HC Deb 14 April 1831 vol 3 cc1349-59
Mr. Hunt

presented a Petition from the inhabitants of the suburbs of Manchester, in which they stated, that though they thought no Reform would be effectual without Vote by Ballot, yet they were favourable to the Ministerial plan, and hoped it would be carried without being suffered to be impaired by those parties who were interested in the existence of the abuses of the country. In presenting another Petition from New Lanark, complaining of Distress, of Taxation without Representation, and praying for a repeal of the Corn Laws, the hon. Member expressed his regret at the absence of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, and of the hon. member for Waterford, both of whom had attacked him last night, as the present petition would have shown them, that he was correct in his observations. The present petitioners prayed for the abolition of the restrictions on the importation of corn, and also that the people might not be called upon to serve in the militia, or to pay taxes, until every kind of retrenchment was adopted, their grievances redressed, and a full Reform granted in the Commons House of Parliament. He had, however, been attacked by those hon. Members, so that between Sawney and Blarney he had enough upon his hands.

Mr. O' Connell, who had just then entered the House, said, that he could easily reply to the charges made against him by the hon. member for Preston. He begged to congratulate the hon. Member on becoming the oracle of the Tories, who now continually quoted him on all important occasions. The hon. member for Preston represented the people of England as if they were like the dog with the meat crossing a brook, and anxious to throw it aside in order to catch hold of that which was impracticable —the shadow. The hon. Member was certainly urging the people of England to look after the shadow and forget the substance. He was, in fact, a mock reformer, and not a real one. He was not a substantial corrector of abuses, but appeared to be rather anxious to pull down all the establishments of the country — while, on the contrary, he (Mr. O'Connell) was quite willing, when an opportunity offered of correcting abuses, to sacrifice the theory of Reform to its practice, and to accept the benefit. Nay, more —when he found that that Government, which had commenced prosecutions against him, were about to concede Reform to the country, instead of compromising with them, as had been charged against him, he made no compromise, but he did sacrifice his personal feelings to lend them his support in conferring a benefit on the country. As, however, the hon. member for Preston was thus injuring the cause of Reform, he would make a present of him to the Tories altogether. He mistook what had fallen from him (Mr. O'Connell), and misrepresented him accordingly; and, without accusing him of selling himself to the Tories, he must say that he had also mistaken and misrepresented in like manner the people of England. He did not mean to say, that he had been bought, for he did not think that he would sell himself to the Tories, or that they would buy him; but he had certainly shown them that he was a lumping pennyworth if they were disposed to purchase.

Mr. John Campbell

said, that, in the absence of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, he would say, that he entirely concurred in every thing which had fallen from him on the previous evening. He would not charge the hon. member for Preston with having sold himself, for he was incapable of doing so, but, notwithstanding his respect for him, he must say that his conduct was suspicious. He believed, that the hon. Member had elicited the opinions of the few hundred thousand persons of whom he spoke on a former evening, by putting leading questions to them, such as "Would you not rather have no Reform than such a Reform as this?" to which a multitude like that would naturally reply in the affirmative. The sentiments the hon. Member stated were not the sentiments of the people of England.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

said, that he had never known any measure give so much satisfaction as the present. There were not, in the whole kingdom, 5,000 persons who would be found to disapprove of the measure. He thought it a remedy for all present evils, and he had no doubt that in any future House there would be individuals fully competent to carry on the business of the country. He merely rose, in consequence of his connection with large bodies of men, to give his contradiction to the statements which had been made.

Sir Henry Hardinge

observed, that as the hon. member for Waterford had complimented the hon. member for Preston in having gone over to the Tories, the hon. member for Preston might compliment the hon. member for Waterford in having gone over to the Whigs. The hon. Baronet, the member for Lewes, had stated, that when he went to his constituents, there were only one or two who approved of the Bill. He (Sir H. Hardinge) understood from undoubted authority that the freemen of Lewes were persuaded that the Bill would not answer its objects, and that they had come to a resolution, in the event of a dissolution, of again returning their present Representative, who opposed the Bill, to Parliament. In Northamptonshire there was any thing but a universal feeling in favour of Reform. He rather believed that an anti-Reform feeling had been expressed not only by the property of the county, but by a large majority in point of numbers.

Mr. Kennedy

said, that the persons in Scotland from whom this petition emanated were peculiarly satisfied with the Reform Bill. In Paisley there was a universal feeling of satisfaction. He was sure that no hon. Member could contradict the statement that at a meeting at Paisley, unexampled for numbers and respectability, a universal feeling of satisfaction was expressed.

Mr. Hunt

hoped, that the House would bear with him for a short time, having been attacked in the way that he had been. How often had he said, that the people were run wild in favour of this cause? He was heard at the Common Hall of the City of London with great complacency in favour of the Bill, but the moment he endeavoured to say any thing to show, that it would not have the effect which was expected, he was no longer favoured with a hearing. He had stated, that the whole country were running wild with such a degree of unanimity as he had never before beheld in this country. There was, however, a reaction beginning; and he would observe, in answer to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, that he had had today two deputations from the City of London (he had had one yesterday), to invite him to take the chair at a meeting of the operatives, to express their disapprobation of the Reform Bill; but he had declined, having otherwise more business than he could manage. Situated as he was, between Caledonia and Hibernia, he had quite enough to do. He was ready however to face the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, either there or elsewhere. What he had said was, that he was about to present a petition from new Lanark, praying to be relieved from taxation, unless they were represented in Parliament. That was all that he had said. The hon. mem- ber for Waterford talked something about Paddy. He had said nothing about Paddy. What he had said was, that he had been attacked by Hibernia, on one side, overpowering him with tears, and Caledonia threatening great heat and fire on the other; and that between "Sawney" and "Blarney" he was very nearly overwhelmed. Everyone would think, after the speech of the hon. member for Waterford, that "Blarney" was applicable to him. The hon. member for Waterford had said that he (Mr. Hunt) had made an attack upon him. Attack! what attack did he make on the hon. and learned Member? He should not have said a word, unless he had been previously attacked. The hon. Member did not charge him openly with any thing, but he insinuated something in the same way as he had accused the hon. member for Weymouth. "Now Sir (said Mr. Hunt), I do not insinuate, but I boldly and plainly tell him, in the face of this House, and in the face of the country, that he trafficked with the Marquis of Anglesey for the very office which Mr. Doherty now holds. There would have been no agitation about the Union, if Mr. Doherty had not got the situation instead of him. Mr. Bennett was the go-between in the negotiation. The hon. and learned Member accused him of having sold himself to the Tories — let him prove that. Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Waterford might say about his being no Reformer, and about the hon. and learned Member himself being a real Reformer, he knew that he had shown himself a Reformer. He appealed to the House —he would not appeal to the hon. and learned Member —yes, he would appeal to the hon. Member whether he had a double way of shooting? He would appeal to the country whether he had expressed one sentiment to-day and another to-morrow? He had always been the advocate of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. The hon. member stated at Clare that he was in favour of Vote by Ballot and Universal Suffrage. It was the hon. and learned Member, therefore, that was the shifter and not he. The hon. and learned Member had declared at the election for Clare, that he was the advocate of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot; and it was therefore, the hon. Member that had shifted his ground. The hon. and learned Member agreed with the Ministers —so did he to a certain extent —but he was not satisfied that their measure was an unmixed good, and, therefore, he could not say so. He could not change his sentiments because the hon. member for Waterford did. There was a discussion last night. on the discontent which existed in Clare. Did that hon. and learned Member not think, that a great part of the discontent in Clare arose from his having broken his promises? He had promised them, that when he was in Parliament he would move for a Repeal of the Act for disfranchising the 40s. freeholders. The hon. Member had not done any such thing. For his own part he had never consented to disfranchise any man. He must unequivocally say, that the people of England, who had been running wild in favour of the Reform Bill, were recovering their senses, and that the seven millions of adults who were not to receive any share of the franchise by this Bill, were no further in favour of it than, as he had before stated, because it would make an inroad into that system which was disgraceful to the whole country. With regard to the measure itself, though what he might say of it would be said to be a proof that he had joined the Tories, he must observe, that alterations in it were necessary, and alterations had been announced. The noble Lord who announced them gave one version of those alterations, the hon. Secretary for Ireland had given another, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given a third, which was different from the two others. Probably all these Gentlemen meant the same, but, from want of consulting with each other, they did not agree in their stories. He begged to ask, then, what they did mean? A petition had been presented from Warwick for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill —yet now the Bill was to be altered. Nothing of that which he had always contended for was to be granted by the Bill, and he, therefore, was not content with the measure. He had attended a meeting in Somersetshire a fortnight ago, and at the close of that meeting the people had come to an unanimous resolution in favour of Vote by Ballot. The members for Somersetshire were not then attending their duty in the House, as they had not attended their duty at the meeting, he would not, therefore, present the petition. As to his constituents, he was not afraid to meet them —he was not afraid of the threat held out in The Times of this morning, of a dissolution; he did not object to a dissolution, and was not afraid of his seat. If his constituents objected to his conduct, let them only say so, and he would accept the Chiltern Hundreds. What did he gain by sitting there till two o'clock in the morning, or what could he gain? Neither the Tories nor the Whigs had anything to give him which he would accept of. If ever he should accept anything, let the House and the country form such an opinion of him as he had of the hon. member for Waterford.

Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, in reference to his statement on the former evening, explained, that he had said the whole population of Scotland were, he believed, in favour of the principle of the Bill, but they did not agree in all its details and in all its provisions. Two or three counties with which he was connected had declared in favour of the principle of Reform, but they did not like the sweeping nature of the Bill. One county in which the people had declared m favour of the Bill, objected to reducing the rate for voting so low as was intended, but that was not the case with the majority of his constituents, and he believed with the majority of the people of Scotland. There was one occasion on which the hon. member for Preston must have been, he believed, much misreported. He had been made to say at a meeting of the people in Manchester, that "he would let them into a secret which they could not learn from the news-papers, because there was a conspiracy between the Ministers and the Reporters to carry the Bill. The Ministers had openly avowed in the House that they had called in one million of the middle classes to take a share in the Representation, in order to keep down the lower classes, that they meant to raise the volunteers again, that they might keep their hands in the pockets of the people, and that the people might not escape their present work" [hear, hear! from Mr. Hunt]. He was sorry to suppose, that the hon. Member meant to justify such language. Did he mean to say, that Ministers had avowed that they introduced a million of voters to keep down and crush the lower classes? He denied, that such language had ever been used in that House by the Ministers. If the hon. Member avowed such language, he must justify it. He supposed that what he had said was not a fair report of what the hon. Member had spoken, and he mentioned it, that the hon. Member might contradict it. He could not conceive anything more mischievous, anything more likely to hold up that House to the contempt and even to the indignation, of the people. The hon. Member had stated, that the Ministers had done nothing to reduce the price of bread. or diminish the hours of labour. Could it be expected of any Reform Bill that it should reduce the price of bread or diminish the hours of labour? He expected nothing of that kind from Reform. He expected that Reform would make that House a more faithful guardian of the public purse. Wars would not have been so frequent, so wasteful, and so expensive, and would sooner have been put an end to; the nation would not have been so heavily taxed, nor have groaned under its present load of debt, had the people been fully and fairly represented. But to say that Reform would reduce the price of bread or diminish the necessity for labour, was absurd. He could not wish his greatest enemy a greater evil than to propound a plan of Reform, of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot, on the ground that it would make bread cheap and labour light, and afterwards to meet the disappointed people. Such language was extremely dangerous, and he was astonished that the hon. Member had not disavowed it.

Major Macnamara

said, that he was on the hustings at Clare, at the election of 1829, and then the hon. member for Waterford had made no such promises as had been stated by the hon. member for Preston.

Mr. Francis Baring

said, that the petition could afford no evidence of what were the feelings of the people of Scotland as to the Reform Bill; for it was dated March the 4th, before the people who had signed it could have known the contents of that Bill.

Mr. O'Connell

would not have taken any notice of the observations of the hon. member for Preston, had he not introduced the names of the Marquis of Anglesey and of Mr. Bennett. As he was quite sure that, as to them, the charge was unfounded, as far as Mr. Bennett was concerned, he said, unequivocally, that it was totally without foundation. As to the Marquis of Anglesey, the hon. Member probably knew nothing more of him, than that he had seen him ride about the streets on horseback; and be was sure, that as to him the charge was also unfounded. As to himself, he would assert, that since that House had been constituted, a charge more completely unfounded never had been made. The hon. Member must now shift his ground.

Mr. Hunt

rose to say, that the report alluded to by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright was a false report. He had stated nothing at Manchester that he had not staled in that House. He had stated in that House, that what fell from the member for Calne was, that in the opinion of Ministers the Bill was calculated to unite the middle classes to the higher classes and the Government, and keep down the rabble. That was stated by the hon. member for Calne. He had repeated it; and it was placed on record in The Times. The principle he had stated was, that with the proposed Reform there would be a perpetual Corn-law, and therefore bread would be no cheaper; but that, with a properly reformed Parliament, the Corn-laws would be abolished, and bread would be cheaper. A reformed Parliament would get rid of the Corn-laws, but a Parliament reformed by the Bill, would only make the Corn-laws perpetual. A Parliament reformed as it ought to be, would make corn cheap, clothing cheap, and labour less. He had stated that; and he had stated that, with a reformed Parliament, it would not be necessary to work sixteen hours a day. A reformed Parliament would relieve the people from pensions and taxes. A reformed Parliament would not have voted away the money of the people as the present Parliament did last night when the Civil List was before them; and, therefore, he was friendly to Reform of any kind. He meant nothing offensive to either party, but he must say he was neither Whig nor Tory, and he expected nothing, and would take nothing which it was in the power of either party to give. He required no protection from any one, for he hoped, as long as he had a seat in that House, that he should be able to protect himself. With regard to the hon. member for Waterford (Mr. O'Connell), he repeated, that there had been propositions to give a place to that hon. and learned Member sent to Lord Anglesey by that hon. Member, not only once, but twice or three times; and he was satisfied, that if they had been successful, there would have been no agita- tion in Ireland. He did not know this of his own knowledge, but he had seen Mr. Bennett, who was acquainted with the whole proceedings. The member for Waterford called on the hon. member for Weymouth to allow his case to be brought before Parliament. Was the member for Waterford ready to allow these proceedings of his to be brought before the House? Let him call for an inquiry, and he (Mr. Hunt) should be able, he thought, to produce abundant evidence of the transactions to which he alluded. He could name two Members of that House who were present with him at the time when Mr. Bennett told the whole of the story. The member for Waterford accused him of a desire to get place; let him answer now for himself. He (Mr. Hunt) had never asked for any thing in his life, nor had he ever desired to have any thing offered to him; for, he repeated, he could not, and would not accept it.

Petition laid on the Table.

Mr. Hume

said, he had a Petition to present from 700 Shipwrights of the Thames, in favour of the Reform Bill. He particularly wished to direct the attention of the House to this petition, because it gave an answer to those who asserted, that the lower classes were adverse to the Bill. These petitioners declared, that they expected the advantage of good Government from the progress of Reform. They were satisfied that their condition would be improved by it; and he very much doubted whether there were 200,000 persons in the country who did not believe that the Bill would be advantageous, and that a great boon was given to them by the measures of the Government.

Mr. O'Connell, on the question that the petition be laid on the Table, begged to say a few words in explanation; and it would be really few. The hon. member for Preston had charged him with having negociated with the Government for a place, but he had not pretended to say, that he (Mr. O'Connell) was a party to any of these negotiations. If Mr. Bennett said, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had any knowledge of, or any connection with, negotiations of that kind, all he could say then was, that Mr. Bennett had given utterance to that which was totally untrue. He believed, however, that Mr. Bennett, when he heard of the assertions of the hon. member for Preston on this subject — and hear of them he should on the first moment when his present residence was ascertained, so that a letter could reach him —he believed, he repeated, that Mr. Bennett would be quite ready to contradict what had been attributed to him by the member for Preston. He did not believe that Mr. Bennett had made such a statement; but if he had, then all that he could say was, that Mr. Bennett, and not the member for Preston, had calumniated him.

Petition to be printed.