HC Deb 15 June 1832 vol 13 cc741-54

Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill.

Mr. Pringle

moved, as an Amendment, "That the classification of the boroughs of Scotland be referred to a Select and Special Committee to report thereupon." Numberless anomalies were, in his opinion, evident in the present classification, and he thought the Ministers had not been at all successful in this part of their Bill. For example, the Dumfries district of boroughs included four boroughs in that county, and one in Galloway. Again, the Ayrshire district included two boroughs in Argyleshire, though it might be convenient to unite them to the new borough of Kilmarnock. The Argyleshire boroughs should be united with those of the Clyde district. He could point out similar anomalies in the other boroughs, but he thought he had said quite enough to justify his Motion. He was sure that a Select Committee would be able to correct many of these inequalities, though he would not press his Motion if it were opposed by his Majesty's Ministers.

Lord Althorp

considered that the sub- ject of the hon. Member's Motion would be sufficiently discussed in Committee on the Bill, and he, therefore, should not support it.

Motion negatived.

House went into Committee. The subject for discussion was schedule B, relating to the counties.

On the question of Perthshire,

Sir George Murray

said, that he had some time since given notice of his intention, at this stage of the Bill, to move that "neither the county of Perth, nor the county of Argyle, be dismembered for the purpose of adding to the constituency of any other county or counties," but that now, as the county of Argyll was not affected by the provisions of the Bill in the way he had anticipated, he should confine his Motion and observations to the county of Perth alone, which was so affected. He complained of a principle being introduced into the Reform Bill for Scotland, which was not introduced into the English Bill. He alluded to the cutting off from one county to add to the constituency of other counties, as in the case of the county of Perth, which it was proposed by the Bill to dismember, for the purpose of adding a portion to the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross-shire. Had such a principle been introduced into the English Bill, and a proposition been made to add in this manner to the constituencies even of small counties, such as Radnorshire and Huntingdonshire, he felt convinced such a proposition would have been rejected by a large majority of this House. Why, therefore, should there be such an intermeddling with Perth? Heretofore, the constituencies of Clackmannan and Kinross had been thought sufficient to return one Member. In 1801, the population amounted to upwards of 17,000, and in 1831, it had reached the number of 23,000. It had gone on rapidly increasing; and, therefore, if in 1801 it was sufficiently important to return a Member, why add to it a portion of the population of Perthshire? Bute, which only contained a population of 14,151, was, by the Bill, to return alone one Member. One of the boasts in favour of the measure of Reform was, that it was to do away with anomalies; but, in this instance, instead of doing away with anomalies, it created one. All the legal and fiscal concerns of these disjoined parishes would still remain connected with Perthshire, but yet all their political influence was to be thrown into Clackmannan and Kinross. It was proposed to detach from every county every part that was disconnected with it, or which was wholly included in another county; that would be a very different matter; but there was no such pretence in this instance; neither of these principles had its application here. If the principle now applied exclusively to Perthshire, had been attempted with respect to any portion of Yorkshire, that county having the good fortune of including within it, by the Reform Bill, thirty-seven Members, the attempt would have been successfully resisted. Perthshire, however, had but one Representative, and, consequently, it had no means of resisting this act of injustice. But still he would not abandon all hopes that, by a clear explanation of the matter, he might yet be able to induce either the Government or the Committee to give up the objectionable part of the clause. If this principle of cutting off a detached part of a county were a correct one, why was it not applied in the case also of the county of Dumbarton—a portion of which was some miles distant from the body of the county? The following statement with regard to Dumbartonshire, was to be found in Chalmers's Caledonia:—'The parishes of Cumbernauld and 'Kirkintilloch lie detached six miles distant from the south-east end of Dumbartonshire, between Lanarkshire on the south, and Stirlingshire on the north. This detached part of Dumbartonshire is nearly twelve miles long from west to east, and from four-and-a-half to two miles broad. These two parishes anciently belonged to Stirlingshire; but in the reign of Robert 1st, they were annexed 'to the county of Dumbarton.' It was also further added:—'The other ten parishes of the county of Dumbarton are in the presbytery of Dumbarton; but the parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld belong to the presbytery of Glasgow.' Here, then, was a clear case of complete separation, if that were laid down as a principle to be generally applied. But in mentioning this case, he did not wish it to be supposed that he was advocating the propriety of dismembering a county already small; but he was endeavouring to point out the injustice of having one principle for Perth and another for Dumbarton. It had been said by some that this arrangement had been made with a view to the convenience of particular families. He, himself, could not speak positively on this subject, but he was able to state that such was the general impression. Neither did he intend to make any complaint on this account, for no families could be more highly respectable than the two that had been mentioned. The one was the family of the gallant Admiral whom he saw opposite—a family not less remarkable by the merits of its individual members, than distinguished by its numerous and highly respectable connexions; and the other was the family of Lord Abercromby, with which he had been united all his life by ties of the most intimate friendship. Indeed, if he were to mention the name of the man, out of his own family, for whose memory he entertained the most sincere and unalterable respect, he should name Sir Ralph Abercromby—for it had been his (Sir George Murray's) good fortune in early life to be closely connected by his professional pursuits with that eminent man; and from the very commencement of his own military service, up to the moment when that great man closed his useful and honourable career in the arms of victory on the plains of Alexandria, there had been no instant in which he could have felt the slightest abatement of that attachment, respect, and esteem, to which Sir Ralph Abercromby had been so justly entitled, both as an officer and a man. He trusted the House would see, therefore, that he had no personal motives for the remarks he had made. But, to show that there was no plausible ground for taking away a portion of the inhabitants of Perth, to add to the population of Clackmannan and Kinross, he might cite many instances in which a population, little larger than the joint population of those two counties, returned a greater number of Members. Merioneth, for instance, with a population of 35,609, returned two Members; Radnor, with a population of 24,651, returned two Members; Rutland, with a population of 19,000, returned two Members; the Isle of Wight, with a population of 35,431, also two, or rather three Members, under the new Bill; that was to say, one for the island, and one, if not two, for a borough; and yet here were Clackmannan and Kinross, with a rapidly-increasing population of 23,800, not thought sufficient to return one Member, without taking in a portion of the county of Perth. But there was also another argument which he wished to mention, as applying to this case. In granting additional Representation to the counties in England, reference had been had to the population of those counties—counties containing 150,000 inhabitants got four Members, and counties containing 100,000 inhabitants, three Members; therefore he was not able to regard this as a final measure, and as hereafter this same principle of population might be resorted to, it was doing Perthshire a great injustice to take away a portion of its population. Perth at present contained 142,000 inhabitants; and to take away 8,000 of those inhabitants, might possibly diminish its future claim to a second Representative. He had a right to insist upon this argument, for whoever looked into the details of these Reform Bills, must feel that it was quite impossible that two out of the three parts of the United Kingdom, were to sit down and quietly submit to so small a share in the Representation as was now allotted to them. He, therefore, insisted that this ground of argument was of itself sufficient to expose the injustice of diminishing the population of Perthshire. Besides, it was throwing a sort of stigma on that county, to make it the solitary instance of this most objectionable principle; and, therefore, unless some very strong reasons could be given for the introduction of this new principle, he trusted that he had made out a case against it which the noble Lord would not be inclined to resist.

Lord Althorp

observed that the objections which were raised towards this separation of part of the county of Perth, and addition of it to Clackmannan and Kinross, might probably be allayed in Perthshire, from a consideration that the remaining votes would be considerably increased in influence in consequence of their number being lessened. Moreover, the districts separated were divided from the rest of Perthshire by a ridge of hills, and seemed naturally not to belong to it. The inhabitants, too, had petitioned for the separation.

Sir George Clerk

did not think that the noble Lord had stated sufficient grounds to justify the disruption of Perthshire for the purpose of adding to the constituency of another county. It was impossible for the noble Lord to do away with the feelings of attachment and union which the inhabitants of the part separated must always feel towards their original county, and equally impossible to give them a new turn towards the county to which they were thus forcibly appended. He believed that the proposed separation would give rise to great confusion, and that it would be much better to adopt the proposition of his right hon. friend.

The Lord Advocate

said, that the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross having been consolidated for the purpose of Representation under the Reform Bill, it was found that there was a part of Perthshire, lying in the intervening parts between the two counties to be united which prevented their perfect geographical consolidation; in order to remove this physical obstacle, it was proposed to separate that part of Perthshire which intervened between the two other counties, and to add it to them. To do that was not only justifiable, but it would be found beneficial to all concerned that this arrangement should be persevered in.

Sir William Rae

condemned the projected dismemberment of this or any other county for the purpose of creating facilities in the way of returning Members under the Scotch Reform Bill. The parishes thus cut off by this mode must suffer very materially in the scale of Representation.

Admiral Adam

hoped a Bill would, ere long, pass Parliament for permanently consolidating those portions of counties, detached thus for election objects from their proper county, with that county of which they were to form a part. As to the influence of Lord Abercrombie, of which the right hon. Baronet was afraid, it was by no means increasing. The town of Alloa was extending, and in that the Earl of Mar had very considerable property and influence. He could not for one moment believe that the alteration was either intended to increase, or would increase the influence of Lord Abercrombie.

Sir George Murray

said, he saw from this very alarming precedent about to be established, a strong probability that portions of many other counties in Scotland would be similarly dismembered from those counties for electioneering purposes. He deprecated the experiment about to be tried, as likely to produce great injustice to local districts, and concluded by pressing his amendment.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 24; Noes 54—Majority 30.

List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral. Johnstone, J. H.
Agnew, Sir A. Johnson, J.
Althorp, Viscount Kennedy, T. F.
Barham, J. Lawley, F.
Bayntun, S. A. Loch, J.
Blackney, W Lushington, S.
Blake, Sir F. Macleod, R.
Clive, B. Mackenzie, A. S.
Creevey, T. Nugent, Lord
Denman, Sir T. Phillips, M.
Dixon, J. Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Easthope, J. Price, Sir R.
Ferguson, R. Ross, H.
Fergusson, Sir R. Russell, Lord J.
Fergusson, R. C. Russell, F.
Fox, C. Sinclair, G.
Gillon, W. D. Stanley, E.
Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Stewart, T.
Haliburton, Hn. D. G. Strutt, E.
Handley, W. F. Tavistock, Marquis of
Heywood, B. Venables, Alderman
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. Vere, H.
Villiers, H.
Hunt, H. Walker, C. A.
James, W. Wyse, T.
Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F. TELLER.
Johnstone, A. Ellice, E.

Upon the question that a Member should be given to Nairn and Elgin united,

Mr. Duncan Davidson

said, in his opinion one Member should be given to each of those places; and he moved, therefore, that the word Nairn be left out.

Mr. Stewart Mackenzie

said, that the population of Elgin was about four times as much as that of Nairn, and Elgin, therefore, would not be injured by the addition.

Sir William Rae

thought Elgin was injured by the annexation of Nairn, as Ross was injured by adding Cromarty to it. The number of voters under the Bill in either Ross or Elgin was sufficient to entitle them to a Member. He thought that the change made by the Bill was uncalled for, and he should oppose it.

Lord Althorp

said, it should be recollected that Ross and Cromarty were formerly united. Both Nairn and Elgin would, he believed, attain an importance by being united, which neither could possess by itself.

Sir George

Clerk observed, that the principle adopted in this case was quite different from that acted upon in uniting some parishes of Perth to Kinross and Clackmannan. Every county in England, however small, had two Members, and the same principle ought to be extended to Scotland.

Sir George Murray

thought the supporters of the Bill very inconsistent in their arguments: the Lord Advocate had, a few minutes before, described the subtraction of voters from Perth as a blessing to that county, and now the addition of voters was described as an advantage to Ross and Elgin. Mountains, rivers, and seas stood no more in their way, however, than principles, and Orkney was united to Shetland, though a tempestuous ocean was between them, as Nairn was united to Elgin, in defiance of ancient habits and local prejudices.

The Lord Advocate

said, it was admitted that Ross could not be separated from Cromarty, and as it was impossible to give Nairn, with a population of 9,000, a Member by itself, there was no alternative except to unite it to Elgin.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 26; Noes50—Majority 24.

Schedule agreed to; as was Schedule C. On the question that Schedule D stand part of the Bill,

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

expressed a wish that Port Glasgow should have a share in the Representation. By the former Bill, Port Glasgow was united for the purposes of Representation with Greenock. He thought that the two places should be so united in the present Bill. The interests of Port Glasgow were great and important. He should, therefore, move that Greenock be omitted from Schedule D, with the view, if that motion were acceded to, of afterwards moving that it be combined with Port Glasgow, and placed in schedule E.

Sir Michael Shaw Stewart

opposed the Amendment. The interests of the two towns were of a conflicting nature. In his opinion, they were each entitled to independent Representation.

Mr. Dixon

opposed the Amendment. The interests of Port Glasgow were essentially represented in those of Glasgow. Greenock had a constituency of 1200 voters, and therefore required no addition.

Sir Robert Peel

thought, that no place, according to the proceedings under the Reform Bill, had a better title to be united to another than Port Glasgow had to Greenock. The objections to their union were most inconsistent. It was said that Port Glasgow had a constituency of 178, or, at most, 211 voters, and was, therefore, not worthy of being represented; and it was also said, that Port Glasgow ought not to be joined with Greenock, because it would swamp that place, which had a constituency of 1,000; and, lastly, that Greenock had of itself a sufficient constituency to entitle it to separate Representation. But was this to be an argument with them who had added Toxteth Park to Liverpool?—who, when they found constituencies of 10,000 and 12,000, added to them others of 2,000 or 3,000? With respect to the jealousy and rivalry which was spoken of as existing between these places, that was the very reason why they should be united, for it would reconcile their differences. He could not conceive that two towns in the same county, at the farthest two or three miles from each other, could have feelings so irreconcileable as to make it impossible to join them in one constituency; yet one would think, to hear hon. Gentlemen talk of their conflicting interests, that they were composed of factions, as hostile as any which existed during the civil wars, or as ever France and England had been. But, admitting the fact, although he should still say it was impossible to legislate upon the assumption of such jealousies, what harm could Port Glasgow do to Greenock, when it would form barely a fourth part of the constituency common to the two? If Port Glasgow were identified in interest with Glasgow, perhaps it might be joined to that latter town, although Glasgow was twenty-five miles distant from Port Glasgow. There were three towns, two of them within a mile and a half of each other, and the other twenty-five miles off; but the House was to assume that there was such an hostility between the two first that they should not be joined together, but that one of them should be joined to the town which was twenty-five miles off. If the House were to abide by the principles on which Toxteth Park was united to Liverpool, and Folkestone joined to Hythe, on what principle could it be refused to join Port Glasgow to Greenock? He had heard it contended that Greenock had flourishing manufactures; but such was not the statement of the Commissioners. What they said was this,—Greenock cannot, at present, be considered a manufacturing town; but it is likely to become so, as great water power has been provided for driving machinery." Why not, then, include in the constituent body, the inhabitants of a great manufacturing place, not above a mile and a half distant? In spite of any little jealousies which might, perhaps, occasionally have arisen, two towns could not exist side by side in this manner, and have a separate interest. If the value of property were increased in Greenock, it must be accompanied by a corresponding increase of prosperity in Port Glasgow. But if there should be any paltry, narrow jealousies, arising from a desire in each to obtain exclusive commercial privileges, the House ought to show itself above them; and above all, endeavour to reconcile such unjust pretensions by uniting the two towns in the pursuit of one common right.

The Lord Advocate

was of opinion that Port Glasgow should be left under the influence and protection of Glasgow, to which it belonged. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment looked only to the interest of Port Glasgow; but the first consideration of the Legislature ought to be the rights and interests of Greenock. They could not apply the analogy of the Representation of England to this measure; the whole scheme of which was bottomed upon a different principle; but they might fairly consider how Greenock stood as compared with other Scotch Towns, which were to have independent Members. There was Paisley; it was a little more populous than Greenock, but was greatly inferior to it in point of wealth; its assessed taxes not amounting to more than one-third of those of Greenock, and yet Paisley had an independent Member. There was Perth, again, having a population of nearly one-third less than that of Greenock; but, although proportionally wealthier than Paisley, Perth was inferior also to Greenock in respect of wealth. The question, then, was, whether it was fair to add to a place like this, a separate town having opposite interests? If it had not been proposed to do so with respect to Perth and Paisley—although the latter was surrounded with villages, which would furnish a larger constituency than Port Glasgow possessed—on what analogy with the scheme of Representation to be adopted for other parts of Scotland, (which was the true test to take) would they make this alteration? The junction of Port Glasgow with Greenock was defended on the ground that the former had two small a party to injure the latter, it not being denied, however, that it would injure it if it could; but as it could not, why should it be exposed to continual annoyance and hopeless contests, by thus joining it to Greenock? The constituency of Greenock entitled it to a Member for itself, and it ought to have one, unless it could be shown that a grievance would be thereby inflicted upon Port Glasgow, which, it must be remembered, never had enjoyed the elective franchise. The fact was, that Port Glasgow was a mere off-shoot from Glasgow, peopled by the agents of the merchants of that place, sent there for the convenience of the Port. Port Glasgow being, then, a kind of overflowing of Glasgow (which had already two Members), a kind of advanced piquet of that town, he could not imagine any place containing 5,000 inhabitants that would be less entitled to separate Representation. It was not disputed that these two places were rivals in trade; and almost every Session some contest took place between them. Considering the great influence Glasgow already possessed in Greenock, if it were to receive the further direct influence of the constituency of Port Glasgow, it would be, substantially, giving three Members to Glasgow. He admitted that this was not a case so free from doubt and difficulty as many others; but Ministers had upon the whole, adopted the best and fairest course which lay open to them. However desirable it might be to unite Port Glasgow to some other place, Greenock was certainly the very worst that could have been selected for the purpose.

Mr. Keith Douglas

thought the learned Lord would do well to assent to the Amendment. Port Glasgow was only a mile from Greenock, and was a flourishing place.

Lord Althorp

said, the objection to being united with Port Glasgow was so strong on the part of the inhabitants of Greenock, that it was thought better to avoid an attempt to bring together such clashing interests, and the combination was abandoned. If the places were united, the interests of Port Glasgow must be sunk in the preponderating and opposing influence of Greenock, to which the union would be most distasteful, at the same time that it could hardly prove beneficial to Port Glasgow. On these grounds, the idea of combining the two places, which had been united by the first Bill, had been abandoned.

Mr. Horatio Ross

supported the Amendment, The towns lay close together, and he saw no reason for separating them in the Representation.

Mr. Patrick Stewart

said, he should vote for the original resolution. He admitted the claims of Port Glasgow, but they ought not to be gratified at the expense of Greenock.

Lord John Russell

thought Greenock entitled to one Member, and, that it ought not to be embarrassed, by being united to another place, especially as the combination would be unpalatable, and was not required in order to give a sufficient constituency. Perth, which had a population of 7,000 souls, had complained of being united to other boroughs, and had in consequence received a Member for itself, and that having been done for Perth, how could Greenock, with a population of 27,000 souls, being also a place of great commercial importance, be denied a Member? Port Glasgow was locally near Greenock, but in its interests and feelings, it was connected, not with Greenock but with Glasgow.

Sir Robert Peel

should have supposed, till he heard the learned Lord's remark, that the principles of the English Reform Bill ought to have been carried as they were so excellent across the Tweed. He had, in the discussion on the English Bill, admitted the force of the argument, that they ought not to encourage separate interests by altogether separating the inhabitants of towns from the counties; yet now it was proposed to encourage separate interests. The noble Lord seemed to think that no other town as large as Greenock had been denied a separate Member; but had not the Ministers added Musselburg, which was six miles distant, to Leith, the electoral houses of which, were more numerous than those of Greenock? He could not believe that two neighbouring and prosperous places could entertain that irreconcileable hostility which was said to exist between Port Glasgow and Greenock, even if that were the case, he could not understand why they should be separated under a representative system which united Tothill Fields and Grosvenor Square in the same district. But, if the hostility was so great, he should say it was the duty of the House not to perpetuate it by drawing a broad line of distinction between them.

Lord John Russell

would repeat that it was fair to do that for Greenock which had been done for Perth.

Mr. Dixon

contended, that the commercial importance of Port Glasgow rendered it highly expedient that it should be separated from Greenock, and annexed to Dumbarton.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

said, that the revenue collected from Port Glasgow amounted to 240,000l., and he thought it was not right to leave such an important place without a Representative.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 47; Noes 73—Majority 26.

On the next question, relating to the Forfar district of boroughs,

Mr. Robert A. Dundas

, moved that Stonehaven be added to the Inverbervie, Montrose, and Forfar district of boroughs. Stonehaven was the only manufacturing town in the agricultural county of Kincardine, and, unless it was added to the Forfar district, Kincardine would have no voice in the manufacturing Representation.

The Lord Advocate

would resist the hon. Member's Motion, as he conceived that it was highly inexpedient that the voters in Kincardine should be exclusively agricultural, as they would be if the hon. Member's proposition was adopted.

The Committee divided on the Motion:—Ayes 42; Noes 62—Majority 20.

On the ninth district, including Renfrew, Rutherglen, Dumbarton, and Kilmarnock,

Sir Michael Shaw Stewart

moved, that Kilmarnock be added to the Ayr district of burghs, and Inverary and Campbell Town transferred from the Ayr to the Dumbarton district. The hon. Member contended, that it was unjust to the smaller burghs to overwhelm them with the larger ones, and that the effect of this measure would be, to give three Members to the county of Ayr.

Lord Althorp

observed, that it was fit that the large towns should have a larger influence in the elections. The smaller towns were entitled to a share in the Representation, and they had a share.

Mr. Dixon

said, no difficulty would have been felt had Scotland received her proper share of Representatives.

Mr. Kennedy

, being member for Ayr, had paid much attention to this subject, and was convinced that the present proposed arrangement was the best that could be devised. At present the Ayr district contained a population of 26,000, and that of Renfrew, 29,000; but, if the hon. Baronet's proposition were agreed to, the Ayr district would be increased to 38,000, and the Renfrew district reduced to 17,000.

Mr. Patrick Stewart

said, Kilmarnock was treated most unjustly in being united with the Ayr boroughs. It was a thriving and important place.

Sir George Murray

thought the original plan tended to concentrate political power in one spot, and he should support the Motion.

Mr. Pringle

was of opinion, that the geographical position of Kilmarnock made it proper to unite it to Ayr. What had Campbell Town or Inverary to do with Ayr? The connexion by water, indeed, united them with Rutherglen, and, if it were meant that the present measure should be permanent, the anomaly of uniting them with Ayr ought to be clone away.

Sir George Clerk

supported the Motion, for it would be nearly impossible that the inhabitants of the small boroughs united with Kilmarnock could have the slightest influence over the elections.

Lord George Bentinck

also supported the Motion, because he conceived that the interests of Kilmarnock and Ayr must be similar.

The Committee divided on the Motion:—Ayes 35; Noes 67—Majority 32.

An Amendment that "Port Glasgow be added to list No. 9, of schedule E," was agreed to. The remainder of the clauses, with some verbal amendments, agreed to. The preamble of the Bill also agreed to, and the House resumed.