§ Mr. Stuart Wortleymoved the third reading of this bill.
§ Mr. Sykesobserved, that if the bill affected the elections upon a more popular principle, he would have supported it. It was his wish to see the two seats transferred to Yorkshire, which would in that case send four members to parliament. As that, however, was not likely to be adopted, he should content himself with moving, as an amendment, "that the bill be read a third time that day six months."
§ Lord John Russellhoped it would not be supposed, that in relinquishing the charge of the bill, he had departed from the line of conciliation he had prescribed to himself, or had been influenced by any disgust. On the first introduction of the bill, he had endeavoured to obtain the support of moderate reformers on whichever side of the House. At first he had proposed the elective franchise at Leeds to be exercised by those who paid scot and lot; then, conceiving that there might be some members indisposed to agree to so extensive a suffrage, he had proposed to confine it to housekeepers of 5l. a year; and, seeing the House still indisposed to 1339 go to that extent, he had further restricted it to 10l. a year. After that, he was extremely sorry to find that an hon. gentleman thought it right to raise the qualification to 20l. a year. That, in his opinion, deprived the bill of its popular character. His original object was, to bring within the circle of the constitution a large mass of the unrepresented people, and induce them to think that they had representatives sitting in that House. So feeling, he could no longer take charge of the bill. At the same time, he was unwilling to Jose the bill altogether, and should vote against the amendment.
Mr. Hobhousesaid:—Although, Sir, I have hitherto given my support to this bill as it was introduced to the House by the noble lord, yet I do not consider it at all a necessary consequence, that I should continue to be favourable to a measure which has undergone so material an alteration since it has been abandoned by its original parent. One reason which induced me to favour this bill was, because it proceeded from a gentleman whom I thought sincere in his wishes for reform of parliament up to a certain extent; but the hon. gentleman who now patronises the bill, has not, that I know, ever been suspected of the least attachment to that great cause, and certainly he has contrived to give to his adopted child, features sufficiently indicative of its present parent—"matre pulchra filia pulchrior." I trust that the manner in which the bill has been dealt with in this House, will be a lesson to the noble lord not to expect any thing like a beginning of a real reform of parliament from this House—from that noble lord the country expect better things—they expect something substantially corrective of the evil which lies at the root of all our misfortunes. I am sure the country will not be satisfied with this measure, even as it originally stood, much less in the shape it now assumes. Yet, Sir, I shall support this bill with all its imperfections, rather than appear to justify the charge made against the reformers, that they will accept no boon unless they can obtain the whole of their demand.—Sir, the course of the debates on this bill has led to some singular observations on the nature of popular elections, which I regret not to have been in my place to have answered at the time, since I am fully aware, that nothing has so bad an appearance in this House as that which the French call? "Sagesse après coup." 1340 I more particularly regret my absence; because I find that reference has been made to that respectable body of my fellow countrymen whom I have the honour to represent; indeed, I find that an argument unfavourable to the extention of suffrage to householders was drawn from the conduct and character of the electors of Westminster, which were designated in terms that would have drawn from me an attempt at least to make an instant reply to such an intrepid attack.—Perhaps, however, it was as well that I was not present to hear the obloquy cast upon my own constituents; because, in the first place, that distinguished body found in the persons of my gallant friend, the member for Southward, and of the member for Nottingham, supporters more able, though naturally not more attached to them, than myself.—There is another reason which induces me the less to regret my absence on that occasion, namely, that I might have been betrayed by the irritation of the moment into expressions not sufficiently guarded for the respect which I personally entertain for one of the gentlemen who assailed my Westminster friends, nor sufficiently indicative of the sovereign contempt with which I regard the more serious part of the charges heaped upon my constituents. I might have forgotten, that integrity, that virtue that, disinterestedness, naturally beget an inextinguishable hatred in the breasts of the venal, the profligate, and the base. I might have forgotten that the body of Englishmen who have the most distinguished themselves by their efforts to reform this House, were, of all Englishmen, the most likely to be exposed to the scorn and to the contumely of this House. I say, Sir, that I am glad that I have had a cooler moment and a more deliberate opportunity of speaking to the character of the electors of Westminster. A more independent, a more generous, a more enlightened, and, except in the choice of one of their representatives, a more discriminating body of men is not to be found in the whole world. As to their independence, the manner in which they conduct their election, speaks for them. Had the election petition against the return of one of the members been carried to a committee, that committee would have seen a rare and enviable sight in the production of every item, of every farthing spent during the whole of the contest for 1.5 days, in a city containing 15,000 votes.—There is an hon. 1341 gentleman in the House, the member for. Aberdeen, who can speak to that fact; and as to the insinuations respecting the payment of rate, or any other gratuity received by the electors, the charge is false and infamous, although it is no wonder that it should be made by those who are the patrons and propagators of corruption. This is not the first time that those who have no character themselves, have tried to establish the depravity of. their fellow-countrymen.—As far as relates to the other complaint made against the electors of Westminster, namely, the avidity with which they swallow nonsense, I own that it is, perhaps, fair that the extreme contempt and scorn in which ray constituents and I believe the great mass of the people, hold the greater part of what is said and done in the House of Commons should be occasionally repaid them by expressions similar to those used the other night by the hon. member for Taunton. If we cry out against the folly, the obstinacy, the perverseness of parliament, it is to be expected that hon. members should now and then accuse us of similar imperfections. Every thing has its own place; and those who should try the experiment of using a little House of Common's-cant and common-place on a popular hustings, would find that sort of nonsense, at least, very unpalatable. It does, however, appear to me, that the great council of the nation runs the risk, from the perpetual encomiums which it hears of its own wisdom and of the folly of all beside, of being converted into a sort of Fools' Paradise, where the pleased and contented inhabitants, deaf to the groans, to the hisses, to the laughter of the rest of their species, fancy themselves in possession of all that can contribute to the dignity and to the happiness of man: indeed, those who have gone along with the rest of their fellow-countrymen, and have partaken with them in the advantages to be derived from the science and wisdom of the age, do, as it is, run no small chance of being surprised in coming into this House, and finding a place where the beams of truth have not penetrated, and where error and obstinacy seem to have placed their last footsteps.—Follies long forgotten elsewhere—fallacies obsolete—errors abandoned—these still find a resting place in parliament, and linger to the last moment, in those protecting precincts.—I wish the hon. member for Taunton were here, to receive the answer 1342 which I venture to make to his charge; but as he made that charge in my absence, perhaps the House will forgive me for not waiting until his arrival. The hon. member. Sir, said—
§ The Speakersaid, that such allusion was certainly irregular.
Mr. Hobhousecontinued:—I did think that the attack made on my constituents, in the absence of both their representatives, might have justified a slight departure from ordinary forms; and, even as it is, I assure the hon. member for Corfe Castle, that no interruption of his shall prevent me from taking the line of argument I meant to pursue. We will suppose, then, that the electors of Westminster may have been charged with liking most those who talk the most nonsense to them. Certainly, this is rather a severe imputation upon our worthy friends of the metropolis, but it would be one consolation to them under the imputation, that they are not the only electors in the kingdom who are caught by other allures—than commonsense and common honesty. Sir, there is a town in Somersetshire called Taunton, and I have heard—perhaps incorrectly,—perhaps with no more foundation than the reports which have deceived hon. gentlemen with respect to Westminster—that at one of the late elections for that town, a Mr. Alexander Baring was introduced to the voters of that ancient borough at the tail of a procession which was ushered in by a huge mountain loaf, supported by four cupids, with suitable decorations. It is no wonder that a gentleman accustomed to recommend himself by such modes of persuasion, should have no very high opinion of the intellect of, the electors of England; but I venture to warn him, that if he should ever become a candidate for Westminster, he would do well to try nonsense of a different sort. His loaf, and his cupids would be brought to a very bad market at a Covent-garden hustings. In addition to the charge made against the electors of Westminster, and the electors of populous places generally, I have heard that a grave attack was made upon those who recommend themselves to the voters of such places by "language such as they would not use in any company composed of gentlemen." Sir, these are hard words; and if the imputation be just, I must, say, that the 1343 sooner we do away with popular elections altogether, the better; for surely if there be an occasion on which the English gentry are obliged to disgrace themselves for the sake of duping others, then, I say, let us take care that that occasion shall occur no more. But I do not think that the people are insulted by such base condescension. One thing at least I can aver, that such is not the case at Westminster. For my own part, I may, since this personal attack has been made upon Westminster, be perhaps permitted to say that I endeavoured to recommend myself to the electors of that great city by no other allure than the promise that I would when in parliament, exert myself to the utmost to obtain a thorough, a radical, reform of this House. I feel that I have continued to use the same language in parliament which I before used to the people; and the hon. member for Taunton is very much mistaken, if he imagines that I ever have had, or ever shall have, one way of talking to my constituents, and another way of talking to him and his brother members of this House. Sir, the longer I continue in this House, the more am I impressed with the necessity of restoring it to its original character, and of making it a control for the people, rather than a control upon the people. And I beg to take this opportunity of congratulating the House and the country, upon the prospect afforded by the declarations of those distinguished individuals of high station in society, who have lately confessed their convictions of the necessity of reform. In this trait the people will recognize their true friends, and will know to whom to turn in the hour of difficulty. It is time, indeed, for us to examine, whether or not that constitution which the gentlemen opposite are so eager to defend, be the real constitution of England, or whether it be not a system contrived for the present advantage only of a very insignificant part of the community. One sign there is by which I am led to think that the said constitution is not that which was the ancient favourite and glory of the people of England; and that is, that I find the potent friends of the noble lord opposite, the high allies, are most ready to recommend the English constitution to the discontented nations of the continent. They can see in our institutions, then, nothing incompatible with' their own views—nothing incompatible with usurpation and 1344 despotism—nothing which prevents the will of the strong from becoming the law of the weak. No wonder that they are as ready to eulogize our matchless constitution as the hon. gentlemen opposite. Matchless, indeed, in rotten boroughs—matchless in sinecures—matchless in such ministers as the noble lord and his surrounding associates—matchless in the means and the practice of corruption. The system productive of such useful effects, may well be the delight of those who see in the constitution of the Cortes, a terrific monster, fatal to the pretensions and to the purposes of tyranny. But the favorite of Alexander, or of Francis, or of the noble lord opposite, may, to the eyes of the friends of freedom, have some few defects which it may be no sin to attempt to rectify; and I trust that as they now know where the evil lies, they will not hesitate to apply the cure to the affected part. I have before said, that I do not imagine the people will hail this bill as a token of our sincerity in combating corruption.—I repeat, that I shall give my vote for it, merely because it seems to recognize in principle the necessity of putting a stop to the corruptions of parliament.
§ After a short conversation, the amendment was negatived, and the Bill was then read a third time, when
§ Mr. Tennysonmoved the omission from the preamble of certain words which stated, that on the disfranchisement of Grampound "the number of burgesses serving in parliament for England would become incomplete." It was, in his judgment, quite sufficient to state the expediency of excluding Grampound, and of substituting Leeds, without adopting an abstract proposition of so much constitutional importance with respect to which considerable difference of opinion must exist, and one which it was extremely inexpedient to trifle with in the preamble of a bill where it had no necessary place. From the earliest period to which parliamentary records extended, down to the time of Charles 2nd, the whole representation had fluctuated in consequence of the frequent discontinuance of boroughs, and of the power which the Crown had from time to time exercised of creating and restoring them; accordingly, the number of members in that House had continually varied. It would undoubtedly be inconsistent with that settled form of parlia- 1345 mentary government which had happily subsisted since the Revolution, for the Crown, of its own authority, now to attempt any change in the representation; but, although many were disposed to infer, that any variation in the number of members, even sanctioned by parliament, would, at this day, be inconsistent with the proportionate representation established for Scotland and Ireland at the periods of union with those kingdoms, others held opinions which conflicted with such an inference. He would not then discuss this matter, but should content himself with saying that parliament had never yet recognized any fixed and immutable number of representatives for England or for the whole united kingdom, or decided that one number was more complete than another. Neither would he argue the expediency or inexpediency of any such recognition; it was sufficient for his present object to urge that the question was one of great constitutional interest, and that if it were necessary or desirable to come to any determination on the subject, it was worthy of a solemn and substantive consideration upon its own merits, and ought not to be flippantly or gratuitously disposed of, as it would appear to be, if the words which he wished to expunge remained part of the bill. Either parliament had recognized the truth of the proposition contained in these words—or it had not. If it had, it was unnecessary and nugatory to re-assert it on this occasion;—if it had not, it was unfit that such recognition should be made in this oblique manner, and without that deliberation of which the subject was obviously deserving.
§ Mr. Horace Twiss and Mr. T. Courtenay opposed the motion. Lord John Russell and Mr. Robert Smith (of Lincoln) supported it; and Mr. Stuart Wortley said, that although he did not approve, he would not resist it. The motion was agreed to, and the amendment made accordingly.
§ The Bill was then passed.