HL Deb 23 May 1832 vol 12 cc1375-98

On the Motion of Earl Grey, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, and the question being put that Dudley stand part of schedule D,

Lord Ellenborough

objected to this place being included in the schedule, because it lay in a district which bad already too many Representatives; it lay in the same district of country as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Walsall; it had the same interests as those places, and the part of the country in which they were placed would, under the present Bill, have one Member for every 22,000 inhabitants, whereas other and adjoining districts were only to have one Member to 62,000. He alluded to Worcestershire, to which county, as Dudley, though seated in it, was connected by interests with Staffordshire and Warwickshire, an act of gross injustice was committed, which would give its inhabitants great grounds of complaint, the more so that those districts which were to receive the fewest Members were in a higher state of improvement than those which were to be allowed to return the greater number. It appeared as if the Members for that quarter of the country had been put into a bag, which, having burst, they had all fallen in one direction, and, by the laws of gravitation, in Birmingham and other strong holds of the Political Unions.

The Earl of Radnor

considered Dudley fully entitled from its wealth and population, to a Representative. As to the noble Baron's remark about Worcestershire, he must remind him that Dudley was in Worcestershire, and would he then deprive it of the additional Representative?

Lord Ellenborough

repeated, that this was setting a bad example to the other districts, and would afford them great ground for complaint; it was like dividing the country into electoral districts.

Lord King

denied, that there was the slightest appearance of an intention to divide the county into electoral districts, either according to wealth or population. Such would not be the effect of the Bill. He thought that great jealousy was displayed in enfranchising the great towns, and that landed property had too much while the large towns possessed too little of the Representation. He believed that the landed property of the country did not amount to one half the value of the personal property, and would remind their Lordships, in proof of this assertion of the fact, that in one year legacy duty was paid upon 48,000,000l. of personal property. Taking the duration of a generation at thirty-three years, and multiplying 48,000,000l. by 33, it gave nearly 1,600,000,000l. as the amount of personal property in this country, which, at five per cent interest, gave an annual income of upwards of 75,000,000l. derived from personal property. That was much more, he believed, than double the amount of the landed rent of the country. That personal property, too, be it remembered, excluded wages of labour, and the income of professional men. He believed, too, he might take the rate of interest higher, say, seven and a half per cent, and, at that rate, the personal property of the country would exceed the revenue of the land in the proportion of nearly four to one. Under these circumstances, he contended, that the towns, instead of being over-represented, would have less than their share of the franchise, as compared with the landed interest, and proceeding upon the consideration, not of population, but of wealth.

The Earl of Malmesbury

was not prepared to meet the noble Baron on all the statements which he had made, but his estimate certainly underrated the importance of the landed interest. Perhaps the noble Baron was not aware, that during the existence of the Property-tax, that tax yielded an annual revenue of 8,000,000l. Perhaps he was not aware, also, that the gross amount of produce raised by the agricultural interest amounted to 216,000,000l., 40,000,000l. of which was laid out in labour. With these facts before him, it could scarcely be denied that the landed interest of the country was the most important of the two. He must disclaim all intention or wish to keep back the manufacturing interest from a just share in the Representation. He had never said, and never thought, that it ought not to be represented; but what he had always maintained was, that by the present Bill it would have more than its fair proportion in the Representative system, and that the measure, when carried into operation, would prove highly injurious to the lauded and agricultural interests.

The Earl of Carnarvon

did not know upon what ground the noble Baron opposite had assumed, for certainly his observations went to that effect, that the large towns and manufacturing districts contained the greater proportion of the personal property of the country. He seemed to suppose, that the whole of it was in the hands of the 10l. voters of Birmingham and other manufacturing towns, whereas a very considerable portion of it was in the hands of the enterprising and intelligent agriculturists. He must beg leave to enter his protest against the noble Lord's argument, which proceeded altogether on the supposition that all personal property was in the hands of the inhabitants of towns.

The Lord Chancellor

observed, that Dudley was a town of consequence, containing 23,000 inhabitants, and 800 voters under the 10l. franchise; and, besides having a good general trade, was extensively connected with the iron trade, in the manufacture of nails, by which upwards of 40,000 operatives, resident in the town and neighbourhood, were kept in constant employment. He contended that, under all the circumstances attached and relative to the town of Dudley, it, from its population and trade, in connexion with the iron manufacture; was entitled to return Members to represent it in the Commons House of Parliament, in the same way as Leeds and Frome, connected as they were with the woollen manufacture, and Manchester, in connexion with the cotton trade, were entitled.

The question that "Dudley (Worcestershire), stand part of schedule D," agreed to).

It was also agreed, that Frome (Somersetshire) stand part of schedule D.

On the question that Gateshead (Durham) stand part of the Bill,

The Marquess of Londonderry

objected to the elective franchise being extended to the town of Gateshead, because he conceived, that the county of Durham was already sufficiently represented, and because the extension of the franchise would tend only to increase the Whig interest, which already predominated in that county. He admitted he was unequal to enter into a debate upon this subject, or to deal with the details of the proposed measure in reference to the question now before their Lordships; and all he should endeavour to do, therefore, was, to give expression to his own sentiments, as well as those of a vast proportion of the wealth, talent, and property of the county of Durham, with which he was himself so closely connected. He did not mean to impute anything to the noble Lords opposite, but when he saw the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, though little more than twelve months in office, showering down situations, places, and preferments upon members of his own family, even to the extent of one of the most valuable of the bishopricks; and when he also witnessed the acquisition of blue ribands, and other ribands and honours, within the same short space of time, in a manner not at ail palatable to the public, he was induced to look with a scrupulous eye to other parts of their conduct. In that view he came to consider the case of the county of Durham, as affected by the provisions of the Bill now under discussion, and he found that, out of the ten Members given to the county of Durham, eight were allocated to the northern, which was the smallest, division of the county, and only two Members reserved for the southern and largest district. This distribution he considered to be unfair and unjust; but it was probably accounted for, when it was remembered that the property of the noble Baron opposite (Lord Durham) was situated in the northern wards of the county. Of the selection made of the towns, too, he also complained. South Shields, for instance, a town which it would seem was high in favour with the noble Baron, was in no respect whatever entitled to a Representation in preference to, and on a reference to it, noble Lords would find, in exclusion of, the town of Stockton-upon-Tees. The town of Gateshead, which it was now proposed to their Lordships to give a Representative to, was situate in the midst of the numerous and extensive collieries of the noble Baron, and was surrounded by the immense body of labourers and operatives to which those collieries afforded employment. It was clear, that the noble Baron must have a great influence in the return of the members for Sunderland, South Shields, and Gateshead. Nor was that all. If by the Bill the voters for towns were also to be made voters for counties, it was clear, that the noble Baron would also have a great influence over the votes for the northern part of the county. It was his firm belief, that out of the eight Members which by this arrangement were to be given to the northern part of the county of Durham, the noble Baron would have the power of procuring the return of seven. In the other part of the county was situated the property of a noble Marquis, whom he did not see in his place, and it was quite evident to him, as he thought it must be to most of their Lordships, that it would be impossible for any other interest but those of the two noble individuals to whom he had alluded, to succeed in a contest for the Representation of those towns, or of the county. But he would then inquire why, or on what grounds, it was, that the town of Gateshead had been selected by the noble Baron opposite. Gateshead possessed nothing to recommend it: it was a mere suburb to the town of Newcastle—a most filthy spot, containing the vilest class of society, and that description of population least worthy to enjoy the right of voting for a Member to serve in Parliament. He could not give their Lordships a better proof of the description of the inhabitants of the town of Gateshead, than by alluding to the effects produced in that town by the visitation of the malady called cholera, the ravages of which were so extraordinary, as to exceed, in three days, all that occurred in all England in the same space of time. He could not but advocate the claims of the town of Stockton-upon-Tees, in preference to those of Gateshead. The former contained a most intelligent, respectable, and wealthy population; and he should be glad to hear what reason could be given why it should not be included in the proposed Representation in preference to the latter town. He held in his hand a small map of the county of Durham, and, on a reference to it, noble Lords would find, that in a small radius of four and a half miles, the noble Baron opposite had created no less than four new boroughs and seven Representatives. With the present state of the House, he saw no prospect of success, should he proceed to a division on the question; he, however, could not refrain from expressing to the noble Baron his view with respect to the county, with which, let what would happen, the noble Baron had direct interests. What he would propose was, that Stockton should have a Member in lieu of Gateshead; and though, as he hoped, the Government should consent to relieve the counties from the town voters, it would be an extremely good arrangement to attach the Weal-mouths to Sunderland, and thereby relieve the Easington Ward, from the freeholders in them, and so give the agricultural interest fair play. He should then recommend that they put Easington and Stockton Wards together, and Chester and Darlington, which, he thought, would be a much more acceptable division of the county than that proposed by the noble Baron. He could not avoid adding, in conclusion, that the claims of Stocktonupon-Tees were much greater than those of Walsall to a Representative, though the one obtained what was refused to the other. He admitted that the former did not present claims equal to those of many inland towns, such as Doncaster, and many others; but, considering its maritime situation and increasing trade, as well as the knowledge and scientific acquirements of its inhabitants, it was well entitled to a Representative. He should not, in the present state of the House trouble their Lordships to divide, but he would move that Stockton-upon-Tees be substituted for Gateshead.

Lord Durham

My Lords, I return my most sincere thanks to the noble Marquess for the opportunity which he has afforded me of giving some explanation upon the subject of the borough of Gateshead, and of removing any unfavourable impression which may have been created, either out of this House, or in the mind of the noble Marquess himself; and I trust that I shall satisfactorily prove, before I have done, that the information on which he has founded his observations this evening is in every respect extremely incorrect, to say the least of it. But, first, I must congratulate the noble Lord on having followed the example of his noble friend near him (Ellenburough.) His noble friend opposite me, after having opposed the Bill and Reform, both in prin- ciple, and in all its details, at length, to the astonishment, not only of this side of the House, but to the still greater surprise of his friends, came forward with a plan of Reform of his own, and that, too, of a very large, and, in some respects, more extensive nature than that which had been proposed by his Majesty's Ministers; and now comes the noble Lord, and presents us this night with his small pocket provincial plan of Reform. Whether he will be more successful in procuring its adoption than his noble friend has been with his, I cannot presume to declare; but I think I shall show that the noble Lord has adduced no more reasonable grounds for expecting any support from this House than did his noble friend (Ellenborough), on the occasion to which I have referred, But while I congratulate him on having become a Reformer at last, and of having brought forward his duodecimo plan for reforming the county of Durham, I cannot say, that it appears to me to be such a one as this House could possibly adopt with any regard to principle or to justice. The noble Lord has said, that the boroughs of the county of Durham were arranged on a plan to give an undue influence to the Whig party; and though he disclaimed imputing to me the arrangement with the express view of increasing my own influence in the county, yet he has charged me with not having attempted to prevent that interest being materially favoured, and has been pleased to regret that it had all the appearance of having been adopted, in order to give me a great political predominance in that county. Now, I really wish the noble Lord would for once imagine, that it is barely possible that an individual can be engaged in a great public measure without having any reference to his own private interests. I wish he could entertain a better opinion of human nature than to suppose that a man called upon to assist, either as a member of the Government, or as a Peer in Parliament, in effecting a great and important political measure, must necessarily apply himself, not to that honourable purpose, but to the attainment of his own private objects, and the promotion of his own personal interests.

I confess, my Lords, I am almost ashamed at having felt it even necessary to repel these insinuations, not only for myself, but for my colleagues; for even if I had been base enough to endeavour to persuade them to consent to an arrangement of such a nature, is it likely that they would ever have lent themselves to such a proceeding— would ever have become accessaries to any such act? I freely admit, that the noble Lord is right in his conjecture, that in framing this measure I took a considerable share, and devoted much time and attention to it; I am, therefore, the better enabled to tell the noble Lord on what principle it was based, and how utterly impossible it was, that any other arrangement could have been effected, with any regard to justice. It having been resolved to act upon the principle of abolishing all rotten boroughs,—having, I say, established, as the first principle of the Bill, that all nomination boroughs should be destroyed, we next proceeded to consider how the advantage of Representation could be extended to the rest of the country; and we found, that it was not possible to take any distinct principle but that of giving the franchise to all towns containing a great population. This being the opinion of my colleagues, it was then decided, that as it was necessary to draw some line which should exclude all notion of partiality in their selection, all towns containing 20,000 inhabitants should return two Members, and all towns containing 10,000 inhabitants should return one Member. This being the arrangement fixed upon, after mature consideration, and on general principles, I ask the noble Lord, how I could require that Gateshead, Shields, and Sunderland, though coming within the line, were to be excluded, because it happened that these places were in that part of the country in which I resided. How could I ask of my colleagues to do such an act of injustice towards these towns, as to exclude them from the general plan? and how could they have acted so, even if I had been unjust enough to make the request? That each of these towns come within the line which I have stated, and that they are, therefore, fully entitled to be represented in Parliament, I think, before I sit down, I shall be able to show, to the satisfaction, if not, perhaps, of the noble Lord, at least to that of this House.

And now, my Lords, as to the number of Members which has been allotted to the county of Durham generally. If your Lordships will consider the amount of the population of that county, I am sure you will be convinced that it will not receive more than it is at the present moment entitled to. If the noble Lord will attend to that part of the history of this country which relates to its parliamentary Representation, he will find that Members were first returned from that county in the time of Charles 2nd, after many previous unsuccessful attempts, on the part of the inhabitants, to acquire Representation. In the year 1614, a bill was brought into Parliament to enable that county to return two Members; also, two for the city of Durham; and to create five other boroughs which were to have two Members each. This was at a time when the population was much less than it is at this day, and it may, perhaps, surprise the noble Lord to hear, that the town and borough of Gateshead was among the places it was then proposed to enfranchise. That bill was lost in consequence of a dissolution of Parliament. Subsequently, however, the attempt was renewed; but it was always opposed by the Bishops of the diocese, who having, in those days, the right of summoning a kind of Parliament of their own, never could be prevailed upon to give up their privileges. At last, during a vacancy of the see, a portion of that bill was obtained in the 25th of Charles 2nd, and four Members were allotted to the county and city of Durham. So much, my Lords, for the general history of its Representation.

And now I will address myself more particularly to the case of Gateshead: and, in the first place, I beg distinctly to tell the noble Lord, that when the application was made by the borough of Gateshead to have Members given to it, so far from its being made at my instance, I assure him I was perfectly ignorant that any claim had been preferred. The memorial of Gateshead, dated the 25th of January, 1831, was addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and claimed, on behalf of the inhabitants, their share in the new Representation about to be granted, as they understood, to the populous towns of the empire. My Lords, what is the nature of that claim? Its population amounts to 15,300; it pays in assessed taxes 2,006l. annually; and it contains 750 10l. houses.

Here I must beg your Lordships' attention to the position of Gateshead in point of population, the amount of assessed taxes paid, the number of 10l. houses, and Lieutenant Drummond's test, with reference to the other boroughs contained in schedule D. It is superior in population to Walsall, Wakefield, Kendal, Frome, and Whitby; in assessed taxes, to Whitehaven, Oldham, Frome, Shields, Merthyr Tydvil, and Ashton; in 10l. houses, to Kendal, Blackburn, Ashton, Kidderminster, Whitby, and Frome; by Lieutenant Drummond's test, to Kendal, Walsall, Ashton, Whitby, and Frome. But, my Lords, I will make a still severer comparison—I have taken out fifty-three of the most important towns in the empire, and applied to them Lieutenant Drummond's test, and whatever may be the towns to be excluded from the schedules C and D, according to that principle, Gateshead is not one; on the contrary, it stands fortieth on the list; forty-two being the number, two being inferior, and one of them, the very town named by the noble Lord; namely, Doncaster. But with reference to Stockton-on-Tees, which the noble Lord wishes to substitute for Gateshead, I think the fact which I am now about to state will prove upon what little regard to principle that arrangement must have proceeded, had it included Stockton and excluded Gateshead. In 1821 the population of Gateshead was 11,765–1,765 above the line of 10,000; while the population of Stockton was 5006, nearly 5,000 below it. At the present moment the population of Gateshead is 15,177, and that of Stockton is 7,991.

As the noble Marquess has indulged in a great number of insinuations with regard to the increase of the boroughs in the northern districts of the county of Durham, I must remark, that this circumstance is owing to the fact of the mines being situated in that district; in consequence of which, manufactures, and trade, and commerce, have become attached to that locality, and large towns have sprung up in the vicinage of each other. Unless, then, you apply a different principle with regard to the county of Durham to that which governs the distribution of the Representation to other counties, you must take as the criterion for determining the number of Members to be given to it, the large towns which are situate in it; and as it happens that they are in the northern district, the new Members are necessarily allotted to that district. The same fact appears in the state of the new Representation of the mining districts on the borders of Yorkshire and Lancashire, and to a much greater extent. The Durham mining and manufacturing district receives four boroughs and five Members; the Yorkshire and Lancashire corner receives twelve boroughs and seventeen Members—a much greater number than Durham, in proportion to the extent of the district. The increase, in both instances, has arisen because these large towns have gradually sprung up, and have increased in population, trade and wealth; and surely, my Lords, we could not, with the least appearance of justice, have excluded any of these towns from the present arrangement, merely because they happen to have the misfortune of being situated in my neighbourhood. It would have been an act of the grossest injustice, and one which, I am confident, the great majority of your Lordships would have strongly reprobated.

The noble Marquess objects to those towns receiving Representatives, because, he says, they will be subject to the influence of individuals. If the noble Marquess would change places with me, and it were possible that he could imbibe liberal principles, I still would defy him (I know I shall be myself unable) to return, by way of nomination, or in an indirect manner, or by any other cause arising from the possession of property in those places, a single Member for any of the towns in the county of Durham that are to be enfranchised. That the inhabitants of these towns may entertain a respect, and feel a sympathy, for my political opinions I do not intend to deny; indeed, I consider it a great honour to be favourably regarded by so large a number of my fellow countrymen in the north. I am well acquainted with their great commercial activity, I honour their political intelligence, and can bear testimony to their great respectability; and here I must protest against that indiscriminate abuse in which the noble Marquess has indulged when speaking of Gateshead and its inhabitants. I know a considerable number of them, and I know them to be men of wealth, talent, and respectability. The noble Lord says, they are persons whom I would not admit to my table; my Lords, I deny this. I have been accustomed, and always shall be proud, to live in habits of friendly intercourse with many of them, as indeed I hope I always shall with all my neighbours in the county, whatever may be their accidental station in the scale of society.

My Lords, I now come to another objection which has been urged by the noble Marquess—namely, that Gateshead is a suburb of Newcastle. I never, in my life, was more astonished than when I heard that assertion made. But the noble Lord has not even the merit of originality; he has been preceded in this attempt centuries ago by the Corporation of Newcastle, which has, ever since the year 1186, continually endeavoured to annex Gateshead to Newcastle. So far, however, from Gateshead being a part of Newcastle, it lies in a dif- ferent county, pays different rates, and has a different jurisdiction. The noble Marquess has said, that most of the inhabitants of Gateshead are freemen of Newcastle. What is the real fact? The inhabitants of Gateshead are not only not free of the Corporation of Newcastle, but, on the contrary, one of the express laws of that Corporation is, that no freeman of that Corporation residing in Gateshead shall have the right or power of enfranchising his apprentices. Besides all this, such is the extreme jealousy entertained by Newcastle, that merchandize entering that town from Gateshead, pays a heavy toll to the Corporation of Newcastle. I appeal to my noble and learned friend near me (the Lord Chancellor), whether, when he went the northern circuit, the right of levying these tolls was not made the subject of legal investigation?

The Lord Chancellor

Yes; and I was engaged for eight hours on the trial, but without success.

Lord Durham

I have said, my Lords, that it has been the constant effort of the Corporation of Newcastle to make Gateshead into a suburb of that town, but which efforts have been as constantly resisted by the Bishops of Durham and the inhabitants of Gateshead. It is true, that, for a few months, and a few months only, during a period of more than 600 years, they succeeded, but under what circumstances? At the latter end of the reign of Edward 6th, Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, took possession of the revenues of the bishoprick of Durham, and dissolved the see. Gateshead was allotted by him to Newcastle in the division of the spoil. The preamble of the Act authorising that annexation recites, that "the town of Gatesyde is parcel both of the possession of the bishoprick of Durham, and also of the liberties and the county palatine of Durham;" and the reason assigned for the appropriation is, that rubbish is thrown into the river Tyne, of which the Corporation was conservator, and that offenders escape justice by going into another county. Against this Act Gateshead petitioned, and addressed "Master Bell, the Speaker of the Honourable House," setting forth the inconveniences which would result from this proceeding, and as all the reasons contained are quite as applicable to the present time, I shall read the petition. 'The town of Gateshead is within the county of Durham, and bath its liberties and customs granted by the Bishop's predecessors, and payeth all assessments for the repair of ways, bridges, charge to the wars, watches of the beacons, town and field watches, within the county of Durham.

The town of Gateshead is ruled by the Bishop and burgesses, and hath good and wholesome constitutions and ordinances within themselves, and is as well governed for justice as they are in Newcastle. If it should be united to Newcastle, it would be replenished with evil-disposed persons and thieves, because it is without their walls, as is the north part of Newcastle. Whereas now, in Gateshead, there are a great number of substantial honest men, faithful and true subjects, as did appear in the late rebellion, some merchants, some drapers, and other honest artificers, whom the town of Newcastle doth envy, because they dwell so nigh unto them.'

Such was the petition which was presented to the House of Commons on that occasion, against the annexation of Gateshead to Newcastle. This state of things, however, lasted, as I said before, but a few months. The Act was repealed in the 1st of Mary, in the following terms; "Repeal of one Stat. 7 Ed. 6, c. 1, whereby the bishoprick of Durham was dissolved, and all the lands and possessions given to the King, and also of one other 7 Ed. 6, c. 10, whereby the town of Gatesyde was severed from the said bishoprick," &c.

Not content with this, Parliament came to a resolution upon the subject, which I will read to the noble Marquess, as it may be an inducement to him not to be too earnest in his opposition to the people of Gateshead, for fear the present Parliament should come to a similar resolution. In 1554, it was resolved in Parliament, "that it was a covetous disposition in Newcastle, and in no ways for the good of any." In 1575 and l646, more attempts were made by the Corporation of Newcastle to make Gateshead a suburb, in which they again failed.

One word, my Lords, as to the trade of these two towns. It has been said by the noble Lord, that the trade of Gateshead is similar to that of Newcastle; it is, however, of a perfectly different description; there are great iron and brass founderies at Gateshead, such as do not exist in Newcastle. As to the appearance of the town, which the noble Marquess has described to be vile and filthy, I really must deny the correctness of that statement; but, indeed, his knowledge of the town can be little more than that which he has acquired while riding through the town when on a visit to Ravensworth Castle, which is in the im- mediate neighbourhood. It is possible that, when prancing through it on his Arabian, some filth may have attached itself to his horse or his person; but that the state of the town or inhabitants is, generally, such as he describes it, I deny. I have had more intimate opportunities of knowing the state of Gateshead than the noble Lord, having often canvassed it when I represented the county of Durham, and I can assure him and your Lordships, that it contains many and important manufactories, and is inhabited by persons of great industry, intelligence, and respectability. As a proof that there is not that degree of poverty existing in Gateshead, which the noble Marquis appears to believe, I can state that the average amount of its poor-rates has always been less than that of Newcastle. But, my Lords, all the arguments which I have been endeavouring to advance upon this subject are so much better summed up in the Report of the Commissioners, that I shall conclude what I have to say on this topic with quoting the Report itself. 'The circular part of the parish, on the river side, is thickly studded with manufactories and other buildings, and on the south western and north-western frontiers, compact masses of building are also to be found. Many houses have been recently erected in these parts, and many are now in progress. The bulk of the town, however, is to be found on each side of the great southern road. Gateshead is progressively and rapidly increasing in importance as a manufacturing district. Great grindstone quarries are situated in the midst of the parish, and within it are extensive manufactories of chain cables, heavy iron work, and steel; and also of glass and other valuable commodities. A rail-road is in contemplation, for which a survey has been made, and subscriptions entered into.'

So much, my Lords, with regard to the borough of Gateshead. I will not say more than one word as to the division of the county of Durham, as your Lordships must be aware, that that subject will come more strictly under the consideration of the House on a future day; but I must tell the noble Marquess, that I had nothing to do with the division of the counties. The division has been made by professional gentlemen of great credit, and whose characters were staked for the fairness and impartiality with which they discharged their duties, and for which they have made themselves responsible to Parliament. I can safely say for myself, and I believe every other noble Lord connected with his Majesty's Government can, on their parts, say the same—that I have not had the slightest communication with those Commissioners with regard to the division of Durham, or of any other county. But the fact is, that the division which has been made of the county of Durham is the only one which could, with fairness and propriety, be made. The rule by which the Commissioners have been governed, is precisely that which the interests of the country required. They have divided it into the northern and southern divisions; the former including the districts connected with the mining interests, and the latter including the agricultural districts. It would have been absolutely impossible to have made any other division, without mixing up the agricultural with the mining interests, against which I imagine much louder protestations would have been made. As to any individual who may possess property in the northern division being able to influence the elections, either of the boroughs or the county, my opinion is, that he could not have the slightest effect on the Representation. How is it possible that 2,000 or 3,000 independent householders could be influenced by any one or two persons who may happen to possess property in that county, so as to control the election of Members of Parliament? There may be a few persons, who, from their situations in life, or the nature of their tenure, dare not vote except as they are directed by their masters or landlords; these, however, can be but few, while the rest form a respectable and independent constituency, over whom no improper influence can possibly be exercised.

I trust that the effect of this Bill will be, to destroy all improper influence whatsoever. I mean not that proper and salutary influence which is derived from property and station, and the respect which attaches to the proper exercise of their duties; but I allude to that unconstitutional control which has been too often used under the existing system of Representation. I have no doubt that this Bill will do away much of that evil; indeed, I should be very sorry to be engaged in the formation of any Representative system, the provisions of which would not have that effect. With regard to myself, I can have no personal interest in the matter. As my lot is now cast in this House, I shall never have occasion to become a candidate, or to canvass for the votes which this measure will create, and I shall be well content to leave the merits of any friend of mine, who may wish to represent these places, to be freely decided on by its electors, without any interference on my part.

My Lords, I conclude by assuring you, that it is very painful to me, and must be equally irksome to your Lordships, to be obliged to occupy your valuable time in disclaiming any personal feeling in this matter, but the noble Lord has placed me in this predicament by making these charges. I cannot shrink from meeting them, and, in repelling them, I must repeat, that the motive which has actuated me in supporting this measure has been, not to promote the views or purposes of any party, but to render what I believe will be an inestimable benefit to my country; and I shall always consider the performance of that duty which was assigned to me in the consideration of this Bill, as the proudest act of my life.

The Marquess of Londonderry

said, he never attributed motives to the noble Baron, but he could not refrain from stating, that the division of the county of Durham presented rather strange appearances.

Question agreed to, and Gateshead added to the schedule, as also Huddersfield and Kidderminster.

On the question that Kendal be added to the schedule,

Lord Ellenborough

said, he must admit that Kendal was a thriving and respectable town, with a good manufacture, but he doubted much the propriety of depriving the only represented place in the county of Westmorland of its Members, in order to transfer the franchise to Kendal. He alluded to Appleby, the propriety of disfranchising which had been questioned more than once.

The Lord Chancellor

would be ready to argue the question of Appleby whenever the question of schedule A, with which it was connected, came regularly before the House. With respect to Kendal, he could only observe, that it was a compact town, with more than 12,000 inhabitants, engaged in extensive manufactures.

Kendal added to the schedule, and also Rochdale.

On the question being put as to Salford,

Lord Ellenborough

said, that there was much less reason for separating Salford from Manchester than there was for leaving Toxteth Park connected with Liverpool: while there were only 1,200 10l. houses in Salford, there were 3,300 10l. houses in Toxteth Park.

Lord Suffield

contended that Salford was a perfectly distinct place from Manchester, and that it possessed interests altogether different and distinct from that town.

The Lord Chancellor

also said, that Salford was entirely distinct from Manchester, and was under a different municipal government, whereas Toxteth Park was a mere prolongation of Liverpool, and was as much a part of Liverpool as any part of Westminster was of Westminster.

Question agreed to.

South Shields, Tynemouth, and Wakefield were then ordered to stand part of schedule D.

On the question being put as to Wallsall.

Lord Ellenborough

opposed its enfranchisement, on the ground that it was a district spread over a large space, and not a distinct town.

The Bishop of Lichfield

contended, that on account of the wealth possessed by Walsall, and the peculiar interests existing there, it was entitled to the Representation.

Question agreed to.

Warrington was also placed in the schedule,

On the question that Whitby stand part of the schedule,

Lord Ellenborough

said, that however unwilling he might be to resist the enfranchisement of a shipping town, he doubted the propriety of extending that privilege to Whitby. This, so far from being a flourishing, was a decaying town; in proof of which he need only adduce the fact, that no new buildings had been undertaken there for the last five years; and that, during the last ten years, the population had decreased from 11,700 to little more than 10,000.

The Earl of Mulgrave

said, that from having resided all his life in the immediate vicinity of this place, he could state from his own knowledge, that no decrease had taken place except in the maritime part of the population, and he could assure the noble Lord, that within a very recent period a very handsome range of new houses had been erected.

Lord Ellenborough

had been indebted for the facts he had stated exclusively to the returns upon which the Bill was professedly founded.

Question agreed to.

Whitehaven and Merthyr Tydvil were severally placed in the schedule, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On the ninth clause, which provides for the settlement of the boundaries of certain places in Wales,

Lord Ellenborough

said, that it seemed impossible for the House to consider the boundary question, until the bill came from the other House, and he would recommend that the whole matter should be referred to a Committee up-stairs: it was of the deepest importance to the future operation of the Bill.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that when the Boundary Bill reached that House, their Lordships would have the experience of the other House to guide them. The remark of the noble Baron was, however, entitled to attention, though there was much greater difficulty in discussing the details of such a bill in the other House than in this. It might be a matter of future consideration; in the mean time, there was no difficulty in disposing of all the present arrangements, which were only provisional.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 12, that there shall be six Knights of the Shire for Yorkshire,

Lord Wharncliffe

inquired why York should be the place of election for the North Riding? N rhallerton would be more convenient.

The Lord Chancellor

admitted, that Northallerton would be a more convenient place. York was retained, he supposed, because it was the customary place, and, ceteris paribus, would be the best; but its position rendered it inconvenient as a place of election for the North Riding. There was one circumstance in its favour—that there were all the appurtenances of courts there, and not at Northallerton.

Lord Ellenborough

would then propose that a clause be inserted, giving six Members to the county of Lancaster, which had a claim to this distinction, in respect to population little inferior, and greatly superior in respect of wealth, to the county of York. From the manner in which it was intended to divide the county, it was evident, that the manufacturing interests would return the whole of the four Members proposed to be given to it, to the utter extinction of the landed interest from all share of the Representation. He had formed this clause upon the exact model of that relating to Yorkshire.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that this clause would render it necessary to disfranchise some boroughs, to get room for these Members. At least, if it were carried, some places they had determined to enfranchise must be omitted. It was, besides, unnecessary for the purpose the noble Lord had in view, of securing to the landed interest a share of the Representation. A large proportion of agricultural voters had been carved out from the counties for boroughs. As the Bill now stood, the members for Lancashire would be more agricultural than at present. This was, however, not the proper time to consider this question, but when they came to divide the counties with reference to Representation.

The Marquess of Salisbury

wished to know, if he was to understand that the voters for the new towns and districts were not to have votes for the county?

The Lord Chancellor

replied, that the arrangement then was, that if any man voted for the district, he was not, on account of the same property, to vote also for the county. This would not take all the town voters out of the county election, but it would take many.

Lord Wharncliffe

announced his intention to move, at the proper time, that all the freeholders in towns returning Members be excluded from the county elections.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

said, that by enfranchising the great towns in Lancashire, they would have rendered the county franchise more purely agricultural than before.

Lord Ellenborough

admitted the truth of this, but the whole southern part of Lancashire was one great town, and, indeed, the Boundary Commissioners admitted, that they found on this very account the greatest difficulty in ascertaining where one ended and another began. There would practically, under this Bill, be no Representation of the agricultural part of the county.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that this must wholly depend upon the manner of dividing the county. It might be possible so to divide it as to secure two Members to the agricultural interest.

Lord Ellenborough

contended, that any such division of the county must secure a preponderance to the manufacturing interest in the election of all the four Members.

Lord Wynford

said, that the wealth and importance of the lauded interest of Lancashire fully entitled it to two Representatives. When they came to the clause respecting the town voters exercising their franchise at the county elections, he should be prepared to show, that if it were intended to protect the landed interest, there never was a clause in any Act of Parliament more skilfully contrived to defeat its own purpose. It, in fact, let in every town freeholder to the county elections.

The Lord Chancellor

said, Lancaster might be so divided as to give one large district almost purely agricultural.

Lord Ellenborough

said, that such an arrangement, if it could be now secured, would please him better than the success of his Amendment. Otherwise, he must press the Amendment. He would withdraw the Amendment, upon condition that they now determined upon a division of the county, in the manner suggested by the noble and learned Lord. He did not see why they should not fix the mode of dividing the county of Lancaster, as they had done in the case of York, and were about to do in that of Lincoln. If this proposition were not acceded to, he would take the sense of the House upon his Amendment.

The Marquess of Salisbury

said, that as the division of counties was the question before the House, he could see no objection to going at once into the subject which the Committee were then discussing.

Earl Grey

declared he did not anticipate such a result as that which had been alluded to by the noble Lords opposite. He did not believe, that the effect of this clause would be to exclude a fair share of Representation for the agricultural interests. The county of Lancaster had almost always returned Members connected with agricultural interests. He was surprised at the opposition thus offered, because, on a previous occasion, it had been asserted that, by adopting the course proposed by this Amendment, too great an influence would be given to the manufacturing interest. He saw no reason for acceding to the Amendment.

Lord Wharncliffe

declared, that he should object to the divisions proposed, unless they were advantageous to the agricultural interest; but the county of Lancaster would have no agricultural Members. Of the present Members, he would observe, one was the son of a Peer living in the heart of the county, and another was a banker of Manchester.

The House divided on the Amendment:—Contents 15; Not Contents 70—Majority 55.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.
His R. H. the DUKE of SUSSEX. ONSLOW GRANARD (E. of Granard)
POMFRET HOLLAND
DUKES. RADNOR HOWARD DE WALDEN
SUFFOLK. LILFORD
BEDFORD VISCOUNTS. LYNEDOCH
DEVONSHIRE GODERICH MELBOURNE (Visc. Melbourne)
NORFOLK HOOD MONTEAGLE (Marq. of Sligo)
RICHMOND LAKE
SOMERSET LEINSTER (D. of Leinster.) MOSTYN
ST. ALBAN'S. LORDS.
MARQUESSES. AMESBURY PAMURE
LANSDOWN AUCKLAND POLTIMORE
QUEENSBERRY AUDLEY PONSONBY (Earl of Bessborough)
WESTMINSTER. BROUGHAM PONSONBY of Imokilly
EARLS. CLEMENTS (E. of Leitrim) SEAGRAVE
ALBEMARLE CREWE SEFTON (Earl of Sefton)
AMHERST DINORBEN SHERBORNE
CHARLEMONT DOVER STAFFORD
CHICHESTER DUNALLEY SUFFIELD
CRAVEN DUNDAS SUNDRIDGE (Duke of Argyll)
GOSFORD DURHAM
GREY FIFE (Earl of Fife) TEMPLEMORE
HILLISBOROUGH (Marquess of Downshire) FINGALL (E. of Fingall) VERNON
FISHERWICK (Marquess of Donegall) YARBOROUGH.
HUNTINGDON BISHOPS.
LICHFIELD GLENLYON
MINTO GODOLPHIN CHICHESTER
MULGRAVE GOWER HEREFORD.
List of the CONTENTS.
His R. H. the DUKE of CUMBERLAND. SALISBURY. BOLTON
EARLS. ELEENBOROUGH
DUKE. AYLESFORD KENYON
BEAUFORT. BATHURST PENSHURST(V. Strangford)
DARTMOUTH. STUART DE ROTHESAY
MARQUESSES. LORDS. WHARNCLIFFE
BUTE BEXLEY WYNFORD.

Clause 14, that certain counties shall be divided, and return two Knights for each division, with schedule F, agreed to.

Clause 15, that there shall be three Knights of the Shire for certain counties, enumerated in schedule F 2, was put.

The Marquess of Salisbury

moved, that the number be four instead of three; negatived; clause agreed to.

Clause 16 was agreed to.

Clause 17, that towns, which are counties of themselves, be included in adjoining counties for county elections, was then put.

Lord Ellenborough

contended, that the holders of freeholds in these towns should vote for the town, and not for the county. He begged to know on what principle the noble Lords now proceeded?

Lord Durham

observed, that the freeholders of Canterbury, Poole, and Southampton, had of old enjoyed a right of voting for the county. Therefore, there was no innovation in the principle introduced.

Lord wynford

denied, that the freeholders of Poole had a right to vote for Dorsetshire.

The Lord Chancellor

stated, he had understood that they had.

Clause agreed to.

On clause 18 being put, which enacts that no freehold for life shall give a vote for a county, unless it be worth 10l. a-year, excepting present 40s. freeholders during life,

The Marquess of Salisbury

observed, that the object of the clause was, to give a right to vote for counties to persons who had no property in the county for which they voted, and towards the burthens of which they contributed nothing. He begged to ask the noble Earl, and be hoped that, as was usual with the head of the King's Government, he would have the courtesy to give him an answer, on what ground he proposed to take away the franchise of the 40s. freeholders for life?

Earl Grey

, My answer is, the rights of freeholders are preserved for their lives.

The Marquess of Salisbury

asked, what became of the rights of freeholders which were for three lives, and whether such property was not materially deteriorated?

The Lord Chancellor

would explain the clause to the noble Marquis. If the freehold was for his own life, it was preserved to the existing freeholder; if it was for the lives of other persons, he retained the right to vote during his own life, exactly as if the Bill had never passed. The object of the clause was, to prevent the manufacturing of votes.

Lord Ellenborough

thought the clause should have been differently worded. In his neighbourhood, common fields had been divided into freeholds of 2l., 3l., and 4l., a-year. The population was very industrious and parsimonious, and desirous of possessing freeholds. In one parish there were 1,600 persons, and 100 freeholds of this description, every one of the holders of which would find that his son was disfranchised. A great portion of that part of the country was in the same circumstances. He entreated that the subject might be reconsidered.

Lord Wharncliffe

understood the object of the proviso to be, the disqualification of what were called annuity 40s. voters, at the same time, that it was intended to preserve the rights of bona fide 40s. freeholders; but he apprehended the clause was so worded as to disqualify a great number of bona fide voters; and that he considered extremely objectionable.

The Duke of Richmond

felt great satisfaction at the virtuous indignation expressed by noble Lords opposite, at the idea of disfranchising the 40s. freeholders. He could have wished, however, that they had not united in disfranchising 250,000 Irish 40s. freeholders in 1829. But, be that as it might, he congratulated noble Lords on having at last come to their senses, even at the expense of a sacrifice of political consistency.

The Marquess of Londonderry

What the noble Duke refers to was done to accomplish a great object, in the necessity of which almost every body agreed, but what was the country to gain by this measure?

Lord Ellenborough

said, there was a great difference between the Irish and English 40s. freeholders, the latter being a much more respectable class than the former.

Lord Holland

had voted for the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, but it was with the utmost reluctance—his vote had been wrung from him by an ardent desire to pass the great measure by which the disfranchisement was accompanied. He was sure the object of this clause was, not to disqualify bonâ fide voters, but the contrary: and, if there seemed any doubt on the subject, he, for one, should have no objection to introduce some words by way of amendment, which should set the matter at rest.

The Lord Chancellor

said, it might be well to add one or two words to the proviso, in order to remove all doubt, and render it clear that no bonâ fide voter was to be affected by the clause. He had no objection to postpone the clause for the purpose of adding such words. Meanwhile, their Lordships could proceed with the next clause if they were disposed to go further to-night.

Lord Wynford

also wished to exclude fictitious votes, but that could be easily done without affecting bonâ fide freeholders.

Clause postponed.