because it might seem that he had directed his attention to the faults of the Government, and not to the question before the House; but he was anxious to show, that in a measure of the present nature; time, and not hurry, 1213 was of importance. The Representation of counties and boroughs had been very much enlarged since the introduction of the first Bill; and the qualification of the voters had been altered in all the most essential particulars. Now what could be said of a system which was thus altered from day to day, and from hour to hour? Which was to be preferred? — the first system, the second system, or the third system? The measure was urged on with breathless haste; no inquiry was allowed, no improvements were waited for; the people of England were pressing on, and their wishes must be obeyed. But which of the three Bills was to have the happy effect of satisfying the demands of the people? An important alteration had been made in the Bill, by the introduction into the county constituency of leaseholders of small value. Let the House consider the effect of that alteration upon the agricultural interest. Certain counties, too, were to be cut up into small divisions, and the effect of that would be, in some instances, that each division would be just in the same state as a small borough. When the qualification of the constituent body had been altered four times, how could the House be sure, that the proper point had yet been arrived at? The House was told that this measure was to be final. The same thing had been said of the Bill when it was first introduced; and suppose the House had agreed to that by acclamation, in what situation would the Government have been placed? The Ministers would have been obliged to come down to the reformed House, and say, "We were in a hurry, the people of England were pressing on us, and in our haste to please the people, we have committed several faults." What, then, would the reformed House do? The hon. Gentleman opposite might be sure, that if the Bill ever went into Committee in a reformed House, it would never come out again in the shape in which they would wish it. He understood that it had been said, that the clause which had altered the character of the constituency of boroughs, had been inserted in the Bill by inadvertence. He hoped that he had been misinformed on that point, for he should be sorry to suppose that any part of so important a measure had found its way into the Bill by chance, nobody could tell how. Such ought certainly not to be the character of a measure that was to change the 1214 Constitution of England. He did not wish to say a single word that might seem invidious to the Gentleman whose name had been mixed up with the transaction. He knew nothing personally of that individual, and had never had a conversation with him in his life. But if any man would tell him that there was any mistake—at least any inadvertence, for mistake there might be—in the insertion of the clause which he would presently mention, he would be content to sit down without saying another word on the subject. The clause to which he alluded was in the 7th page of the Bill, and was as follows:—"Provided always, that no tenant so occupying such premises as aforesaid, at a yearly rent of not less than ten pounds, shall by reason thereof acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, if such rent shall be payable more frequently than once in every half-year." This language was precise, and clearly showed what was the intention of Government. If any one believed that such a clause was a mistake—that it was inserted inadvertently and in ignorance of its bearing—he begged to refer that person to page 12 of the Bill, where he would find the same words repeated in the form —"Provided always, that no tenant so occupying such premises as aforesaid, at a yearly rent of not less than ten pounds, within," &c. &c. "shall by reason thereof acquire a vote in the election for any of the said several boroughs, if such rent shall be payable more frequently than once in every half-year." There could therefore be no mistake; Ministers were aware of what they were about—and he had some idea of the motive which had actuated them. He inferred their motive from their Bill, and would state it fearlessly, let Ministers deny it if they could. They found that they had gone too far; and their intention in inserting the clause was, to pare down the franchise which they had at first established, in order to remove those dangers which stared them in the face. The language of the clause was clear and technical, and was repeated in another part of the Bill: nobody could doubt the effect of it. He did not approve of the clause, because, if he wished to narrow the franchise, he would do so in an open and manly way. He would riot give an extensive suffrage in words, and afterwards pare it down by the insertion 1215 of little provisoes. By this proviso, cautiously and technically worded as it was, and afterwards repeated, he had a declaration in writing from his Majesty's Ministers, that the original proposition went too far for them. The Bill, as respected Wales, had undergone many important alterations. The Scotch bill had been altered with respect to the franchise; and the Irish bill, likewise, had been altered in several leading and important particulars. When these extensive changes were considered, was there not, he asked, ground for reflection, and for calling upon the House to pause before they proceeded farther? Let the House consider what they were about to do: they were going, in the absence of all correct information by which they could fearlessly guide their course, to alter the entire Representation and constituency of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Was ever a vaster plan submitted to the consideration of any assembly? Such was the magnitude of the importance connected with the English Bill, that the bills for Scotland and Ireland, though themselves of immense importance, and requiring months of deliberation, were comparatively disregarded, and were proposed to be passed as mere appendages to the first measure. He doubted even, whether the House had the power to make the vast changes which were proposed? Humble individual as he was, he would to the last moment raise his voice to protest against the Legislature disqualifying itself, by leaving to others, to be called Parliamentary Commissioners, to dole out the Representation of England, and to alter every borough and county in the kingdom. The Bill laid down no rule for, {he guidance of the Commissioners with respect to the division of counties and boroughs, but directed them to make such alterations as to them might seem proper, without limit or restraint. Gentlemen on his side of the House were treated as if they felt no love for their country—no regard for the welfare of their children—but were merely influenced by the base grovelling principle of self-interest. He felt that he was not open to such imputations. He had never felt any love abstractedly for the nomination boroughs. He defended them only as a part of the Representative system, by which men of talent and integrity, whose interests were mixed up with that of the people, obtained admission to the 1216 House, which they never could do otherwise. He begged to ask, whether the authority which the Bill gave to the Parliamentary Commissioners, to add voters to this place and that place, was a wilful proceeding, or whether it was another mistake to be added to the long list of Ministerial blunders? Why should not the House perform themselves the work which it was proposed to delegate to the Parliamentary Commissioners? The noble Lord (the member for Devonshire) assigned as a reason, that the division of counties would have presented so many difficulties, that the House would never have been able to surmount them. Such reasoning was, in the highest degree, unparliamentary and unconstitutional, and such as no two gentlemen in England out of doors would listen to. For his part, he could not decide upon the disfranchising portion of the Bill, until he knew who were to be enfranchised. The additional information laid upon the Table of the House well deserved the attention of the Committee. It had evidently been furnished by persons who were partisans of the Government. It was impossible to read a line without perceiving that the persons who had supplied this information were imbued with the spirit of Reform. These, however, were not the persons, unknown, unnamed, without responsibility as they were, on whose opinions he would pin his faith. But what did this new information show? Why, that in every single particular, the noble Lord opposite had acted in the absence of the requisite information, and had proceeded on false premises. Was this, he asked, acting with the care and caution which should preside over the formation of a great measure like that under consideration? Ministers would not wait for more accurate information—not a month—a little month—for the new census. He was told that the census would be ready in a fortnight, and yet, though Ministers admitted that the census of 1821 was incorrect, they would not wait fourteen days for correct information. He asked in the face of the people, whether it was to be endured, that the King's Government should come down to the House, and propose to alter the Constitution of England, on imperfect population Returns, when they could have correct Returns—for, at the present moment, thousands were interested in seeing that the Returns came 1217 before the country in the most correct shape possible—in fourteen days, if they would wait? It was well-known, that if the Bill should pass in its present shape, it would disfranchise places which the new census would show ought not to have been disfranchised. Those instances would come before a reformed Parliament, and there could be little doubt that such a Parliament would allow them to be represented. Thus constant changes would take place, until at length every vestige of the Constitution would be swept away, and its place supplied by new institutions. When he was in France, shortly after the last Revolution, he heard much exultation on the subject of young France. On that occasion, he exclaimed, "Thank God, we can still talk about old England: I hope she may long retain her old institutions, and not plunge into new systems." That boast he could not longer make. Old England would now be changed to young England, and be liable to all the irregularities which were committed by young France. He begged to call the attention of the Committee to what he considered an important point. Ministers, not having courage to face the disfranchisement of the pot-walloppers, saved their rights in the original Bill, and in the new Bill, there was an additional saving of the rights of the children of pot-walloppers and freemen who should be born at the time of the passing of the Bill. He did not object to that of itself, but he objected to it when it was accompanied, and in the very same measure, by provisions which threatened the destruction of the power of the aristocracy. The rights of freemen were preserved on the one hand, and the rights of the nomination boroughs were destroyed on the other. In his opinion, those boroughs were not only not hurtful, but worked well. He begged it to be understood, that he did not speak of them as standing alone, but as a part of the Representative system, by which the aristocracy (and in that term he included the mercantile and the monied interests) obtained admission to the House. Nothing was more unpleasant to him than anything having the appearance of a mock-election, and he wished that that disagreeable circumstance attending these boroughs could be removed. The Bill, however, not only destroyed these boroughs, but, at the same time, introduced a new constituency of the lowest class in point of property; thus at 1218 once breaking down the barriers which the Constitution had provided against the danger of too popular Representation. It not only brought in a constituency of the lowest description, but preserved all popular rights, and kept them all in existence at the time they ought to limit them, and preserve those checks which the Constitution had placed against, the dangers of popular effervescence. If the Bill should pass, the voice of the people would be predominant in the House— there would no longer be deliberation, but a voting by delegation. A question was about to occupy the attention of our neighbours the French, which he feared would by-and-by occupy our attention—namely, the question of the hereditary peerage. The system of pledges had begun. The pledge which had been required from candidates at the last election was the destruction of the nomination-boroughs. On the next occasion, the pledge demanded would be for the extinction of the hereditary peerage; and, at last, the people would strike fit higher game. What a situation was the House now in! He looked at the opposite side, and he saw Gentlemen possessing intelligence, virtue, and rank—everything calculated to make men fit Representatives of a great nation; but they possessed no free-will of their own. Argument might prevail with them, but they were compelled to turn a deaf ear to it. He asked whether they were not bound by pledges to vote for the Bill? The great majority of the House was pledged to the particular measure of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." The noble Lord who was at the head of the law, had said, that the people of this country had almost a paternal tenderness for the Bill, and with the very meanest clause of it—that they were not only satisfied, but highly delighted with it. What then did they say to the new Bill?—to the Bill which differed so much from the Bill they were used to love so tenderly. He marvelled much what one passage in his Majesty's Speech at the opening of Parliament meant. He alluded to the passage in which his Majesty expressed a hope, that Parliament would take measures to secure the prerogatives of the Crown, the power and authority of Parliament, and the just rights and privileges of the people. At first, he thought it was an indirect compliment to the Ministerial measure; but, 1219 on reflection, he came to the conclusion, that it was a recommendation to the other House of Parliament, which was not bound by pledges, so to deal with the measure, when it should come before them, as to make it consistent with the prerogatives of the Crown, the power of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and privileges of the people. There was, in the constitution of this country, an elasticity which was not to be found in any other institution on the face of the earth. If they looked to the Representation, they would find that it had expanded in proportion as the wealth and population of the empire had increased. The measure which gave the right of suffrage to the forty-shilling freeholders in the reign of Henry 6th, had been so enlarged by the operation of circumstances, that there was hardly a poor man of common industry in the country who might not purchase a freehold, or a share in a freehold, so as to entitle him to the elective franchise. Again, what a large number of voters had been admitted to the right of voting by the sale of the land-tax! Thus the combination of a variety of circumstances had continually led to the increase of the number of those who are possessed of the franchise. Again, only consider the great number of persons possessed of property in the present day in towns that had grown into importance within the last generation. That was particularly the case with Brighton, for example, a town they all knew, where there were several hundred houses that now give the right of voting in the county. The constituency of the country had been going on improving in character, and increasing in number, from day to day, and from year to year, and, as a consequence, the whole system of the Representation had been gradually improved. But the Reformers of the present day would not wait for the operations of nature, or for the gradual changes which time was sure to make. No, they were ready to destroy an institution which had lasted forages; they would fancifully pull down an edifice which they never could rebuild. There was another part of this Bill most objectionable—that part relating to copyholders. He was in hopes that a bill would have been brought in to get rid of all the anomalies connected with the Representation of the people. He was far from objecting to the right of suffrage being extended to copyholders; 1220 but he must strongly dissent from this measure, because it tended to perpetuate all the evils of the present system, and to extinguish all chance of introducing improvement in this species of tenure. He would not, however, trouble the Committee by then going further into the details of the measure, as other and better opportunities would occur for doing so. With respect to what took place last night, he did not agree with those who persisted in moving the repeated adjournments, but certainly there was a strong indisposition manifested on the other side of the House to listen to anything that was said in opposition to the Bill. He voted, therefore, for the first motion for adjournment on that ground, but had he been present, he should have opposed the subsequent motions. To support the first adjournment was the only mode by which he could attain the object he had in view —that of delivering his sentiments, and that course he had pursued. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he would most strongly support the amendment of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, reserving to himself the right of speaking hereafter with reference to all the details of the Bill. He conceived, that all argument and all reasoning in opposition to that Amendment would be thrown away; and, therefore, he would most cordially assent to it.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he most completely and entirely differed from the Amendment which had been proposed to the Committee; and, in his conscience, he did not think there was any thing, from the commencement of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech to the end of it, which had the least relation to the amendment of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire—that amendment relating solely to one point, namely, whether or not the disfranchisement clause should take precedence or should be postponed. Any person who heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman would find it difficult to believe, that he was delivering his sentiments on that specific proposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman applied himself rather to the general question, whether it was necessary to concede any Reform at all; and he certainly was astonished, when he found, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not mentioned, or mentioned but very slightly, the Bill itself, but chiefly applied himself to 1221 the gracious Speech with which his Majesty opened the Session. After what passed last night, it was with great surprise that he found the House already in Committee. It was with the utmost surprise that he saw those Gentlemen who, for a period of six hours and a half, had, with a pertinacity before unheard of in that House, insisted on the postponement of the discussion in Committee—it was with the utmost surprise that he saw them remain silent when the House was about to resolve itself into Committee. And why had they endeavoured to prevent the business from being proceeded with? Not on account of the lateness of the hour, hut because at that hour they alleged that there were so many Members anxious to speak, that it would not only not be possible to get through in one night, but not even in an entire week. They had, for six hours and a half, been discussing whether an hon. Member should or should not make his speech; but to -night, when those Gentlemen were at full liberty to enter into the whole question, they had abstained from doing so. The hon. member for Dundalk had indeed given them, very shortly, his long-promised speech, and another hon. Member had made some observations on the general details of the measure. The House then went into Committee, and thus those hon. Gentlemen had lost the golden opportunity of making their speeches—a circumstance which was perhaps satisfactory to the House. The House had gone into Committee, and was considering a particular clause; but from what had occurred, it would appear that Gentlemen did not conceive that they were precluded from going through the whole details of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asserted, that Ministers had placed before unlearned persons a mass of machinery which they could not understand. Now he would say, that that very learned person had submitted to the Committee a series of involutions, which it was extremely difficult to comprehend. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted that part of his Majesty's Speech in which his Majesty expressed his anxious wish that the measure of Reform to be introduced should be founded on those principles by which "the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally preserved;" and then he argued, that considering the evi- 1222 dent moaning of this passage, it was impossible that his Majesty, or his Majesty's advisers, could, in accordance with it, recommend them to lake this Bill into consideration, because it did not proceed on those principles—because it did not provide for either one or the other of the objects enumerated in the Speech. Whether the Bill was or was not conformable to the recommendation contained in his Majesty's Speech, was the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed for the consideration of that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman asserted, that this was a mere mockery of deliberation, because Ministers had made up their minds on the measure, and had prepared it before Parliament was assembled. In such a course he believed there was nothing uncommon, and in proof of the fact, he would quote a passage from the King's Speech on opening the Parliament in 1829. He would advert to this document, only to show, that it was not unusual for the King's Speech to contain a recommendation of this nature, at the moment that the measure contemplated was ready cut and dry, and that the after-proceeding on it in that House was not considered a mockery of deliberation. Indeed, if a Ministerial measure were recommended by the Crown, and those whose duty it was were not at once ready to bring it forward, he believed, that no person would be more willing to blame Ministers for their tardiness than the hon. and learned Gentleman. His late Majesty, in drawing the attention of Parliament to the Catholic Question, spoke thus:—"his Majesty recommends, that you should take into your deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland; and that you should review the laws which impose civil disabilities on his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. You will consider whether the removal of those disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and permanent security of our establishments in Church and State, with the maintenance of the reformed religion established by law, and of the rights and privileges of the Bishops and of the Clergy of this realm, and of the Churches committed to their charge."* Mutatis mutandis, this was precisely the Speech of the present day. Ministers had, at that time, a bill ready to lay before the House; and in that Speech
* Hansard's Parl. Deb. New Series, vol. xx, p. 4.1223 they laid down the principles on which their measure was founded. So, in this instance, Ministers had developed in the Speech from the Throne, the principles on which their measure was founded, and with reference to which they, in this case, as the former Ministers in that, called on the House for its decision. But, cried the hon. and learned Gentleman, "O! you have come down to the House pledged to this measure;" and then, with great foresight, he proceeded to say, that these pledges were, in the first instance, for the destruction of the nomination boroughs, then for the destruction of the House of Peers—and, after that, God only knew what higher game the hon. and learned Gentleman expected them to fly at. This might be very ordinary language in the mouth of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had expressed, in rather an overweening manner, his hope that the voice and opinion of the people should never predominate in the Legislature; but it was generally supposed, and it certainly was his opinion, that the great principle of the Constitution implied in returning Representatives to that House was, that the opinions— he did not mean to say the passions—of the people ought to have very great weight in all the deliberations of Parliament. He did not think it was very unconstitutional, when a great question was before the country, and when a solemn appeal was made by the King to the people on that subject—he did not, he repeated, think that it was very unconstitutional, before individuals returned a Member, if they took the liberty of asking him what his opinion of the proposed measure was. "But," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "you have no defined object in this measure; you are actuated by the mere novelty of pulling down, without considering the difficulty of building up. You have nothing to plead but the mere love of change in making these alterations." Now, when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of "mere love of change," was he prepared to say, that there should be no change? and if he were ready to adopt that stationary system, was the country prepared to abide without change? If the country were not prepared to let things remain as they were, and that such was the case must be evident to every man not wilfully blind, then it was the duty of Ministers—it was the duty of those who had the power—to propose a prudent and proper change. 1224 The country said, "We must have a change." The late Ministers said, "We will have no change;" and what was the consequence? They were obliged to give up their power. The present Ministers, however, took a different view of the matter. They saw, that a change was necessary. They said, "We will grant a change." And when they stated what they meant to do, the country gave its approbation to the main principles and the chief features of the measure which they proposed. "But," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "you have proceeded with great haste and precipitancy. You have introduced one, two, three Bills,— there is a difference between each, and no two are alike." This might be the case as to some details. But was there any difference in the principle or in the main features of the former and the present Bill? If the hon. and learned Gentleman could show him, that Ministers had, in this measure, abandoned any of those principles on which they and the country thought Reform ought to be introduced, then, indeed, he would have made out a case of inconsistency. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had not done any such thing. What was the difference between the present and the late Bill? It was, in fact, very trifling. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the Bill as introducing a new Constitution. He would not cavil about the word. The Bill would, undoubtedly, make an alteration in that House, but it would be a beneficial alteration, on the principles of the Constitution. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken some pains to make a comparison between new France and old England; and he had then assimilated new France and new England. Now, he would ask, was there any fairground of comparison between the two cases? Why was the constitution in France not satisfactory to the people? Not because it was bad in theory, but because it was opposed to the wishes and feelings of the people. But the Constitution here was in accordance with the habits, manners, and feelings of the people. They had been brought up under it. It had "grown with their growth, and strengthened with their strength." They were anxious that it should keep pace (and with God's blessing it should keep pace) with the increasing intelligence, and knowledge, and power of England. The hon. and learned Gen- 1225 tleman said, that Ministers had introduced a new Constitution instead of that which they now enjoyed, which the people had long venerated, and which had been gradually mellowed by time. But what if time had produced more than mellowness in the Constitution? What if it had induced decay? If this were so, why should they not endeavour to restore it to that state which might challenge reverence and veneration? "But," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "deliberate upon the subject; take time to consider it: let there be more inquiry." Why, Ministers had deliberated. They had inquired. They had made alterations in the measure. They did not pretend to infallibility. They knew that they were liable to make mistakes; and if, on examination, they found it necessary to make some trifling alterations, they did so at once; but they strictly adhered, and would firmly adhere, to the great principle on which the measure proceeded. The hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that the principle of the first Bill was, to cut off sixty-two Members, and he had asked, "Who told yon to cut off just sixty-two Members?" Now, he would only say, that Ministers saw no mystical virtue in the number—neither more nor less—of sixty-two. The hon. and learned Member then said, "But you thought fit to alter that number." Ministers certainly had done so, because that number did not square with the principle of cutting off those boroughs which were beneath a certain ratio of population. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that this departure from the first Bill only arose from ignorance, and the want of information, or from the capricious and fickle minds of his Majesty's Ministers, who proceeded in this way, because they were backed by a great majority. He contended, that the majority did not back the Ministers, but backed the measure. Those Gentlemen who were ready to back the Bill and the Ministers, would be the first, if they wished to alter the measure, in order to suit their own caprice or whim, without being able to show any reason for the change, to scout them out of the House with all the contempt which they would then so well deserve. The hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that Ministers had proceeded on loose information— that they had transferred five places from schedule A to schedule B, and two from schedule B to schedule A. This was 1226 true; but these were points that would be best discussed in the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman had objected to the number three in county Representations. Now, for his own part, he could not see why the hon. and learned Gentleman should show such a partiality for two or four Members, and object to three, merely on account of its novelty. With respect to the clause which had created a considerable degree of observation, and which his noble friend meant to alter, the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that Ministers intended, that that clause, however objectionable, should be a part of the Bill, until public observation was drawn to it. Now, so far as intention went, he utterly repelled the assertion. The great wish of Ministers was, to secure a body of bonâ fide householders to return the Members for the boroughs and towns. Whether the words that would now be introduced would have that effect or not, the House would be enabled soon to decide. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that Ministers had adopted a new plan, by determining on the appointment of Parliamentary Commissioners, and taking that duty from the Privy Council. Now, he would ask, was there any part of the Bill more objected to than that which gave to the Privy Council the authority which enabled them to divide counties? He was convinced that, if they had adhered to that provision, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have said, "You have been proved to be in the wrong, but you will not alter that Clause, because you have bound yourselves by pledges to support the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." As to the influence of Ministers over those Commissioners, he would not make one observation. He was content to let the matter rest until the names of the individuals to be appointed Commissioners were laid before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman also complained, that Ministers permitted the constituency to descend too low, and that they continued potwalloppers and freemen, at the same time that they took away the rights of the aristocracy. Why, the very charge which Ministers made was, that those classes were subject to the nomination system. They did not get rid of them at once, it was true; but they must, after a time, disappear. The right hon. member for Montgomeryshire argued, in proposing his amendment, that the main objection to. 1227 the present system was, the want of Representation for the great towns, and not the corruption of the rotten boroughs. Therefore, he contended, that Parliament ought to enfranchise all those towns, and then disfranchise the small boroughs. It did not, however, strike him as very important, whether they first enfranchised and then disfranchised, or whether they first disfranchised and then enfranchised; and for this simple reason, because the one proceeding was not at all dependent on the other. They took away the franchise from a small and corrupt borough, because it was not of sufficient importance to hold such a right; and they gave it to a great town, because, without any reference to the small disfranchised borough, its wealth and population entitled it to Representation. The right hon. member for Montgomeryshire said, that Ministers, in pointing out certain places for disfranchisement, had adopted a very arbitrary line. Now, he should be glad to know what line they could have drawn that would not be arbitrary? The right hon. Member appeared to him to be mistaken, when he said, that the great complaint amongst the people of this country was not against the nomination boroughs. The reverse was the fact, He had seen something of the feeling in the country and in the great towns; and from all that he had observed and heard, he was perfectly convinced, that nothing had made so deep an impression on the sense and feeling of the people, as the fact, that whilst great towns were excluded from the franchise, rotten and insignificant boroughs were upheld. The continuance of those boroughs was, in truth, the chief cause of complaint. It was to abolish those boroughs, as far as possible, that this Bill was intended; and therefore the schedule, with respect to which the right hon. Member had moved his amendment, ought, in his opinion, to hold a very prominent situation in the measure—and it was, therefore, with great propriety, placed first. He (Mr. Stanley) looked at the motion only as one intended to delay the Bill. It might be delayed, but it could not be defeated. He would support the clause as it stood, and should oppose the amendment.
§ Mr. Crokerrose, amidst loud expressions of impatience, which continued during a considerable portion of the first part of his speech. He had to complain he said, that the observation made by hon. 1228 and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, were not addressed to the arguments directed against the measure, but were personal observations, which ought hardly to be introduced into that or any other discussion, and he had to complain, that alter the House had permitted these observations to be made, it would not permit them to be answered. The right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, had much indulged in observations of this sort, but he would do that right hon. Gentleman the favour to suppose (for the credit of his taste), that he could not have heard the speech of the hon. member for Dundalk, or he would not have alluded to it in so light, and, he must say, so unusual a mode. That was the best speech he had heard that evening ["No, no,"]. It was mere matter of opinion, but it was his opinion. He had to regret, that he was not able to arrest the attention of hon. Members. He was conscious of his inability, and was aware that, after a great master of the art had exhibited his powers, it was extremely difficult to command a hearing. He knew that,
As in a theatre, the eyes of men,After a well-graced actor leaves the stage,Are idly bent on him that enters next,Thinking his prattle to be tedious.so after the right hon. Gentleman, he must expect that the House would be to him listless and inattentive. He could assure the House, however, that he was not disposed to move an Adjournment, in consequence of the indisposition to listen to what he had to say: he could only wish, that he were endowed with sufficient ability to command attention. With respect to the speeches now delivered he must observe, that this discussion had been, as it were, promised by the noble Lord on the other side; for it should be remembered that the speech of the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge was intended to be delivered on a previous occasion, but the noble Lord having consented to allow a debate upon the principle of the Bill when the House were in Committee, its delivery was postponed upon that express understanding. That was one mode of shortening the debate resorted to on a former occasion. Another mode of shortening the debate on the present occasion was, that the Ministers did not and would not answer. This was not debating at all, or at any rate it Was debating all on one side. 1229Six rixa estUbi tu pugnas ego vapulo tantum.They attempted thus to stifle the discussion, mid not being able to answer the minority, which, though small in number, was, he would venture to assert, powerful in argument, they contented themselves with silence. In that manner they had last night shortened the debate by not answering so effective a speech as was then spoken by the hon. member for Boroughbridge. He repeated, that this attempt to shorten the debate, by silence on their part, was, however complimentary it might be to the fidelity of their adherents, not very parliamentary, or very decorous to their opponents. His hon. friend near him had alluded to the peculiar circumstances of Members being pledged to vote for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Why, in. spite of that cuckoo cry, he would assert, that they could not fulfil their pledges, for that every principle of the Bill had been altered from what it was at first. When the noble Lord opposite first brought it in, he said nothing about nomination boroughs; he proposed only to disfranchise those small and decayed boroughs of which, he said, a certain number existed in the system. Now, however, the noble Lord proposed to disfranchise some of the nomination boroughs, but with a high degree of prudent policy he determined to preserve others. On a former occasion he (Mr. Croker) had noticed this circumstance, and the noble Lord then answered, that it was not the intention of Ministers to interfere with' the rights of property, or its fair or proper influence. He rejoiced at that statement, for melancholy, no doubt, would be the day when the House of Russell was not sure of the return of some of its members for the borough of Tavistock. So that, in point of principle, it was not nomination boroughs they were to do away, but small and decayed boroughs. When the Bill was first proposed, the noble Lord said, he should take population as the principle on which he would proceed; and adopting that as his standard, he drew four lines of distinction. By the first of these he proposed to disfranchise all boroughs that had a population of less than 2,000. By the second of these lines, he marked out boroughs with a population of between 2,000 and 4,000, and to these, he said, he should give one Member. In the third class were to be included all boroughs 1230 with a population of more than 4,000, and less than 10,000, and these boroughs were to have two Members. In the limits of the fourth line were included new places with a population of more than 10,000, and less than 20,000, and to these one Member was to be given. All towns containing above 20,000 inhabitants and now, unrepresented, were to have two Members. These principles were at least intelligible; and an arithmetical rule, thus adopted, had the recommendation of being easily applied, and could not well be departed from. But from these rules, thus put forward in the first Bill, the noble Lord had in every particular since departed. He had thus brought Downton and St. Germain's, although their population exceeded 2,000, within his first line, and they were to be wholly disfranchised. He had, in the same manner, moved several boroughs from the first into the second class, and he kept several places out of the second class, on the same principle on which he put others into it. Some places the population of which was above 4,000, he kept among those where the population was under 4,000, and gave them but one Member. Other places that had a population above 20,000—such, for instance, as Stockport, where the population of the: town itself was 21,000, and where the population within the limits of the parish, (a new mode of enumerating the inhabitants of boroughs, adopted by the noble Lord) was no less than 44,000—were to have but one Member, although they had been promised two; while Malton, with a population of 4,005 was still to be allowed to elect two Members, to mock the common sense of the House of Commons, to belie the principles on which the Ministers affected to act, and to insult and exasperate the hopes of the people. How different—how much more extensive was the plan of the noble Lord now than it had been on former occasions! When the noble Lord was on that (the Opposition) side of the House, he had brought forward a measure for the Reform of Parliament, and then he told them, that they must add 100 Members to the House, and he proposed to make the addition by giving sixty new Members to the counties, and forty to the large towns of the kingdom. But in order to do that, what did he propose that the House should do?— cut off the nomination boroughs? No; he did not propose that, even in the days 1231 of his theoretic visions; he proposed only to cut off one of the Members from each of the nomination boroughs. But now the noble Lord proposed a diminution of the total number of members, and the entire disfranchisement of no less than sixty boroughs: thus contradicting his own avowed principles. He would now say a word or two on the 10l. clause, of which they had lately heard so much. The public had lately been informed, by a very grave authority, that that clause, which would only permit those of the 10l. householders who paid their rent half-yearly to have a vote, had crept into the Bill inadvertently. But the right hon. Gentleman now said, that was not the case; he said no, it was not introduced inadvertently, but advisedly, and there it was, and there it should remain. Then they came to the application of the rules that the present Bill contained. The instructions given to the persons who were employed to procure the information relative to the boroughs which had been lately laid on the Table, were insufficient—or rather, the time allowed them to obtain information was so. He would take the instance of the town of Rochdale. The person sent to obtain information on the population of that town said, that he should require at least a fortnight for the purpose, but that his instructions hardly allowed him half a day. The Parliament had been dissolved. The Ministers had advised his Majesty to adopt that measure, in order to appeal to the sense of the people upon the Reform Bill, because the last Parliament had voted against some parts of that Bill, and had threatened others. The King had no doubt, a right to exercise this prerogative—he had dissolved the Parliament for voting against the original Bill, but what had the Ministers done? —they ought to be dissolved also—for they too had voted against the original Bill—and he trembled for their dissolution. They had changed every principle of the Bill, as he had already shown, and had thus drawn themselves within the forbidden ground for treading on which they had advised the King to dissolve the last Parliament. He would state one very curious circumstance connected with this Bill—a circumstance, of which the House were probably hardly aware. The Ministers had made the 10kl. franchise the anchor (as the noble Lord. borrowing the fag end. of a metaphor from the first Lord of 1232 the Admiralty, had called it) by which security to the institutions of the country was to be obtained—the anchor of property. He would call the hon. member for Shrewsbury as a witness to the fact. At the moment that the Ministry were hatching this Bill in secresy—in so much secresy that, by their own confession, it was full of deformities—the hon. member for Shrewsbury, in the month of February last, introduced a Bill to exempt from the payment of poor's-rates the 10l. householders of the kingdom. The measure of property which the Ministers had chosen as a counterbalance to the evils of universal suffrage, to give stability and strength to their new Constitution, was just that which the hon. member for Shrewsbury, actuated by the kindest and most judicious feelings, was, for another and a better purpose, adopting as the test of poverty; for he, so far from looking upon these 10l. houses as the measure of property, treated them in his Bill as the measure of pauperism. And, curiously enough, his Bill stood for its second reading on that very night on which the Bill of the noble Lord was to be introduced, by which latter Bill these 10l. householders were all at once removed from a state of pauperism, and erected into independent householders, fully capable of becoming the free electors of the Legislators of the country. That was the comedy of the Bill. Now for the farce of it. When the hon. Gentleman, the member for Shrewsbury, saw the disagreement between the two Bills in this respect, he brought in another Bill. The House would be surprised to see what it was. He had recourse to a little evasion, by which he tried to get rid of the ridiculous difficulty in which he found that his late measure involved his friends, the Ministers. The new Bill introduced since the Reform Bill had been produced, had been framed with an alteration for that purpose. The clause had before stood, that the occupiers of houses charged under a rent of 12l., should not be called on to pay the poor's-rates, but that the payment of these rates should be transferred from the tenant to the landlord. Now, houses charged under 12l., would of course include 10l. tenants, and the clause was therefore altered, to suit present circumstances, to houses let at a rent under 10l. These two measures were now going pari passu through the House. In one of these two great constitutional measures, the House 1233 were called on to declare, that 10l. was a proper legislative measure of fitness for the possession of the elective franchise; and by the other they were required to state to the country, that the 10l. householder was only one degree removed above actual pauperism. How could they reconcile these two opposite statements with each other? He was unwilling to detain the House—and if he did not believe, that the present measure was of the most dangerous tendency, and that to make it in any way satisfactory to the class for whom it was designed, the proposition of the noble Lord, the member for Northampton, ought first to be discussed—if he did not think delay and full discussion necessary to the peace and well-being of the country —he would not press the Amendment.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for St. Mawes (Sir E. Sugden) did undoubtedly extend to the matter now in question before the Committee, although a great portion of it was rather more calculated for a preceding stage of the Bill, being directed to the principle of the measure. If this observation applied to that speech, how much more did it apply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman had not dismissed the clause now before the Committee, but had directed his observations to the principles of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by attacking his right hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman had gone far from the real question before the House, for he had not touched the question for postponing the schedule A. That right hon.(Gentleman had said, that he did not wish to revive the heat and quarrel of last night; but he (Lord Althorp) did not think there had been any heat, although he allowed there had been much waste of time. He thought, that Gentlemen opposite appeared to be more sore about a few observations than the occasion warranted. When an hon. Gentleman opposite made an attack which gave rise to murmurs upon that (the Ministerial) side of the House, he did not think those murmurs unusual on such an occasion. He had always known them to be excited by similar attacks. As to what the right hon. Gentleman said respecting long speeches, and his complaint that the long speeches of the opponents of Reform were not adequately answered by that side of 1234 the House, he (Lord Althorp) must say, that he for one was liable to the reproach of making short speeches—but if the advocates of the Bill did not reply to all that was said on the opposite side, it was because they heard nothing new in some of those speeches, and they did not think it necessary, he would frankly avow, to reply to them in long speeches containing nothing new. The right hon. Gentleman said, that when they came to the discussion of schedule A, he would prove, that the Ministers had departed from the principle of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman could redeem his pledge, be should be ready to vote with him. That Gentleman had also said, that their purpose in disfranchising the boroughs was to make room for the additional Members. But the fact was, that they disfranchised those boroughs on account of the evils to which they gave rise; and finding that their disfranchisement made room in the Representation for the large towns, which ought to be represented, they transferred the franchise to such towns. One principal object of the Bill was, to put an end to nomination boroughs; another, to give the Representation to large towns, and other populous places. It had been said, that in 1822 his noble friend had proposed a Bill on very different principles from the present. But the reason of that was, that the friends of Reform had then an overwhelming majority against them in the House, and as they had then no chance of carrying an entire measure, they were obliged to confine themselves to a partial one. As to the clause respecting the 10l. householders paying rent oftener than half-yearly, the sole purpose of that clause was, to confine the franchise to bonâ fide 10l. householders, and when it was discovered that the Clause had so disfranchising a tendency, it was determined to alter it. When they said, that the Clause had been introduced inadvertently, it was not meant to say, that they did not know of its introduction, but that they were not aware of its extensive disfranchising tendency. One Gentleman had said, that the inhabitants of 10l. houses were nearly in the condition of paupers, and that instead of taking property as the basis of Representation, they (the Ministers) had chosen the minimum of poverty. But, for his (Lord Althorp's) part, he held that they had extended the franchise to the minimum of property, and to that he thought it ought to 1235 be extended. He apprehended no danger from the extension of the franchise, but only from its restriction. Whilst nearly all those who possessed some property were admitted to the franchise, most of those who were excluded from it saw persons nearly of the same class with themselves possessing the right to vote, and they would have continually the hope of attaining the possession of the same right. The reduction of the Members of the House had no specific cause but the necessity of putting an end to the nomination, or, as they were called, the rotten, boroughs; and it appeared to the framers of the Bill, that anything which the commercial classes might lose in the way of Representation by the extinction of those boroughs, was fully compensated by the other arrangements of the Bill. With respect to the question before the Committee, he thought it of little importance except as it went to the principle' of the Bill, and was tantamount to delaying and destroying it. He saw no arguments which could be applied to it, except such as could be applied to supporting the Bill generally, and as that had been already done, he would say nothing further on it, but declare, that he intended to oppose it.
Colonel Wood,having been called upon by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Windsor, who had accused him of not stating at greater length his opinions, he would now, though briefly, trespass upon the House. At four o'clock that morning, after some of the divisions had taken place, he endeavoured, though without success, to cause a compromise, but finding he could not, he, went home, and loft the House sitting. He should certainly give his candid support to the motion of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, because, by the other mode of proceeding it was like putting the cart before the horse. He wanted to see first what was wanted, and then it might be easy to provide equitably and justly for that want. This was the mode which he ventured to say was the best. He would affirm that the boroughs in schedule A must stand or fall by their own merits. He would venture to say, that one of them, at least, the borough of Appleby would stand. Now there might be several boroughs in the same situation. It was impossible to do justice unless the Committee inquired into the character of all the boroughs. It was his firm belief, that the people of England did not wish, that the 1236 boroughs in schedules A and B should be deprived of Members in order to give additional Members to Scotland and Ireland. With the exception of Wales, the Constitution of the country required two Writs to the towns and boroughs. This was an arrangement which was highly beneficial, for it was the means of having two parties represented, the minority as well as the majority. It was well to have the two parties —no matter by what name they were called Whig or Tory—represented. He considered the disfranchisement of the freemen, and of those voters called potwalloppers, an act of great justice. He had a great objection to having only one Member for a town or borough. He also objected to having three Members for a county. This was a mode of Representation which would prove injurious. It would be like a firebrand in the country. The same effect would result from giving only one Member to a town, he therefore cordially concurred in the plan for giving two Members to each place. He foresaw, that year after year motions would be made to bear down the privileges of the 10l. householders, and to introduce Universal Suffrage. He was for having Universal Suffrage somewhere, in order that they might not have it everywhere, and he wished to see every class of persons in that House. He remembered that it was to Universal Suffrage the House owed the presence of the hon. member for Preston amongst them, and he hoped they would long continue to have that hon. Gentleman there. He voted for the amendment, because he wished the bill to be discussed in an honest and equitable way, and not because he desired an unnecessary waste of time.
Mr. CressettPelham said, it appeared to him that the main question on this occasion was, franchisement or disfranchisement. On former occasions, he had expressed his sentiments on that part of the Bill; but he must now say, that, under the proposed Bill, many respectable classes would be disqualified from voting. With respect to the out-voters, he should be happy if the Committee would come to any satisfactory determination respecting them. It was certainly desirable that an opportunity for inquiry should be afforded, and means should be taken to enable hon. Gentlemen to deliver their sentiments. There were certainly sufficient grounds for supporting the Motion which had been made, as the effect of the clause would be, to dis- 1237 franchise some respectable boroughs, without sufficient inquiry; and he, therefore, considered it important, that opportunity should be offered for a full and fair discussion of its provisions.
Sir R. Peelmeant to address himself simply and exclusively to the matter before the House; and notwithstanding all that had been said, he should confine himself to the question—whether the consideration of the schedules A and B should be adjourned? He should act on the admonition of the noble Lord opposite, and make but a short speech. It often happened, that the short speeches were most able and effective. Now, the last word, effective, reminded him of an expression which had been used, he believed, by the right hon. Member for Windsor—he meant the word "talented." He accounted for the right hon. Gentleman's using so vile a word, by his having read so much of Irish documents of late. In the discussion, he should avoid as much as he could, any reference to the principle of the Bill, which they had had sufficient opportunity to discuss; and it was not regular to renew that part of the discussion in the Committee. The time to do so would be in the House, on the Motion that the Report of the Committee be received, or upon the Third Reading of the Bill. There were many details which required discussion; and to them, in the Committee, he should, as far as possible, confine himself. He thought, that if his Majesty's Government had taken the prudent course, after they had obtained a majority of 136 upon the general principle of the Bill, not to insist upon the discussion of the details, without waiting for necessary information to be laid before the House, they would have done more than at present to satisfy the House and the country. He knew, indeed, that the advocates of the Bill were already satisfied with the information which they possessed, and that they were afraid they should be overtaken by the returns of 1831. They were acting oh the principle of population, that is to say, of 2,000 and 4,000; but then they took the population of 1821 as their basis, although they should have, in three weeks, the returns of the population for 1831; by which, perhaps, before the Bill could leave that House, it might be proved, that those places which were exempted from the disfranchisement ought, according to the principles of the Bill, to have 1238 been subjected to it; and those which had been subjected to it, ought to have been exempted. It had been said, those who furnished his Majesty's Ministers with the information on which they had acted, were the partisans of Ministers; but no partisans ever informed a service to their party in a more clumsy manner, for documents so conclusive, as to the necessity of delay, he never saw. The noble Lord, when he produced these documents, could never have supposed, that the Members would look so far as page 58. The noble Lord said, that the information contained in these documents was not strictly official. That might be; but it was information sought for and obtained by his Majesty's Government, and deemed by them of great importance; and it was information, in which palpable and not immaterial errors were to be found. In page 58, the names of Bolton, Huddersfield, Bradford, Kidderminster, Kendal, Macclesfield, Otdham, Rochdale, including the township of Spotland, and in short, the names of all the towns, twenty-five in number, inserted in Schedule D were all contained. One gentleman was deputed to collect information connected with the population, in all those several towns; and in his report he states, that he has collected the information furnished in his report, from what he considered the best sources of information; but that if more time had been allowed him, more correct information would have been obtained on the subjects which he was instructed to inquire about. He would not characterize the change the Ministers proposed as a new Constitution; he would use no objectionable term; he would only say, they were about to make all important change in the Representative system; and here was a gentleman, consulted by his Majesty's Ministers, and called upon by them to collect information, whose own report shewed, that his Majesty's Government and the House were not in possession of the information on which they could rely, and which might be obtained if a little more time were allowed. But his Majesty's Ministers wished not to wait for this information, and to force the House to discuss and decide, before it was in possession of the requisite information. His right hon. friend had so much understated this case, that the House would perhaps allow him to explain the position in which it was placed. It was not in possession of 1239 the instructions under which the gentleman acted who made this report. Whenever a legal opinion was referred to, there was also a clamour for the case; for it was truly said, that the opinion could not be understood without the case; and, in the same way, he said, that the House could not understand this gentleman's report, until it had his instructions. It appeared, however, by his own report, that he had taken a fortnight to complete his mission; and whatever might be thought of the skill and prudence of his Majesty's Ministers, their generosity and candour, in producing these documents, could not be doubted. He gave them great credit for it, and hailed it as a good omen of the future discussions on the Bill. This gentleman, in collecting information, took a town a day, and even a day for each town exceeded the portion of time allowed him. He was not to spend more than a day in collecting information relative to any one town; and probably, though it was not so stated, he was paid by the day. He stated distinctly, however, that one day exceeded the portion of time allowed for his inquiries concerning the population of Rochdale, including the township of Spotland; and therefore he asked the noble Lord, whether it was fair to go into the question so far as Rochdale and the township of Spotland were concerned, until the information which this gentleman could not procure within the time allowed, but which he distinctly intimated might be obtained, had been procured. He had pointed out these errors, because he held it to be his duty to do so. It might be more politic to leave these flaws in the measure, for he was against the Bill; but, at the same time, he was its consistent opponent, and if it must be passed, he wished to see it passed with the least mischief to the country. It was yet, perhaps, possible that some of its more injurious clauses might be got over; but if, on its third reading, he found that the evils still over-balanced the good, he should continue to vote against the measure. He trusted, however, that opportunity would be afforded for perfectly fair discussion on every portion of the subject; but, at the same time, he would not be a party to any vexatious delay; while, on the other hand, it should be remembered, that those who were most sincere in favour of the Bill ought to be the greatest advocates for a full discussion of its details, with a view of waking them as perfect as 1240 possible. He would briefly state what he considered to be the main defects of the Bill, which still remained unanswered, after all that had been said on the other side. In the first place, he could not see the advantage of this wholesale disfranchisement, for he set a much higher value on prescription than the noble Lord appeared to do; the next point to which he had never heard an answer was that which had been so well urged, that the taking away the nomination boroughs would prevent the accession of new talent to the House; the third point was, that if this Bill were carried, there would be no certainty of any one who was called upon to be a Minister of the Crown being returned, after the required vacation of his seat on his appointment to office; his next ground of objection was, that this change would be the means of excluding from the House of Commons men of retired habits, but of profound knowledge, who would not like to present themselves before the 10l. voters instituted by this Bill. Further he had to observe, that the Bill would be the means of entirely excluding the Colonial Interest; and lastly, he objected to the Bill, that under a limited Monarchy it did not afford sufficient check against the passions of the people. They were about to make an experiment of a uniform system of Representation, and were destroying one of those checks, sanctioned by successful usage, without substituting any other. Having said so much as to the merits of the clause now before the Committee, he wished to state why he thought it would be more rational to postpone its consideration. Such a course would be consistent with the principles of all who were friends to moderate Reform, who might then show how far they were ready to go. Nor would it be inconsistent with the views of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, as stated by him not long since. He did not want to quote the noble Lord's words, and he admitted, that in the altered temper of the times, a justification might be found for a change of opinion on the subject. The noble Lord, however, did not always consider it the wisest course, that disfranchisement should precede enfranchisement. Two years ago the noble Lord said, "Let us first agree what towns should be enfranchised, and then we shall consider what boroughs may be disfranchised, and what compensation it may be expedient to grant them." He had, there- 1241 fore, the high sanction of the noble Lord, as a moderate Reformer, to the principle that they should first consider to what large towns it was proper to give the right of returning Members. It had been said, that in doing this a certain arbitrary line must be adopted, and so it must, if the House first proceed to determine what boroughs were to be disfranchised. The most rational course, however, was, to determine, in the first instance, what towns should be enfranchised; and having determined that, to make the disfranchisement commensurate with the enfranchisement. If this course had no other recommendation, it would be preferable on the ground that it would afford something like a check to perpetual disfranchisements. When disfranchisement should hereafter be proposed, it might be said, we have not destroyed the small boroughs as a nuisance, but as a necessary consequence of enfranchising large towns, and the disfranchisement would not precede the necessity for such a measure; but if it could be said, that the House disfranchised boroughs having less than 2,000 inhabitants, and gave the franchise to towns containing a population above 10,000, let it be able to reply, that, at least, it substituted large for small towns, and only agreed to a disfranchisement commensurate to the necessity of the case. It would be a great advantage, therefore, in his opinion, to postpone the consideration of schedule A. He did not approve of schedule A, on principle; but if he were obliged to consider it, he should prefer doing so after the House had decided to what towns the elective franchise should be given. If they proceeded to disfranchise certain boroughs, as if they were abating a nuisance, the precedent might be used hereafter to demand the sacrifice of any borough to a popular clamour for Reform. Upon this precedent they might be called upon to yield to another and more extensive Reform, and what opposing check would their own acts and deliberations offer? 1f a borough containing less than 2,000 inhabitants might be considered a nuisance, and deprived of its franchise, might not a borough containing less than 5,000 inhabitants hereafter be so considered; and upon what principle could the noble Lord then refuse to sacrifice it? He had confined himself to stating the grounds upon which he objected to schedule A, and cordially adopted the proposal of his 1242 right hon. friend, to postpone the consideration of the clause.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had complimented his Majesty's Government on their display of candour at the expense of their skill, in producing the information relative to the borough representation; but the right hon. Baronet had shewn more skill than candour in his attack. He begged to inform his right hon. friend (Mr. C. W. Wynn), that it was not upon this information the Bill was founded. Before this information was received or sought for, his Majesty's Ministers had determined on giving the franchise to certain large towns, of which Rochdale was one. They had all the information requisite to justify the principle of the Bill, in the population returns of 1821, and only took advantage of the interval between the two Parliaments, to obtain full information on one or two controverted points of detail. It was said, that, in some cases in which Ministers proposed to give the elective franchise, the number of 10l. householders was so small that they would be obliged to go thirty miles round to obtain a sufficient constituency. That objection was applicable to very few cases. It was objected, on the other hand, that in large towns the qualification proposed amounted to Universal Suffrage; and information on that point was obtained by looking into the assessments and returns made by the overseers. In every case precise information could not be procured. In large towns it could not be ascertained, within fifty or sixty, how many would be entitled to vote, but the information collected was sufficiently accurate on those points. It was ascertained, that the fears of an immense constituency were exaggerated; and that a fair and sufficient constituency would be formed in most of the places to which it was proposed to give the right of returning Members. The right hon. Baronet had recapitulated his reasons for voting against this disfranchisement of the boroughs. One was, that the colonial interest would not be properly represented. No reason, however, had been adduced to shew, that Gentlemen representing those interests would not be returned for populous places; or even, if they should not, that therefore the nomination boroughs ought to be preserved. He saw no reason why seaport towns, and other places connected with trade, should not return Members who would protect the colonial interests. One 1243 right hon. Gentleman sneered at the idea of gentlemen connected with the colonial interests writing books on the subject, and furnishing the House, by that means, with information. Books, however, would not afford the only means by which Members might obtain information connected with the colonies. He had often heard the Chairman furnish the House with very valuable and important information of that description, and he did not represent any nomination borough, or sit for any of the boroughs disfranchised by schedules A and B. But then, the right hon. Gentleman said, that the disfranchisement of the boroughs would obstruct the Crown in its choice of Ministers; because, the Ministers of the Crown might not be able at all times to get returned to Parliament. He should be very sorry should the Bill throw any impediment in the way of the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in its choice of Ministers; but he did not apprehend that any difficulty would be felt, except upon the re-election of Members, who might take or change office during a Parliament. It was possible for a Minister accepting office during the sitting of Parliament, to lose his election for a populous place, and it would be difficult to find any other place for which he might be at once returned. It would be worth consideration, therefore, whether the Act of Anne, imposing the necessity of a new election on a Minister taking office, should not be repealed or modified. That, however, was a matter rather for the consideration of the independent Members of the House, than for the Ministers. Suppose, that all the difficulties which occurred to the right hon. Baronet existed in their full force, as described by him, were they, for the sake of those difficulties to continue a system of Representation in direct violation of the Constitution, and terribly repugnant to the people. When individuals were returned to that House by direct nomination, or by the purchase of seats, and when the fruits of such elections was a corrupt system of Government, was it for inconveniences, some of which were exaggerated, and others did not exist, that they ought to preserve an evil indefensible upon any sound principles? an evil so flagrant and so generally felt, that it would be impossible for any Government to carry on the affairs of the country, if it preserved the close-boroughs. The right hon. Baronet had talked respecting prescription, but he did 1244 not know how they could avoid trespassing on it, if, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they were to give the right of voting to large towns, and take it from small boroughs. Whether they began by enfranchising the large towns, or disfranchising the small boroughs, prescription would be equally violated; for the principle of disfranchisement was admitted in the one as well as the other case? He did not suppose, that under the Bill, the country would send improper individuals into that House; on the contrary, he trusted that the people would send Members calculated by their wealth, their public spirit, and their intelligence, to uphold every wholesome institution, and to consider and legislate upon the affairs of the country with as much sense, moderation, and firmness, and more independence, than the Members for nomination boroughs, who, though they were mostly in opposition, and always a clog on the Government were described by some persons as the only supports of the Crown and the aristocracy.
§ Colonel Sibthorpgave his most cordial support to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The Government, it appeared, endeavoured to procure information, but refused the agents they employed sufficient time to collect it. The Committee, however, on a subject of so much importance, was bound to postpone the consideration of disfranchisement until it was in possession of full, ample, and accurate information, and until the Committee had decided to what great towns Members should be given.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, his proposition was, that they should defer the consideration of the disfranchising clauses, until they had disposed of that clause which was to add to the amount of Representation. If disfranchisement were necessary, they should not proceed merely upon the principle of population, but upon the combined principles of property, population and situation.
Sir Andrew Agnewwished to give notice, that when they came to the consideration of the first clause, he should move as an Amendment" That no borough be totally disfranchised, but the small boroughs should have a share in the election of a Member to serve in Parliament." He had a strong objection to the disfranchising clauses of the Bill, and conceived the Amendment he had mentioned, or something tantamount to it, ought to be adopted.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he would give his opinion in two words upon this important question. If it were necessary for his Majesty's Ministers to have seats in that House, and if a time might arrive when it would be very difficult for them to obtain seats; he thought it would be right to give them seats by virtue of their office. But he had doubts whether their presence in the House was necessary. Under present circumstances, he should feel a difficulty in voting for this measure, for, at some future election, the very Ministers who now brought forward this measure, might be unpopular, and they would then, if this Bill passed into a law, find it difficult to get seats in the House. That, indeed, would be a result more agreeable to the principle of the Constitution, than the prevailing custom; for no man holding a place or pension under the Crown was, by the Constitution, allowed to have a seat in that House. From the beginning he had advocated the Reform measure, and would continue to support it, because he considered it the commencement of a series of Reforms, to which all men were looking, and he should not despair, after it had passed, of being able to obtain the elective franchise for those who did not pay 10l. per annum for their houses.
§ Mr. James Johnstonbegged to ask what the people would think of the Gentlemen who said, the measure now brought forward would oppress them, and take the bread from their mouths, and the crumbs from their pockets. Did they think, that they would be able to insult the country with impunity when the principle of the Bill had been acknowledged by the House, and approved of by the great mass of the public, by a display of such conduct as was exhibited last night? A gallant General had brought Cromwell forward, a few nights ago, by way of illustration; did that gallant Officer think it was necessary to introduce bugbears of that sort, to prevent the people from discussing the question of Reform? They had now many Cromwells, who opposed them much more than one could do. Let hon. Gentlemen look to Ireland. [The Chairman here called the hon. Member's attention to the question before the House, which was, that one Clause of the Bill be postponed.] The hon. Member continued and said, the late Ministry had acted very much like Catiline [oh]; they had heard a great deal about Cromwell, in the course of the debate, why 1246 should they refuse to hear of Catiline? Why should this measure bring up a Cromwell more than a Catiline?
The Chairmanagain called the attention of the hon. Member to the question which he had put, and there were loud calls for a division.
§ The House divided on the Amendment. Ayes 174; Noes 292—Majority 118.