The Earl of Camperdownhad petitions in favour of the Reform Bill to present from the town of Aberdeen, and twenty-two other places in Scotland. He would, in imitation of his noble friend at the head of the Administration, and his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, merely read the names of the petitions, observing, that this was done not, certainly, out of any disrespect to the petitioners, but only for the convenience of the House. The petitions were numerously signed, and were couched in firm but temperate language. One of the petitions, however, deserved some particular notice. It was from the town of Aberdeen, and was signed by 5,000 persons of all classes, and might be said to convey he language and sentiments of Scotland generally on the subject of the Reform Bill. Aberdeen was a place of considerable importance; it was the seat of an University, and a great commercial and manufacturing city; and being considered as the capital of the north of Scotland, it was the residence of a great number of the most respectable and wealthy individuals of the district. The principal of one of the Universities proposed one of the resolutions, and the meeting at which the petition was agreed to was attended by many of those who had been before desirous of a much more extensive Reform, including Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage. The petition in favour of the present Bill was unanimously adopted, and this proved that no abatement of the zeal for Reform had taken place in that quarter. Their Lordships would please to observe, 1121 that this petition, and the other petitions from Scotland to their Lordships' House, referred to this Bill which was now under their consideration, and to this Bill alone; for they knew that it was upon the fate of this Bill that the question of Reform depended. He was not one who was very apt to be alarmed, but he confessed that he did feel considerable alarm at the contemplation of what might be the consequences of the rejection of this Bill. The people of Scotland had long been anxious for an efficient Reform, and they thought that at last they had got it in their grasp, and if they failed to secure it, the disappointment would be so much the greater. His Lordship presented the Aberdeen petition, and petitions from the Corporation and inhabitants of Kirkaldy, signed by 1,353 persons, the Corporation giving up their monopoly for the good of the public; from Markinch; from Blackford; from Carnwath; from Haddington; from Kerrimuir, signed by 1,000 persons, although it was a small town; from Abernethy; from Ely; from the Law Procurators of Perth; from Anstruther; from Laurencekirk, from certain Incorporated Trades of Aberdeen, and other places.
Lord Mintoconfirmed the statement of his noble friend as to the disposition of the people of Scotland in regard to this great measure. All their petitions referred exclusively to the Bill before the House, which some of them distinctly marked as the English Bill, for they were too intelligent not to be perfectly aware that it was upon this Bill that their own Reform depended. His Lordship then presented Petitions in favour of the Reform Bill from Melrose, Jedburgh, and Howick, the latter signed by 1,100 persons.
§ The Duke of Devonshirepresented petitions to the same effect from the county of Derby, the result of a county meeting held on Saturday last, and which had received 2,568 signatures in the course of seven hours; from the town of Derby, containing 4,670 signatures, and including the names of the most respectable, wealthy, and intelligent inhabitants of the place; from Bakewell, signed by 2,000 persons (that which he had presented in the last session from the same place contained 400 less); from Wirksworth, and eighteen other places in the same county. The noble Duke begged to repeat, in the most emphatic manner, what he had declared on a recent occasion, that, so far from any 1122 reaction having taken place in the sentiments of the inhabitants of the county of Derby with respect to the Reform Bill, the conviction of its necessity, and justice and policy was, if possible, every day increasing.
The Marquis of Londonderry, on the petition from the town of Derby being laid on the Table, said, that he had been honoured with the presenting of a counter-petition signed by 100 persons, from the same place, though he knew nothing of the town or of the petitioners. The petition was accompanied by a letter from a most respectable solicitor who, he believed, was well known to the noble Duke, of the name of Moseley—Thomas Moseley.
§ The Duke of Devonshire.—I am not acquainted with any solicitor of the name in Derby, and the names of almost all the respectable inhabitants of the place are familiar to me.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas, then, misinformed. The letter stated some facts which he thought it very important for the House to be in possession of, as throwing light on the character of the petitions presented by so many of their Lordships in favour of the Reform Bill. It stated, that the meeting was by no means unanimous in adopting the petition; that the Mayor refused to take the chair when it was proposed; that three-fourths of those who signed it had never heard it read; that one person boasted of his having signed it with his own hand ten or twelve times; and that another person amused himself by making a child of three years old hold the pen, and, as it were, sign it. It was a singular fact also, that many of those who had on a former occasion attended the county meeting for Reform, had absented themselves from that which was held on Saturday last.
§ The Duke of Devonshirewas prepared for some such statement as that just broached by the noble Marquis. He had also a letter from the town of Derby—and that from a gentleman whose character was above all suspicion—with respect to the doings of the anti-reform party, if party the fragment of a section could be called—from which, with permission, he would read a short but expressive extract:—"Several attempts," says the writer, "have been made by the Anti-reformers here, to throw discredit upon the proceedings of a meeting at which they dared not show their faces; and, among others, they 1123 contrived by a paltry artifice to get a child's signature attached to the petition. But such pitiful tricks only defeat themselves." This showed that he was not wholly unprepared for the noble Marquis's statement. The writer stated, that the child's signature was perpetrated in consequence of the individual who had the guardianship of the petitions having been taken ill—an unfair advantage being then taken of his absence. This simple statement of the fact, he believed, was enough by way of showing the value of the noble Marquis's new correspondent's assertions. And now let their Lordships for a moment look at the facts of the case, so far as they were an indication of the feelings of the inhabitants of Derby in favour of Reform. The petition which was intrusted to him on a former occasion, and which he forebore presenting, because it was agreed to during the existence of the late Parliament, had 3,000 signatures; that which he now presented, and which of course spoke the existing feeling, was signed by 4,670—no, 4,669—for he made the noble Marquis a present of the three-year old signature. The noble Marquis admitted, that he knew nothing himself of the county or town of Derby, and therefore could not take it upon him to assert from his own knowledge that a re-action had taken place against the Bill. "Now," continued the noble Duke, "I do know the county of Derby, and am well acquainted with the sentiments of the intelligent and respectable portion of its inhabitants with reference to the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, and I here, in my place declare, that one unanimous and enthusiastic feeling in favour of that measure pervades the whole county." He would have attended the late county meeting from a feeling of duty; but that he thought, as the petition was addressed to that branch of the Legislature of which he was a Member, it would be more becoming in him to stay away, so as not in any way to countenance the notion of undue interference. The feeling of the people of Derby, he repeated, was unanimous in favour of the Bill.
The Earl of Mulgravecould not help congratulating the noble Marquis on his improvement in an art on which a noble Earl had, on a former occasion, extolled his merits—the art, namely, of discovering a mare's nest. The present far exceeded any exploit of the kind in which he had before signalized himself: for the noble 1124 Marquis first admitted, that he knew nothing of the county of Derby—that his correspondent was also unknown to him—and that, while the petition presented by the noble Duke contained 4,670 signatures, that which was intrusted to him had not more than 100; and yet the noble Marquis contended that his petition should be received as the expression of the inhabitants at large!
The Marquis of Londonderrydid not think the ridicule of the noble Earl candid, after his declaration that he made his statement not on his own authority, but on that of a gentleman whom he had named. The main points of that statement had been admitted by the noble Duke, who, moreover, had not stated the name of his correspondent.
§ The Duke of DevonshireThe name of my correspondent is Mr. Joseph Strutt—a gentleman whom every person acquainted with the town of Derby would at once admit to be, perhaps, the most respectable, as he is certainly the most wealthy inhabitant of the place.
The Marquis of Londonderrythen proceeded to read an extract from Mr. Moseley's letter, in order to shew that Mr. Strutt's son, Mr. Edward Strutt—[The Duke of Devonshire: He is the nephew], was opposed to the Bill. He admitted that the counter-petition was not numerously signed, but he appealed to the noble Duke, whether the petitioners were not the most wealthy and respectable inhabitants of Derby?
§ The Duke of DevonshireCertainly not. The petitioners are very respectable persons, but they are not residents of Derby; all the leading and most respectable inhabitants of that place have signed the petition in favour of the Bill which I have just presented.
The Marquis of Londonderrymust bow to the noble Duke's superior local knowledge, not being himself competent to offer an opinion on the matter. He only performed what he felt to be a duty, in stating what was represented to him to be the fact, and was not further responsible. The noble Marquis presented the counter-petition, signed by about 100 inhabitants of Derby, praying their Lordships to preserve unimpaired the institutions which our ancestors had handed down to us.
§ Petitions laid on the Table.
The Earl of Seftonsaid, that the first petition which he should present to their 1125 Lordships in favour of the Reform Bill was from the great and important town of Liverpool, and was signed by 17,600 of the inhabitants of that wealthy and influential place. The petitioners stated, that it was their firm conviction, that on the passing of that Bill the safety and welfare of the country mainly depended. There were two circumstances connected with this petition with which their Lordships should be acquainted, as they afforded a tolerable proof of the feeling in Liverpool in favour of the Reform Bill. The first was, that this petition had been unanimously adopted at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Liverpool, regularly convened, and held in one of the squares of that town; and the second fact was, that out of the 800 subscribers to the Exchange Rooms (the principal place of resort for the merchants in Liverpool) 600 had put their names to this petition. It might be safely taken, therefore, as expressing the opinion of the inhabitants of Liverpool on this important question.
The Marquis of Salisburydid not at all wish to impugn the respectability of the petitioners, at the same time that he wished to know from the noble Lord, what was the extent of the population of Liverpool? Of course, all the inhabitants of Liverpool had not attended the meeting at which this petition was adopted.
The Earl of Seftonsaid, it would have been impossible for the whole population of Liverpool to attend the meeting at which this petition was adopted, but that meeting fairly represented that population, as it had been regularly called and held in pursuance of public advertisement. As to the extent of the population of Liverpool, the noble Marquis was quite as well informed on the subject as he was.
Lord Hollandsaid, that, this petition had been adopted at a public meeting regularly convened, and as no one appeared there to oppose it, it was to be taken as expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Liverpool, for "de non apparentibus et de non existentibus eadem est ratio."
The Marquis of Salisburymerely wished to know whether the petition was represented as speaking the opinion of the whole town of Liverpool.
§ Petition laid on the Table.
§ Lord Dacrepresented similar petitions from the Inhabitants of the county of Hertford, numerously and respectably 1126 signed by the freeholders of that county; from the Inhabitants of the borough of St. Alban's, in the same county; from the burgesses and other inhabitants of the borough of Sudbury; from the Inhabitants of the town of Wisbeach in Cambridgeshire; from the Weavers of the town of Perth; and from the Inhabitants of the town of Hertford, numerously and respectably signed.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that he had been intrusted with a petition from the town of Hertford, from by far the greater portion of the wealth and respectability of that town, praying their Lordships not to pass this Bill into a law without such modifications in it as should remove the various objections to its different clauses. He felt bound in fairness to stale, that this petition had been proposed at the public meeting which adopted the petition just presented by the noble Lord, and that it was rejected by the majority at that meeting. At the same time he would again assert, that all those who had signed it were persons of station and respectability in the town of Hertford. At the meeting of the county of Hertford at which the county petition just presented had been voted, he believed that not more than 100 freeholders attended.
§ Lord Dacresaid, that not having been at the county meeting, he could not state what was the number that attended there, but, judging from the number of signatures to the petition, he should suppose that the meeting had been a respectable one. In the course of a day and a half, one-third of the freeholders of the whole county of Hertford had put their names to the petition. With regard to the counter-petition from the town of Hertford, he was aware that there was such a petition; he had not heard that it was brought forward at the public meeting which had been held of the inhabitants of that borough, but he could vouch for the respectability of the persons who had signed the petition which he had the honour to present, and who, he believed, were the same persons from whom the noble Marquis had recently sustained a defeat.
The Earl of Mulgravebore testimony to the respectability of the signatures attached to the petition from Hertford in favour of the Bill. At the same time, he wished to ask the noble Marquis, if his petition was signed by more than two of the Corporation. He had received information 1127 that the persons who had signed it were supposed to be under the influence of the noble Marquis.
The Marquis of Salisburyre-asserted that the names to the counter-petition from Hertford were most respectable, although he was ready to admit it was chiefly signed by tenants of his. He must complain, however, that the King's name had been most unconstitutionally used in that place to promote the feeling in favour of the Reform Bill. But he was scarcely surprised at seeing such a use made of his Majesty's name, when he found the first Minister of the Crown doing precisely the same thing in that House. They were told, that the King had given his sanction to this measure; no doubt the King had sanctioned the bringing forward of the question; but it was a most unconstitutional thing for a Minister of the Crown to come down to that House and to tell them, that the King had given his sanction to a measure which still awaited their Lordships' consideration.
§ The Duke of Sussexsaid, that the noble Marquis had quite mistaken what had fallen last night from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government. The noble Earl merely referred on that occasion to the words in his Majesty's Speech, submitting this question to the consideration of the Legislature, and what he then said could not at all bear the meaning which the noble Marquis attributed to it.
The Marquis of Bristolsaid, that if their Lordships were pledged to Reform, they were not pledged to this Bill, which was nothing more or less than a complete and sweeping revolution. He would assert solemnly, in the face of Heaven and earth, that rather than give his assent to it, he would consent to lay his head on the block.
§ The Duke of Richmondwished to know whether the noble Marquis opposite—he did not allude to the noble Marquis who had just appealed to Heaven and earth—but to the noble Marquis below him (the Marquis of Salisbury); he wished to know whether that noble Lord meant to say, that his noble friend at the head of the Government had, in his speech last night, made use of the King's name in the shape of a threat towards that House?
The Marquis of BristolIf the noble Duke presumes to give me a lecture, I will give him a more severe one in return. The words "Heaven and earth," which fell from me, were spoken in solemn se- 1128 riousness, and did not form a fit subject for levity. I repel his attack with the utmost indignation that I can possibly express.
Lord Hollandwas at a loss to know what Heaven and earth had to do with this Bill. His noble friend, the noble Duke, merely wished to know what meaning the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Salisbury) meant to attribute to the expressions which had fallen last night from the noble Earl at the head of the Government.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that when he rose he did so for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Salisbury) and not to the noble Marquis above him (the Marquis of Bristol.) It was far from his wish to say or do any thing uncivil or uncourteous to that noble Marquis, either in that House or out of that House. Indeed, he was not, he hoped, in the habit of acting in that manner towards any noble Peer, and he was sorry that the noble Marquis should have lost his temper in consequence of a misapprehension of what had fallen from him. The noble Marquis talked of repelling his observations with indignation. If there was one thing beyond another on which he prided himself, it was upon never losing his temper in that House. He would not be provoked to do anything towards the noble Marquis, or any one else in that House, that he ought not to do. Again, he repeated, that he should be sorry to say anything uncourteous towards the noble Marquis, at the same time that he begged that noble Marquis would in future keep his indignation to himself.
The Earl of Falmouthcontended, that the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government had told them last night that they must have this Bill, or no Reform at all.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the noble Earl at the head of the Government never said that the Bill should undergo no modification whatever in the Committee, nor did he mean to say so. All that he said was, that if this Bill should be rejected, he would never propose a less extensive measure of Reform. His words never meant that this Bill was not to go through the usual course of all Bills that had to pass through Parliament.
Lord Kenyondeprecated incidental discussions of this kind on the presentation 1129 of petitions, and begged to suggest the propriety of limiting explanations to one noble Lord on each side of the House, on the presentation of petitions.
§ The Earl of Albemarlepresented petitions in favour of Reform from Thetford and Wymondham, in the county of Norfolk. The noble Earl said, that he would take that opportunity of making a few observations to the noble and learned Lord opposite, respecting the petition from Norwich, presented to him by that House on the preceding night.
§ The Earl of Eldongladly availed himself of the opportunity presented by the noble Earl, of acknowledging an error into which he had unintentionally fallen, in stating the number of signatures to the Norwich petition against the Reform Bill. He had told their Lordships that there were 13,500 signatures to the petition, instead of 3,500. He had that morning carefully inspected his instructions, and he was bound to say, that no fault could be attributed to any body concerned but himself.
§ The Earl of Albemarlesaid, that the explanation of the noble and learned Lord was quite satisfactory, and he now begged to present a petition of an opposite character from the city of Norwich. He had it from a most respectable person, Mr. Anthony Hudson, that he never saw the Common-hall so numerously and respectably attended as on the occasion of voting that petition. The petition was subscribed by 11,750 persons in two days; whereas the petition to the Commons had no more than 6,100 signatures.
The Duke of Newcastlepresented a petition against the Reform Bill, from certain of the Burgesses of the town of Nottingham. The noble Duke was instructed to state that a great proportion of the inhabitants of Nottingham was adverse to the measure brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers.
Lord Hollandsaid, that he had presented a petition signed by 13,000 of the inhabitants of Nottingham, and a petition almost unanimously agreed to by the Corporation of Nottingham, praying that their Lordships would pass the Bill now before the House. He thought it bad taste to scrutinize too narrowly every petition that might be presented, but when, in the face of these two petitions from the town of Nottingham, the noble Duke asserted, that the people of that town were adverse 1130 to the Bill, he thought that he was justified in asking the noble Duke upon what authority he made that statement. If it was upon the authority of the petition just presented, he begged to know whether any one opposed that petition; and, if no one did oppose it, whether it was agreed to at a time and place which gave the inhabitants of Nottingham, who were favourable to the measure, an opportunity of declaring their sentiments upon it?
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, that the petition he had presented was merely a petition of the undersigned. When he said that the people of Nottingham were adverse to the measure, he stated not his own opinion, for he had no means of forming an opinion upon the subject, but the opinion of the petitioners. He was far from desiring to cast any slur upon the petitions which had been presented from Nottingham by the noble Baron. He held in his hand another petition, to the same effect, from Worksop; but as there was an informality in it, he could not present it.
The Duke of Norfolksaid, that he had last night presented a petition from Worksop, in favour of the Bill.
The Duke of Newcastlewas informed, that that petition was signed chiefly by Catholics and Protestant Dissenters.
The Duke of Norfolksaid, that the first signature to the petition happened to be that of the Vicar of Worksop.
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, he believed the Vicar was the only member of the Church of England who had signed it.
The Duke of NorfolkThat was another mistake of the noble Duke. It was signed by other members of the Church of England.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that the first petition he had to present was from the county of Wilts. It had been agreed to at a county meeting, which was most numerously and respectably attended, and among the persons present, and concurring in the petition, were many who had not formerly been Reformers, but who had now become convinced of the necessity of Reform. He thought it necessary to state to their Lordships, that he had taken no part in calling this meeting, and that he had not even given an opinion as to the propriety or the impropriety of calling such a meeting. This, as well as all the other petitions which he had to present, were specifically in favour of the Bill, and none of them prayed for any other advantages 1131 than those which the Bill conferred. The noble Marquis presented twenty petitions to the same effect, from Trowbridge, Chippenham, Swansea, East Stonehouse, Leamington, Devizes, and other places.
Lord Rollereferring to the petition from Stonehouse said, he thought it might be convenient if noble Lords who had petitions to present from places with which other noble Lords were connected, would give information of such petitions to the latter. He must say, that he thought this was not asking too much. Now he had made no attempt to get up petitions; but others had come into his neighbourhood, and bringing with them petitions in favour of Reform, got about 100 or 200 persons, whom he employed, and who were under the greatest obligations to him, to sign those petitions.
Lord Cliffordsaid, that after what the noble Baron (Rolle) had said last night, in contradiction to the representation of the High Sheriff of Devonshire, he was sure the noble Baron did not stand in need of previous notice to enable him to make observations upon any petition.
Lord Rollesaid, that he had only spoken upon the information of others respecting the meeting of the county of Devon. He was told, that the meeting was called at twelve o'clock, and that at that hour not more than fifty persons were present. The High Sheriff, therefore, did not appear till half-past one o'clock, and even then, after every exertion had been used, a greater attendance of persons than 500 in number could not be procured. From these circumstances he inferred that the petition did not represent the opinion of the county.
§ The Earl of Morleythought it was hardly worth while to debate the Devonshire petition now. This discussion appeared to him to have arisen from the noble Baron (Lord Rolle) near him being jealous that the East Stonehouse petition had not been intrusted to him; but he thought the petitioners had acted more wisely in sending it to the noble Marquis.
A Noble Lordbegged to know why the noble Baron (Lord Rolle) had not attended the meeting in Devonshire? If the noble Baron had done so, and talked the matter over there with the freeholders, he must have come to another opinion, and he might have saved a little of their Lordships' time. What he and others who called 1132 that meeting wanted was, to excite the noble Baron and his friends to attend; but they had failed in that part of their object. It was well, however, that the noble Baron and his friends had stayed away; for if they had met the Reformers fairly in the field, they would have been completely floored.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that there were still on the list the names of thirty Peers who had petitions to present, many of which petitions could not be presented without being accompanied by some observations. He would suggest, therefore, that as the hour was late, they had better proceed with the debate at once, and let the remainder of the petitions stand over till to-morrow.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that it was of the greatest importance that the petitions of the people should be received. If noble Lords would occupy as little time as possible in presenting the petitions intrusted to them, the list would be speedily exhausted.
The Earl of Winchilseapresented petitions from Sandwich, Dover, and Deal, praying that their Lordships would use their high prerogative and reject the Reform Bill, which, besides producing the most prejudicial results, would entirely disappoint the expectations of its supporters. The noble Earl said, that he was ready to admit that there had been, some time ago, a strong feeling in the county of Kent in favour of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. If his information, however, were correct, that feeling had greatly subsided. As to the late meeting of the county, he could state, upon the authority of a gentleman upon whose veracity he could safely rely, that at the opening of the meeting there were not more than 800 persons present; and that at the close of it, there were not more than 3,000 present. Now he recollected a meeting of the county, not a very long time ago, at which there were, he verily believed, at least 30,000 persons present. It had been stated by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) last night, that there were only twelve dissentients to the petition agreed to at the late public meeting of the county—but that was not a full meeting. The county would not meet, and he would tell the noble Earl why not. It was because a most important petition of theirs had been treated by the House with neglect; 1133 and he had been told by hundreds—he might say, by thousands—of the Yeomen of Kent, that until they had some evidence that their petitions would be received with the consideration and respect they were entitled to, the Yeomanry generally would not again meet or ask any thing at the hands of their Lordships. He could state, too, that at a public meeting the other day at Sandwich, a petition against the Reform Bill was agreed to, although Sandwich had sent to Parliament two Members who were pledged to the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. "I trust in God," said the noble Earl, "that I shall this night have an opportunity of stating the grounds upon which I shall vote against this measure."
§ Petition laid on the Table.