§ Lord John Russellrose to make his promised motion. He said that although some circumstances had occurred in that House a short time ago, which were discouraging to any person who meant to bring forward propositions respecting reform, yet he was bold enough to say that he felt a considerable degree of confidence in proposing the measure which he would that night submit to the House. At the same time, he was by no means blind to the difficulties and the importance of the task he had undertaken. If it was true, as it undoubtedly was, that all governments depended ultimately upon opinion, it was no less true, that the government of England depended upon an opinion vigilant and enlightened, to a degree of which history, gave no example. Above all, the eyes of the country were directed, in a peculiar manner, to that House. The people looked, as it were, with a microscope at all their acts, and seemed to consider a vote of even a thousand pounds in the course of the public expenditure as a test by which the honesty of their intentions might be tried and appreciated. Instead of viewing them with any of that superstitious reverence which authority formerly created—that sort of reverence which veiled in mystery all the acts of government—a disposition existed which went rather to deny them even those advantages which must inevitably be acquired by habits of business, and to refuse them credit for that superiority, which experience and the custom of deciding on great questions of state tend so manifestly to produce. But of all the subjects which could be brought forward in parliament, the most, serious were those which related to the constitution of that House, because they operated in a particular manner, and were considered, in a peculiar degree, as tests of the disposition of the House to conduct the affairs of the country with integrity, and with a proper affection 605 towards the people, whom it professed to represent.
In stating the question of reform that night the noble lord said, he would avoid the usual mode of proposing it to the House. The natural and customary practice was, to say that that House did not represent the people, and to refer to its various acts to show that its proceedings were not conformable with the opinion of the people at large. This way of stating the question, although the best calculated for exciting the passions of an audience, was clearly very invidious, as it brought into immediate contrast the votes of the majority and minority of that House. It became necessary to argue, that those who formed the majority of that House were in a minority in the country, and to claim for the minority of that House the honour of being followed by a majority in the country. Hence a contest necessarily arose upon the merits of party which, on a great question of this kind, it was most desirable to avoid. But although he meant to lay out of sight this view of the question he was bringing forward, he neither wished to deny or to conceal that he was in principle a reformer. When he said, that he was in principle a reformer, he thereby meant, that his deliberate opinion was, that this House ought to represent the people, but that it did not, in fact, do so. He could neither agree with the opinion' of those who thought that all the proceedings of the House were in perfect conformity with the wishes of the people; nor with those who held that the House ought not to represent the people at large; but that it ought to display a sort of mixed representation—a representation of the crown; of the aristocracy, of all the upper classes, but not of the great body of the people. Having stated this, he would go no further in this beaten road of argument, but confine himself to an endeavour to prove that there had prevailed such practices, that there had arisen such innovations—whether the effects were or were not at present seen within those walls—as could not but lead, at one time or other, to a dangerous discordance between the opinions of the country at large, and the decisions of the House of Commons. He called on the House to check those practices, and to stop those innovations. He called on them to go no further, but to interpose and prevent the system from being extended, whether 606 those innovations had or had not any influence on the government.
The first object to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the practice of bribery and corruption. With respect to that practice, he thought there could not be two opinions in the House. All must agree that it was at once highly criminal and exceedingly pernicious; and no doubt could be entertained that such practices did prevail to a very great extent. When he had the honour, a year ago, to move an address on this subject, he had stated the fact, that it was a matter of common conversation in the House that bribery and corruption prevailed in different parts of the kingdom. The noble marquis opposite, who was considered the leader of that side of the House, did not venture to deny that bribery and corruption were known to exist to a great extent. He did not controvert the proposition; and he would have surprised the House, and even his own friends, if he had ventured so to do. As one proof of the effect which this corrupt system had produced, he would relate an anecdote told by the late Mr. Sheridan. That gentleman, during art election, fell into conversation with one of the voters. "I am," said he, "a friend to reform." "I am glad you are for reform," observed the voter; so am I—but some gentlemen behave so ill, they will not give their poor voters a single guinea; and I think that should be reformed." It was well known that in Cornwall this pernicious practice was carried on to the utmost extent. The general system adopted in the boroughs was for the electors to engage with some person in the neighbourhood as patron. He took care of the interest of the town, assisted the poor, and subscribed to some public work; and, for all this, he claimed a seat for himself in the House of Commons, or for any person he might think proper to nominate,; while the other seat was generally sold for a sum of money, which was divided, according to the bargain made, between the patron and the electors. That this was a practice quite common, he believed no one would deny; nor did he suppose it would be denied that such a practice was in every way injurious. The very first evil it introduced amongst the people was drunkenness, idleness, and profligacy—-a disregard of the sacred obligations and duties the constitution imposed on them—a love of feasting and dissipation—and a 607 degree of ignorance and brutality which every thinking man must deplore. The second was, that the interests and affairs of towns thus situated were very much mismanaged. In one town a sum of 200l. or 300l. a year, which was intended for the support of the poor, and for other important purposes, was, owing to this parliamentary influence, totally misapplied. It was laid out in feasts, drinking, and other improper sources of expense. Another evil consequence was, that the executive government was itself inveigled and corrupted, by the necessity which existed, under this system, of conciliating the favour of corrupt voters. It was a well known fact, that persons who had votes in those small boroughs, where the electors were not perhaps more than twenty or thirty, had very often, through the influence of their patron, an opportunity of procuring situations to which they otherwise could prefer no claim—to which they were not fairly and justly entitled. He had received many letters on this subject from the inhabitants of those boroughs; and some of them informed him, that certain offices under government were regularly sold by the voters. What he meant was this—a voter having a promise from his patron of a certain office, and not desiring it for himself or for any of his relatives, would sell it to any individual who wished to purchase it. He did not say this on vague authority; for an instance of this kind had occurred in the course of the Grampound investigation. In that case 800l. was given for an office, be believed, in the navy, the promise of which office was the reward of a vote for that borough. The fact was, that this system must corrupt the government; because they were naturally obliged to court the influence of those people, for the support of the measures of government in that House. He did not say that this remark applied more to the present than to other governments. He did not assert that it was their wish more particularly to make use of this borough influence; but it was in the nature of things that they should make use of it, and it could not be otherwise.
As 300 members of that House were returned by places with less than 5,000 inhabitants, and only 80 by the counties of England, the minister was of course obliged to look more to the support of the smaller boroughs than to the support 608 of the counties. If, therefore, these boroughs become venal and corrupt, what must be the consequence? Every one must see that what was called an appeal to the people, would then be an appeal only to a small and degraded part of the people.—Every one must see, that if the government rested on so rotten a foundation, corruption must pervade every part of the state? from the lowest departments in which those voters would have influence enough to obtain office, up to the highest situations in the government, where those persons were placed who depended on such discreditable support.
He came now to the consideration of those remedies which had been at different times provided by the legislature. In the year 1689, the year following the Revolution, a bill was brought in to prevent the enormous expenses which had been incurred at various elections; so that the struggle for our liberties bad been no sooner brought to a successful close, than attempts were made to undermine them, and to seduce the garrison to betray the post which they had won by so splendid a victory. In the 7th year of king William, was passed the act well known by the name of the Treating act: the preamble of that act he should take the liberty of reading to the House, because, with some variations, he had taken the words of it for the first Resolution which he should propose. The preamble of the Treating act was this: "Whereas grievous complaints are made, and manifestly appear to be true, in the kingdom, of undue elections of members to parliament, by excessive and exorbitant expenses, contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom due to the election of representatives for the Commons of England in parliament, to the great scandal of the kingdom, dishonourable, and may be destructive to the constitution of parliament; wherefore for remedy therein, and that all elections of members may be hereafter freely and indifferently made without charge or expense." It was hardly necessary for him to add, that the enacting clauses of this measure had not been effectual for their purpose. The prohibition against giving money at the time of the election was evaded by a tacit understanding, that it should be paid at some future period; and, accordingly, nothing was more common than for voters to receive ten or five gui- 609 neas, at the end of six months subsequent to the election. There was also another well known act, having a similar object in view—he meant the act of George 2nd, which inflicted a penalty of 500l. both on the party giving and on the party receiving a bribe; disabling them, likewise, from voting or sitting thereafter. He was sorry to say that the ingenuity of persons engaged in transactions of this nature, had discovered a loophole from this restraint; and this loophole consisted of the exemption in the act from the penalties to which the party was otherwise liable upon giving information of his accomplices. The consequence of this provision was, that a custom had sprung up of indicting certain persons engaged to meet the prosecution, so as to secure a candidate and the major part of his supporters. There remained only one statute more, of which it would hardly be necessary for him to take notice, as the author of it (Mr. Curwen) a few days ago had declared, that it was totally inefficacious, and had not been acted upon in any one case. He now, therefore, asked the House, the practice of- corruption being so injurious and so prevalent, what further remedy they were disposed to adopt? Would they wish to render the law yet more severe? In his opinion, this was not desirable; and, on the best consideration which he had been able to afford the subject, it appeared to him, that no remedy, would be efficacious which went merely to enact new punishments for bribery. To illustrate this, he might mention what they all knew with respect to the game laws, that whatever the penalty might be, it was impossible to prevent gentlemen of large funded property from having game upon their tables. In the same way, how was it to be supposed that old and decayed boroughs, inhabited by persons who were in the lowest state of poverty next to deriving their subsistence from the Poor-rates, and who must be indifferent to the proceedings of parliament and the course of public affairs, visited occasionally by men of great wealth, and ambitious views, should not present the humiliating spectacle, which they now did? How was it to be imagined that these two classes should not meet together—should not make their bargain—and that that bargain should not be corrupt? How could it be expected that, let their laws be ever so solemn, their penalties ever so high, or their hypocrisy ever so 610 well maintained, that the existing, practices should not prevail?. If men of property scrupled not to expand seven or eight thousand pounds upon a place of this description, in order to procure, support, he knew only of one means to prevent corrupt elections, and; that was, by some mode of dealing with; the franchise itself. But precedents were to; be found on their Journals which directly sanctioned the adoption of this course. In the year 1689, the-period to which lie had already referred, certain corruptions were (detected in the borough of Stockbridge, and it was then, proposed to punish that town by transferring its privilege to the county of Southampton, fl This measure was not carried into effect; and he desired the House to look to the consequence. In 1693 an election in the same, borough was declared void and corrupt, and a resolution was passed to prepare and bring in a bill for disfranchising it in future. This bill was read a third time but was, notwithstanding, subsequently lost. It was singular, however, that all these lessons had not secured the purity of elections in that borough; for so late as the year 1793, an entry was made upon their Journals, declaring that notorious bribery and corruption had prevailed at Stock-bridge. The next case to which he should draw their attention was that of Aldborough, with respect to which it was ordered, December 21st, 1696 that no writ should be issued but in a full House after twelve o'clock. Oh December 30th, 1697, more than fail year afterwards, in consequence of the malpractices which were proved to have taken place there is petition was presented from the voters, confessing their guilt, and praying the favour of the House; upon which the writ was re-issued. In the year 1698, and in 1701, a similar proceeding was adopted with respect to Bishop's Castle; and in 1701, with respect to Great Grimsby, in each of which boroughs they of the present day were not quite ignorant that transactions of the same nature had often occurred. In the year 1701 a formal complaint was made to the House, in consequence of the mal-practices which were proved to have taken place there, against a person of the name of Shepherd, for having carried on a system of corruption upon a very extensive scale—with having, in fact, been engaged at the same time in overturning the freedom of election at Bamber, Wootton Basset, 611 Andover, and Ilchester. Sir Edward Seymour was chairman of the committee of privileges. After long inquiry, the House came to this resolution; "That sir Edward Seymour hath made good his general charge against Samuel Shepherd, sen. esq. of bribery and corruption in several boroughs that send members to parliament." Shepherd was sent to the Tower. The House voted their thanks to sir Edward Seymour, upon which occasion the Speaker delivered the following speech;—
"The House has had a long examination of several corrupt practices, tending to the destruction of the constitution. They are sensible the discovery thereof is owing to your resolution, to your love of the public, and is brought about at your charge, and by your conduct. It is an honour, Sir, to you, that you are descended from ancestors who have been successful in commanding armies and fleets of this kingdom, and from a protector of this realm; but it is your personal honour that you have protected even the constitution of this place. As the House have expressed their zeal and indignation against those who have endeavoured to undermine and ruin the foundation of their liberties: so they are desirous, at the same time, that your name may stand upon record, as being the means by which it is brought about."
In the year 1702, they went into an examination with regard to certain transactions which were alleged to have taken place at Hindon. And leave was given to bring in a bill, "for disfranchising the borough of Hindon from electing members to serve in parliament." The cases of Shoreham, Cricklade, and Aylesbury were so well known, that it was unnecessary for him to do more than mention them. But the result to which lie wished to bring the House was, that neither the remedies to which he had before adverted, nor the inquiries which had occasionally taken place, had yet established any powerful, much less any complete and total check to the evil of which he complained. Something more decisive and more vigorous was yet wanting; or, instead of being diminished, we should find the arts and influence of corruption spreading more than ever. It was undeniable that at each successive general election there were not less than fifty or sixty cases in which this gross and infamous system of bribery prevailed. The 612 establishment of that tribunal, so great an improvement in every other respect, had, in some respects, retarded and prevented inquiries into the practice of corruption. They saw, in the case he had alluded to of sir E. Seymour, that the very irregularity and strange nature of the tribunal gave assistance to any member of the House desirous of exposing corrupt elections; but these advantages were entirely withheld in the case of the small body of members appointed and sworn to try the validity of one single election, and conducting itself by rules of law. The peculiar jurisdiction with which a committee appointed for this purpose found itself invested, and the limitations prescribed by the Grenville act, prevented them from extending their inquiries to any practice, unless it could be shown to affect the return. It was likewise usual to allow the parties to make up their differences; and, in that case, not a whisper was heard of any improper or corrupt proceeding. However unprincipled the conduct of either party, it was then buried in silence, and no one talked of punishment or of exposure.—An instance of this was afforded in the case of Gram-pound. The Grenville Committee appointed to try the election reported the next day, that the sitting members were duly elected, and the petition was not frivolous or vexatious, it might have been supposed that Grampound was purity itself; but when in consequence of some convictions against sir Masseh Lopez and the voters whom he bribed and did not secure, the House went into an inquiry on the subject; it appeared, that the sitting members had given from two to 150 guineas to each voter. So much for an investigation by an election committee! Sir Manasseh Lopez, who had given 35l. each to the voters was convicted in a court of law; but the sitting members, who, as it appears by the evidence given before this House, paid 7,000l. to suppress the petition, in addition to all their former bribery, escaped scot free, and represented the borough during the whole of the last parliament. Sir Manasseh Lopez lost his election, and was sent to prison for two years, and persons much more guilty remained in this House to vote a prayer to the Crown, that this unfortunate man should be brought up for judgment. He could not help being struck with the excessive hardship of this case. The noble lord said, it was from this feeling that he had conceived it 613 to be his duty to interfere; for his persuasion was, that sir Masseh Lopez was one of those individuals who were led into criminal or erroneous pursuits by their notoriety, and by the sanction which they received from prevailing practice. What he had now to propose upon this part of the subject was, that a committee be appointed to devise some better method of inquiring into complaints that might be made of future corrupt practices in boroughs than they at present possessed. Without laying down any positive plan on the subject, he was ready to state, that he should like to see a committee appointed, that should be enabled to take evidence upon oath, whenever a complaint should be made of the state of a borough, on sufficient authority to induce the House to institute inquiry Already the House had made a precedent of an inquiry without the report of a select committee, in the case of Grampound. The noble lord opposite had stated at the time, that it was a novelty, and had nevertheless agreed to establish the precedent. There was another obstacle, however, to the prosecution of these inquiries which was, that all their exertions might be defeated by subsequent proceedings in the other House. Upon this part of the subject he would confess that he should wish to see a new tribunal constituted, capable of determining disputed questions of franchise, that should be equally independent of both Houses. The details, however, of the measure would evidently be left most judiciously to the settlement of a committee.
He now came to the second part of his subject—the propriety of giving representatives to places not at present returning members to parliament. In making such a proposition, what he wished to impress upon the House was, that he was introducing nothing new, which was not clearly required by the new situation of the country—that he was proposing no innovation, where innovation had not already taken place. Let the House look to the mighty increase of our manufacturing and unrepresented towns. When his majesty's ministers were proposing the peace establishment in 1816, he, and many of his friends, had objected to it as unnecessarily large. What was the answer? His majesty's ministers referred them to the prodigious extension of these towns, and the increase of their population. In 1792, the whole of our military force of all descriptions, in Great Britain 614 and Ireland, was 57,000 men: we had this year, in Great Britain and Ireland; including militia and yeomanry, an armed force of 210,000 men. And why? It was but two or three days ago, that the prime minister of this country had assigned, as the only reason for maintaining this overwhelming force, the enlargement of those towns, and the increased numbers of their inhabitants. He founded his proposition, therefore, upon an argument which had been before urged by the government itself they both recognized the innovation; and they both maintained, that it was an innovation which required to be met by new remedies and new methods. The difference, and the only difference between them, was, that the new methods proposed by his majesty's ministers consisted in force and coercion; and the new method proposed by himself was, to conciliate popular feeling, and strengthen themselves with popular affection.
There was one argument of which he wished to take notice before he proceeded further, as it used always to take the front rank in the objections to any motion for reform. It used to be contended, that all the great towns of the kingdom, though not nominally, were virtually represented by persons of those towns, who came into parliament for small boroughs. It was continually repeated, that the merchants and commercial men who sat in that House were the virtual representatives of all these large manufacturing towns. This fiction was something like that which represented a judge as being always counsel for a prisoner; but, upon one occasion, a prisoner had observed, that if "the judge had been his counsel, he would not have nut that question," alluding to what had been just addressed to a witness from the bench. So, he believed, these towns might often say to the gentlemen who were called their virtual representatives, that if they were really so, they would not have given such a vote. It was impossible, indeed, that they could be heard in that House, or meet with the same degree of deference, as if they came directly from the place whose interests they were promoting, and spoke the sense of its inhabitants. No member, let his talents or authority be ever so high, would meet with the same attention upon a question relative to the iron manufacture, as if he sat in parliament for the town of Birmingham. But, in point of fact, the bill transferring the elective franchise from Grampound had 615 entirely abolished this argument of virtual representation.
It was now acknowledged, that reform was wanting, that an evil did exist which ought to be corrected, whenever the opportunity for so doing should occur. So much was now conceded; and in dwelling upon it, he did not wish to take the concession for more than it was worth: it amounted to this, that the evil ought to be corrected only when a fit opportunity should present itself; and it still remained for him to prove, that the evil was of such a magnitude as to require, not only that every opportunity should be embraced, but that means should be expressly taken for immediately bringing representatives of the larger towns within those walls. It gave him pain to be under the necessity of showing in what manner the towns iii question had been governed, since they rose into importance, or from about the middle of the revolutionary war with France. It was pretty well known that they had no municipal constitutions of their own: Manchester was under the direction of an officer called boroughreeve, who was, in fact, the steward of the lord of the soil: the town had no sessions of its own, but was included under the same superintendence as the adjoining hundred of Salford. Birmingham was governed by a head borough and constables; and was in the eye of the law nothing more than a village. In neither of these rich and populous communities were there individuals to whom, from their rank or official station, the people were accustomed to look for the tone and colour of their political opinions. In towns that were represented, however violent the politics of those towns might be, there were certain persons candidates for seats in that House, who acted under the control of public opinion, and who gave a consistent colour to the opinions of the body whom they wished to represent. A popular election, besides giving vent to discontent, embodied the vague wishes of hostile parties, and forced all to seek some object which had at least a plausible and legal appearance. It was to the want of any such political centre in these towns, that he was inclined to attribute some of those unfortunate occurrences which had taken place amongst them since the war. There was no authority to which they could conform, or from which they could derive instruction; and when such men as Hunt and Knight came amongst them, the 616 people knew not what to make of them or their doctrines. In this state of things, what was the policy adopted by his majesty's ministers? What was the mode which they selected for allaying the discontent which then prevailed? So far from endeavouring to confirm or establish the authority of persons whose fortune and whose station were pledges of their attachment to the state, a lord lieutenant was himself suspected of harbouring designs hostile to that constitution. Instead of communicating with him, he was removed from his office. And, who was the individual substituted for the purpose of calming these agitations? He was no other than Oliver the spy. Who was the virtual representative of Manchester at that period? The answer must be, "Oliver the spy." At a time when all the elements of combustion were ready to break out into desperate activity, who was the arbiter of peace or civil war in England? The answer must still be, "Oliver the spy." [Hear, hear!] The men to whom he had alluded, and who had been described as ripe for subverting the government and laws, had, indeed, acted in a manner which went to endanger the institutions which were most dear to us. The people were at that time in a state afterwards described by the magistrates, as one of extreme distress, in which they were ready to listen to any plan that professed to relieve it. Now, he knew but of two reasons why men obeyed a government. The first was, because they thought it a crime to rebel; the second was, the fear of punishment. The first of these motives was taken away by the demagogues who taught these poor people, that the government was so utterly corrupt and vicious, that rebellion had become a duty. Then came the government spy, and took away the second motive for obedience, by telling these unfortunate, starving artisans, that 70,000 men were ready to rise in London and second their efforts to overthrow the state. It was a singular proof of the loyalty of the people of England, that, with all this incitement, no rising had taken place in the year 1817, that could not be quelled by twenty or thirty dragoons. He feared, indeed, that there were some persons who thought that a system of coercion and violence was the only plan upon which the government of so populous a country would be advantageously administered. He feared that 617 there were some who had even applauded the bloody tragedy which was acted at Manchester, and who openly avowed their opinion, that severe prosecutions, that multiplied punishments, and a large standing army, were indispensably necessary. This was their budget of resources: such were the ways and means of oppression by which they proposed to govern a free state. But he would ask even those who defended this mode of government, what further means of security remained? What further tax upon the liberties of the people they could propose, in case of fresh discontents? To increase their standing army? They must, at the same time, increase their burthens; and that increase would occasion disaffection by the very means they proposed to subdue it. To add to their restrictive laws? Those laws had been already pushed as far as it was possible to go, without entirely relinquishing their freedom. He knew but of one resource, of what the noble lord opposite called a system of severe coercion, that had been left untried; and that was, what he would not trust himself with contemplating—he meant a censorship of the press. Surely the example of Glasgow, in April last, proved that we were not safe at present. The question was, therefore, how to secure our safety? Would they continue to restrain, to coerce, and to punish; or, by giving at once, those rights to which their claimants were fairly entitled, try whether they could not, in that manner, conciliate their affections? The proposition which he had to submit was in strict consonance with the practice of parliament, and with the fundamental principles of the constitution, as declared at the best periods of our history. It had, indeed, been questioned, whether it was of any advantage to a body of freemen to have representatives sitting in the legislature; but he could assure the House, that he did not stand there to defend the constitution of England; nor as the advocate of general liberty. It was already provided by that constitution, as a security for our liberties, that the people should come to that House, that they should state their grievances; and whilst the king redressed them, as matter of grace, they, through their representatives, still reserved to themselves the power of granting supplies. To the examples of Wales, of Chester, and of Durham, he might triumphantly appeal for the conclusive refutation of this argument. He wished 618 to see the principle adhered to in those several cases again brought into effectual operation; so that all the various streams of British liberty might mingle together, and in their majestic course, beautify and fertilize every region through which they passed. His hon. friend (Mr. Lambton) had said, on a late occasion, that he could not assent to any plan for granting compensation to boroughs for the loss of their elective franchise, and had called it a measure for acknowledging and sanctioning a white slave trade. On his hon. friend's principle it would be clearly impossible to admit any such arrangement, for that principle went to alter the whole frame of our representative system, to transfer the right of election to counties, and to treat Old Sarum and the city of London with equal respect. Whereas, the proposition which he had now to submit was formed upon a scheme already in existence; and were he to assume that the smaller boroughs were alone corrupt, he might be justly told that the larger were, perhaps, still more so. It had been said, that the elective franchise was a service, and that therefore no compensation ought to be given for it. But he contended, that it was also a privilege, and he held in his hand a copy of the charter of Wenlock, the first charter, he believed, in which the right of sending members to parliament was conferred, where that, with other privileges, was expressly granted by Edward 4th, in consideration of—these were the words of the charter—"the commendable and gratuitous services which our beloved and faithful liegemen and residents in the town of Wenlock have performed to us, in establishing our right to the crown of England, which from us and our ancestors hath been a great while withheld, being disposed to show our grace and favour to the same men and residents." The charter then went on to enumerate the privileges granted. One of these was, "Also we have granted to the same burgesses, their heirs, and successors, that they and their successors for ever shall and may chuse from themselves and others, one burgess for the borough aforesaid, to attend the parliaments of us and our heirs." And the charter goes on to say, that this burgess shall be admitted and sit in parliament in the same manner as the burgesses of any other borough. But, at the time of the Irish Union, a direct precedent was established for granting compensation to bo- 619 roughs, upon their disfranchisement. The 40th Geo. 3rd, c. 34, is intituled, "An Act for granting Allowances to Bodies Corporate, and Individuals in respect of those cities, towns, and boroughs, which shall cease to send any member to parliament after the Union, and to make compensation to those persons whose offices may thereby be discontinued or diminished in value." Here, then, we had a direct precedent for depriving boroughs of their franchises, and granting them a pecuniary compensation in lieu of them. A sum of 1,400,000l. was granted by the Irish parliament for this purpose. He now wished to submit a few considerations on the general principle of his resolutions, which was that of extending the right of representation to certain places not now possessing it. Persuaded he was, that nothing could be more essential than the prosecution of such a course, if they either wished to preserve the affections of the people, or to hand down unimpaired to posterity those blessings of freedom which they had themselves inherited. The course which he should recommend was, to widen the basis of their representative system, in proportion to the vast increase of our wealth and population. In support of this principle he had the authority of all history and experience; and might refer them, in the first instance, to the constitution of Spain. There was a period when Spain had 300 represented towns; but in the reign of Charles 5th, this number was reduced to seventeen, and was no longer able to cope with the power of the Crown. Italy was an example equally in point. Daring the 13th century, there were, in the different independent states of Italy, no less than 1,800,000 freemen. In the 14th century they were reduced to 180,000, and in the 15th century, there were not above 18,000 individuals who possessed the rights and privileges of citizens. What was the consequence? The downfall of the Italian states as soon as they were invaded—the utter decay of towns, once so flourishing—once so abundant in all the productions of genius and freedom. It was a remark of an eminent historian of the present day, that "this gradual diminution of the number of those who had rights, and who were ready to defend them by immense sacrifices, was, perhaps, the chief cause of the fall of the Italian governments. Liberty," he says, "which had at first been placed on the broadest 620 basis, was made at last to rest on the point of a pyramid."
This, then, was what he now called on the House to beware of. He called upon them to enlarge the foundation of our common liberty; and he asked them, whether, if the suffrages of the people should become more and more contracted, they could look forward to any other result than that their posterity should be, one day, as base and degenerate as the population of Italy had lately shown itself to be As the basis of representation was contracted in Italy, so their republics had, one after another, been overthrown; the inhabitants, without intellectual vigour, and perverted in their moral habits, had lost all the dignity of their ancient character. They were found, at the commencement of the nineteenth century, so negligent of their former fame—so degraded in their political feelings—that they had acted in a manner which he was sure must kindle indignation in the breast of every one who heard him. Why were the people of this country more attentive than ever to the conduct and measures of government, but because they felt the hand of government interfering with them every day and in every place? He would only add one reason more, why he pressed this subject on the serious attention of the House. The people of this country, above all other nations, required that its government should go hand-in-hand with them. He had seen despotisms firmly established and likely to endure. But why? Because, if the people had little to do with the government, the government had little to do with them—a few taxes and a mild administration of laws left the nation at its ease, perfectly careless who was raised to be minister, or how soon the same minister was excluded by some court intrigue. But in this country we could have no such foundation for obedience—we could not be satisfied with lukewarm loyalty and tranquil indifference—we must have not only the heart but the whole heart—not only the affections but the entire affections of the English nation. For we obliged them, by the sacrifices we asked, to be thinking continually of the state. It could not go on unless supported by the zeal and devoted attachment of the subject. The people were called upon, after all the triumphs which had been achieved, to bear, in silent and patient endurance, all the accumulating burthens which had been 621 heaped upon them. We had not now the song of victory to cheer, or the hazards of war to incite them; we could offer no stimulating motive to enable them to forget their difficulties and distresses. He therefore asked—he implored of the House, to lose no time in adding another link of connexion between themselves and the country. He conjured them to manifest such a disposition as would convince the people that they were sincere in their endeavours to accomplish a reform; and would render the throne, the aristocracy, and every institution of the state, once more objects of veneration with the English nation.
He had now said all that he believed it was necessary for him to offer to the House upon this occasion. He was fully aware of the difficulty of the task which he had undertaken. To some, he was aware, that he was an object of alarm, as carrying his speculations much too far. Others had treated his proposal with ridicule, as narrow and insufficient, maintaining, that much greater charges were both practicable and necessary. There were persons who were apprehensive that the slightest change must go to endanger the whole system. This last description of persons seemed to overlook the real changes which had taken place in our constitution, and the extent to which the spirit of our laws had been in various ways departed from. He should fearlessly submit for approval or rejection, a proposition which, after the best thinking he could apply to the subject, appeared to him calculated for the benefit of the community at large—a proposition which he doubted not would stand in need of correction, but which was, at least, in its spirit, just and reasonable. Having laid it before the House, he should have the satisfaction of saying to his own heart, that he had done his duty. The noble lord concluded by moving the following resolutions:
- 1. "That grievous complaints are made in the kingdom, and manifestly appear to be true, of undue elections of members to serve as burgesses in parliament, by gross bribery and corruption, contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom due to the election of representatives for the Commons of England in parliament, to the great scandal of the kingdom, dishonourable, and may be destructive, to the constitution of parliaments.
622 - 2 "That, in order to strengthen and maintain the necessary connexion between the Commons of this kingdom and their representatives in parliament, it is expedient to give to such places as are greatly increased in wealth and population, and are not at present adequately represented, the right of returning members to serve in parliament.
- 3. "That a select committee be appointed to consider to what places, according to the principle of the foregoing resolution, it may be advisable to extend the right of returning members to serve in parliament, and of the best method of effecting that measure, without an inconvenient addition to the members of this House.
- 4. "That it be referred to the same committee, to consider further of a mode of proceeding with respect to any boroughs which may hereafter be charged with notorious bribery and corruption, in order that such charges may be regularly and effectually inquired into, and, if proved, that such boroughs may be disabled from sending burgesses to serve in parliament for the future."
§ The first resolution being put,
Mr. Whitmore, in rising to second the motion of the noble lord, assured the House that he was an enemy to radical reform, whether in the shape of annual parliaments and universal suffrage, or in that milder form of it which proposed to give the right of voting to inhabitant, householders; because it appeared to; him to aim at the total overthrow of that constitution, which had raised this country to a pitch of glory, unexampled in ancient and modern history. The elements of insecurity were so mixed up with the fabric of radical reform, that instead of amending any part of the superstructure of the constitution, it was calculated to throw the whole superstructure down. But, while he objected to radical reform, because it would tend to make that House purely and entirely democratical, he was a friend to a mode? rate and rational reform, and he supported the resolutions of the noble lord, because he thought they were calculated to attain that object; and that the noble lard's plan would be found capable of a safe and easy execution. Great changes had taken place among the people since the House had been constituted as it then was; and a change was therefore necessary in order to make the House suited 623 to the age and to the state of the people. Instead of the members of it being the tools, they ought to be a check upon the aristocracy; arid instead of being subservient to the views of government, the; House ought to have its constitutional control over the: acts of ministers. He had no doubt but an effectual stop might be put to the pernicious consequences arising from bribery and corruption; and that the admission of the large towns to a participation of the elective franchise would tend to tranquillize the people.
§ The Speakerhaving read the first resolution, there was a loud cry of "Strangers, withdraw;" and the gallery was nearly cleared for a division.
Mr. Bathurstrose; but the noise was be excessive, that for several minutes it was impossible to hear him. He said, he thought the remedy should be considered distinctly from the grievance. He had no objection to the principle of disfranchisement, in cases similar to that of Grampound. He understood the noble lord to propose, in some cases, the disfranchisement of boroughs, although no corruption might be proved. In order to justify this measure, it was necessary for the noble lord to show that the House, in its present state, was inadequate to its purposes. Now, there was no ground for supposing, that by an alteration of the constitution, we should see any increase in the number of popular members. The House, with all its alleged abuses, was perfectly competent to discharge all its functions. The noble lord had stated, that parliament, as it was constituted, could not go on for any length of time. It was however obvious, that parliament in the state it then was, had carried the country through difficulties and dangers never exceeded in the annals of any country in the world. Supposing the elective franchise extended to persons holding property of the value of 10l. he much doubted whether, out of the persons assembled at Manchester, one hundred could be found possessed of even 10l. per annum to supply the places of members deprived of their seats by reform. Could it be supposed that such a reform would remove the complaints? Men would be returned, who, instead of being a valuable addition to the House, would prove pernicious, inasmuch as they would prevent those from acting who had more practical information. The noble lord, upon the whole, had had no foun- 624 dation for overturning the constitution of the House. The noble lord's plan went to take away the votes from small boroughs, where he supposed corruption was prevalent. It was however utterly impossible for the House to adopt that principle. If once they acted upon such a system, they could never tell where to-stop. He should therefore move the previous question.
§ Mr. Barhamhoped, as the borough of Stockbridge, Which he represented, had been alluded to by the noble lord as an instance of gross corruption, he might be permitted to say a few words. He knew that 130 years since, complaints of that; nature bad been made; but, from, some cause or other, it had not been disfranchised. That borough was now pure, and there was not a greater share of independence in any city or county than at present existed in the borough of Stock-bridge. He came down to the House to support the resolution, and the noble lord would not find any one more zealous in doing it than himself. Should the plan of the noble lord be agreed to, the state of all the boroughs would be brought under the notice of the committee; and, in that case, he had no objection that Stockbridge should be placed first on the list.
§ The previous question being put, the House divided; Ayes, 124; Noes, 155: Majority against the Resolution, 31. The previous question was then put on the other resolutions, and negatived.
| List of the Majority, and also of the Minority. | |
| MAJORITY. | |
| Ancram, lord | Cheere, J. M. |
| Alexander, J. | Chaplin, C. |
| Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C. | Collett, E. J. |
| Binning, lord | Cooper, S. |
| Bourne, rt. hon. S. | Cooper, B. |
| Bastard, E. P | Chetwynd, G. |
| Bankes, H. | Cripps, Jos. |
| Brecknock, lord | Courtenay, T. P. |
| Baillie, J. | Courtenay, W. |
| Buchanan, J. | Cocks, hon. J.G. |
| Browne, P. | Cockburn, sir G. |
| Burgh, sir U. | Copley, sir J. |
| Bathurst, hon. S. | Cranborne, lord |
| Bathurst, rt. hn. B. | Child, W. L. |
| Broadhead, T. | Cartwright K. |
| Bankes, G. | Calvert, J. |
| Bruce, R. | Clerk, sir G. |
| Barry, rt. hon. M. | Clive, H. |
| Blair, J. | Cole, sir L. |
| Blake, Rob. | Dodson, Dr. |
| Beckett, rt. hon. J. | Drummond, S. |
| Dowdeswell, J. E. | Munday, capt. |
| Dunally, Lord | Mansfield, John |
| Doveton, G. | Martin, sir T. B. |
| Downie, Rob. | Nightingale, sir M. |
| Duncombe, W. | Nolan, M. |
| Eliot, hon. W. | Neale, sir H. |
| Ellison, C. | Ommaney, sir F. |
| Egerton, W. | Osborne, sir J. |
| Fynes, H. | Pitt, Jos. |
| Fellowes, W. H. | Penruddocke, J. |
| Freemantle, W. | Pearse, J. |
| Fane, John | Pitt, W. M. |
| Fane, John Thos. | Paxton, J. G. |
| Fane, V. | Palmerston, lord |
| Forbes, lord | Phillimore, Jos. |
| Finch, G. | Phipps, gen. |
| Goulburn, H. | Roberts, W. A. |
| Greville, sir C. | Rogers, E. |
| Gooch, T. S. | Robinson, rt. hon. F. |
| Grant, rt. hon. C. | Russell, J. W. |
| Grant, A. C. | Robertson, Alex. |
| Grosett, W. | Somerset, lord. G. |
| Gifford, sir R. | Scourfield, W. H. |
| Gilbert, D. G. | Sotheron, F. |
| Grant, Geo. M. | Strutt, T. H. |
| Gordon, hon. W. | Sneyd, N. |
| Holmes, W. | St. Paul, sir H. |
| Hotham, lord | Sumner, T. H. |
| Holford, G. P. | Somerset, lord E. |
| Handley, H. | Smith, Chr. |
| Hardinge, sir H. | Stopford, lord |
| Hare, hon. R. | Tremayne, J. H. |
| Hope, sir W. | Trench, F. |
| Halse, sir C. | Thompson, H. |
| Huskisson, rt. hon. W. | Townshend, hon. H. |
| Hill, sir G. | Taylor, sir H. |
| Irvine, J. | Twiss, H. |
| Jenkinson, hon. C. | Ure, M. |
| Keck, S. A. L. | Vansittart, hon. N. |
| Knatchbull, sir E. | Vernon, Geo. |
| Kinnersley, W. S. | Vaughan, sir R. |
| Lascelles, W. | Wynn, C. W. |
| Luttrell, H. | Ward, J. W. |
| Luttrell, J. F. | Wemyss, J. |
| Lowther, John | Wodehouse, Ed. |
| Lowther, J. H. | Wells, John |
| Lowther, hon. C. | Ward, R. |
| Londonderry, lord | Wrottesley, H. |
| Lenox, lord G. | Wilmot, R. |
| Long, rt. hon. C. | Wilson, Thos. |
| Lushington, S. R. | Wallace, rt. hon. T. |
| Lewis, F. | Warrender, sir G. |
| Morland, sir S. B. | Walpole, lord |
| Martin, R. | Wellesley, R. |
| Manners, lord R. | Wilbraham, E. B. |
| Miles, J. |
| MINORITY. | |
| Althorp, visc. | Langston, J. H. |
| Abercromby, hon. J. | Lawley, hon. F. |
| Allen, J. H. | Leigh, J. H. |
| Buxton, T. F. | Maberly, John |
| Bentinck, lord W. | Maberly, W. L. |
| Barnard, visct. | Macdonald, J. |
| Bright, Henry | Mackintosh, sir J. |
| Baring, Alex. | Martin, John |
| Belgrave, visc. | Maxwell, J. |
| Beaumont, T. P. | Milton, Visct. |
| Barham, J. | Monck, J. B. |
| Barham, Jos. F. | Moore, Peter |
| Baring, H. | Moore, Abraham |
| Boughey, sir J. F. | Newman, R. W. |
| Burrell, sir C. | Newport, rt. Hon. sir J. |
| Barrett, S. M. | |
| Becher, W. W. | Nugent, lord |
| Bennet, hon. H. G. | O'Callaghan, J. |
| Benyon, B. | Ord, Wm. |
| Bernal, Ralph | Ossulston, lord |
| Birch, Joseph | Palmer, C. F. |
| Brougham, Henry | Pares, Tho. |
| Burdett, sir F. | Pierce, Henry. |
| Blake, sir F. | Phillips, George |
| Chaloner, Rob. | Phillips, G. jun. |
| Calcraft, John | Price, Robert |
| Calvert, Charles | Pryse, Pryse |
| Calvert, Nic. | Pym, Francis |
| Campbell, hon. J. | Ramsden, J. C |
| Carter, John | Ricardo, David |
| Cavendish, Charles | Robarts, Ab. |
| Clifton, visc. | Robarts, G. |
| Coke, T. W. | Rumbold, Mr. |
| Colburne, N. R. | Robinson, sir Geo. |
| Concannon, Lucius | Rowley, sir W. |
| Crespigny, sir W. D. | Russell, lord Wm. |
| Crompton, Saml. | Russell, lord John |
| Denison, W. J. | Rice, T. S. |
| Denman, Thos. | Smith, John |
| Duncannon, vise | Smith, hon. Robt. |
| Dundas, hon. T. | Smith, Wm. |
| Ebrington, vise. | Smythe, J. H. |
| Ellice, Edw. | Scarlett, James. |
| Fergusson, sir R. C. | Sefton, earl of |
| Fitzgerald, lord W. | Stanley, lord |
| Fitzroy, lord C. | Stuart, lord J. |
| Folkestone, visc. | Sebright, sir John |
| Frankland, R. | Swann, H. |
| Guise, sir W. | Tavistock, marq. of |
| Gordon, Robt. | Taylor, M. A. |
| Grattan, J. | Tierney, rt. hon. G. |
| Gaskell, Ben. | Townshend, lord C. |
| Haldimand, W. | Tennyson, C. |
| Harbord, hon. E. | Warre, J. A. |
| Heathcote, G. J. | Webbe, Ed. |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Wharton, John |
| Honywood, W. P. | Whitbread, Sam. C. |
| Hornby, Edmund | Whitbread, W. H. |
| Hume, Joseph | Williams, Wm. |
| Hurst, Robt. | Wilson, sir Robt. |
| Hutchinson, hon. C. | Wood, Matthew |
| Heygate, ald. | Wyvill, M. |
| James, W. | Whitmore, W. W. |
| Johnson, col. | |
| Lambton, John. G. | PAIRED OFF |
| Lennard, T. B. | Davies, col. |
| Lemon, sir W. | Plumer, W. |