Mr. Egertonpresented a Petition from the Freeholders of he County of Chester, in County Meeting assembled, with the High Sheriff in the Chair, in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform. He owed it to himself to state on this occasion, that though he was an advocate for moderate Reform, he could not go the length of the Bill which had seen brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers. He regretted that, as a whole, be could not give his support to that Bill.
§ Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, that this petition bad been adopted at a most numerous and respectable meeting, and that there were only seventeen voices raised against it, so that it might be fairly taken as expressing the unanimous opinion of the county of 838 Chester on this question. He would take this opportunity to say, that it was his determination to support his Majesty's Ministers in every part of the Bill which they had introduced, and which had been read, a second time that morning. He begged to add, that if they should relax a single essential point from that Bill as it at present stood, he would not give them his support.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.
§ Mr. Portmanpresented a Petition from the town of Blandford, against the Reform Bill, and a Petition from Dorsetshire, in favour of Reform. Great care the hon. Member said, had been taken that none but the most respectable signatures should, be subscribed to the petition, and that it spoke the strong and unanimous opinions of the county was to be inferred, because an opposite petition had been got up at the same place, and it had received only thirty-four signatures. In supporting the Reform Bill, he was convinced that he was acting in conformity with the wishes of a very great majority of his constituents.
§ Mr. George Bankesvery much doubted if the hon. Member were correct in his last observation. One petition against Reform had been presented from a body of his constituents, and if more numerous petitions of the same nature were not sent into that House, it was merely because persons did not usually petition for what they already possessed but for what they desired.
§ Mr. Calcraftwas friendly to the principle of Reform, but he would struggle in the Committee against many of the details of the pending measure. Dorset was a passive county, and did not much like to interfere in politics, and its petitioners were therefore not strong or numerous. He knew, however, that in one borough in Dorsetshire the people were much against the Bill and though he had given his vote for the second reading, that pledged him to none of the details, and there were some of them against which he meant to struggle as much as he possibly could.
§ Colonel Sibthorp, though desiring more than what was called moderate Reform, could not support the Bill. From the conduct of the right hon. member for Wareham, he expected soon to hear again his musical voice from the other (the Ministerial) side of the House.
§ Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, that probably his right hon. friend the member for Wareham felt himself peculiarly entitled to represent 839 a passive county and was probably looking for the representation of Dorsetshire. He could not possibly reconcile the speech of his right hon. friend on the first reading of the Bill with his vote on the second reading. He could not approve of his right hon. friend's course nor could he concede the claims made by his right hon. friend to excessive purity upon this occasion.
§ Mr. Portmanbelieved, that he had voted for moderate Reform in voting for the Bill, and had not voted against his constituents wishes. He also believed that the country would be in a state of great danger unless they could support the Crown and Aristocracy by uniting the people in sympathy with that House, and which was to be done only by a thorough Reform.
§ Mr. George Bankesexplained.—The hon. member for Preston had declared that he had given his vote for Reform only upon the ground of his having succeeded in making his bargain with Ministers in favour of the electors of that borough. Probably the hon. member for Wareham had had a similar success in relation to Wareham which might account for his speech and vote being at variance one with the other.
§ Mr. Calcraftwished the hon. member for Preston pleasure at his success, and he regretted that he had no chance of being equally serviceable to his constituents at Wareham. It would have been inconsistent with all his former conduct had he not supported the Reform Bill. His first vote in that House had been for the abolition of the Slave trade, his second for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, his third in favour of Parliamentary Reform and the fourth in favour of Catholic Emancipation. These votes had been given under Mr. Fox; all the measures had been eventually carried, except Reform and if that were longer delayed, he believed that the country would have most seriously to lament its postponement. He was satisfied with the vote he had given and believed he should be justified in the eyes of his country.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, there had been no bargain between him and Ministers. When the Reform Bill was brought forward the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) stated that there would be no interference with the life-interests of voters. This was sufficient to protect his constituents, as he had ascertained.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.