Lord John Russell,in rising to move the order of the day for the committal of the bill upon this subject, stated, that he did not feel it necessary at present to occupy much of the attention of the House, as he had already so fully explained the nature and object of the bill. With respect to the question, whether the 864 right of voting for Grampound should be merely extended to some adjoining districts, or that the right of election heretofore possessed by that borough should be altogether transferred to another and more populous district, he had no hesitation in saying, that the latter alone, which would amount to a real disfranchisement of this truly rotten borough, would be consonant to the principle and object of the bill. Therefore, if any instruction should be given to the committee, precluding it from making such transfer, and confining the right of election to the adjoining hundreds, he must regard that instruction as a complete departure from the spirit of this measure. He should hear with respectful attention any suggestion that might be offered by such gentlemen as the members for Northumberland or Surrey upon this subject, and he would be most happy if he could consistently acquiesce in their views, but as to his majesty's ministers, their conduct had been throughout so extremely inconsistent and wavering, that he did not think-that any independent member could well care one straw about what part they might happen to take.
Mr. R. Smithspoke in favour of the bill, which he thought highly honourable to the public spirit, judgment, and perseverance of his noble friend. But the laudable object of the bill would, in his opinion, be lost if the right of election were not transferred from Grampound to some other district;—he meant to some great populous town, from which a direct representation in that House was really necessary. If such a representation had existed for the great towns in the North, he firmly believed that that quarter of the country would not have been agitated in the course of the last autumn. But he was an advocate for this bill from a solicitude to establish parliamentary reform, as well as from a desire to satisfy the public mind. In speaking of reform, he did by no means imply those wild theories which were advocated by the would-be-patriots, who had so much disturbed the country in the course of the last year, and who were in truth the worst enemies of real liberty. He wished also to be understood, that when he urged the propriety of satisfying the public mind, he meant the intelligent, well regulated opinion of the country, which had unanimously decided in favour of reform, and against which all the eloquence of the 865 Treasury-bench was excited in vain. It was impossible that that eloquence, even combined with all the power of those by whom it was wielded, could long withstand the universal desire for reform.
§ Mr. Serjeant Onslowdeprecated the idea of confining this measure merely to the extension of the right of voting to the hundreds adjoining Grampound, as such a proceeding must, among other exceptionable results, serve to give an undue right of voting to the freeholders of a particular district, and that too in a county which had the power of returning an amply sufficient number of members to that House. But upon what ground could the total disfranchisement be resisted? For, as to the precedents, where was the precedent to show such flagrant corruption as had existed in this borough, where no candidate dared even propose that the bribery oath should be administered? It was urged in objection to the proposal for transferring the right of election to Leeds, that there was no precedent for the creation of the right of voting by an act of parliament. But this allegation was an egregious mistake, as there were many such precedents. In Chester, in Durham, and in the Welsh counties for instance, the right of voting was created by different acts of parliament. With respect to the question, whether there should be four representatives for Yorkshire, or whether the right of electing two members should be conferred upon Leeds, he hoped the friends of this measure would not allow their strength to be weakened by any dissention upon such a question, but that all would unite in securing that which was most desirable, namely, the total and radical disfranchisement of Grampound.
§ The motion for going into the committee was about to be put, when the Speaker asked whether any hon. member meant to move an instruction to the committee? Upon which,
Mr. Davies Gilbertsaid, that the case of Grampound was one which admitted of no justification, and it was impossible to deny that a system of corruption had for a long period of time existed in that borough, which called for the animadversion of the House. In considering, however, the remedy which it would be roost expedient to apply to an evil which was admitted on all hands to exist, he confessed himself unable to accede either to the proposition of the noble lord who 866 brought forward this motion, or to the other proposition which had been suggested as a substitute for that of the noble lord. He wished rather to follow the course of former precedents, in cases where a disfranchisement of the borough had ensued upon a proof of similar corruption, instead of giving his support to a measure which was not warranted by the practice of parliament, and which must inevitably form a precedent for the future. He did not wish to prevent this case from establishing a precedent to the extent of subjecting any borough which might hereafter become equally corrupt, to the punishment which it had been the usage of parliament to inflict; but, beyond this limit he was not prepared to go. Another ground upon which he opposed the proposition of the noble lord was, that it had a direct tendency in favour of a measure, which the advocates of that measure had assumed to themselves the privilege of calling by the name of parliamentary reform. To general propositions for reform it was scarcely possible to offer any opposition: if, for instance, it were proposed to reform the courts of law, or the judges, it would be difficult to object to a proposition of that general nature. But if he were asked to consent to any particular plan of reform—to a mode, for instance, of electing the judges by universal suffrage, he should then be able to state distinctly, the grounds of his opposition. He objected to parliamentary reform, because its tendency was, to make that House a more democratic assembly than it was; and as an hon. gentleman had on a former occasion alluded to the lamp of Aladdin, which, though covered with rust, still retained its charm, he thought the present constitution of the House, with all its imperfections, possessed all the charms of Aladdin's lamp. From the records of ancient history he was justified in drawing the conclusion, that a country governed by a democratic assembly would inevitably fall into a state of anarchy and confusion. With respect to the proposition for transferring the right of voting from the borough of Grampound to the town of Leeds, he thought that if this example were set, all the other large unrepresented towns would endeavour to find out flaws in other boroughs, for the mere purpose of transferring the elective franchise to themselves. Agreeing, as he did, that an effective reformation ought to be made in the borough of Grampound, 867 he thought that object might be effected by following the precedents upon their Journals, without, as it was called, travelling out of the record. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That it be an instruction to the committee, that they have power to make provision in the bill, to extend the right of voting for burgesses to serve in parliament for the borough of Grampound to freeholders of the hundreds of Powder and Pyder, and for limiting the right of voting in the said borough."—Upon the question being put from the chair,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move, that the farther discussion of this question be adjourned till to-morrow, alleging the absence of his majesty's ministers at a cabinet council, upon a subject of high importance, as the ground of this motion.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he was willing to accede to any arrangement which might accommodate the right hon. gentleman, but he fell that upon the present occasion he was scarcely at liberty to do so, without the concurrence of his hon. friend the member for Durham, whose motion upon the state of the representation stood for to-morrow.
§ Mr. Lambtonsaid, that the House was called upon by the motion of the right hon. gentleman to postpone the debate upon a subject of considerable importance, but the right hon. gentleman had stated no public ground for that adjournment. He was aware that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues felt themselves in a situation of some difficulty, in consequence of her majesty having embarked at Calais for this country, and that a cabinet council had been this day called upon the subject. This, however, was no ground for delaying the public business; and, though he had every wish to accommodate his noble friend, yet as his own motion upon parliamentary reform stood for to-morrow, he could not consent to the adjournment of this debate, unless some strong grounds for that measure were laid before the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had moved the adjournment of this debate, not from any considerations of personal convenience; but because their duty to their sovereign demanded the attendance of ministers in another place. It would be for the House to determine whether the debate should be adjourned till to-morrow, or to any other day.
§ After some further conversation the debate was adjourned till Monday.