Mr. Lennardpresented a Pe- 1729 tition, which had been adopted at a public meeting of the Freemen of the Borough of Maldon, resident in London, in favour of the Reform which had been proposed by the Government. The petition was peculiarly entitled to attention, as corning from persons whose personal interests and rights would be so materially affected by the measure in question. The petitioners stated truly, that the number of nonresident freemen of the borough of Maldon very far exceeded those of any other borough in the kingdom; but, so far from grounding on this circumstance any claim in their own favour, of exemption from the general provisions of the Bill, they state that they cheerfully sacrifice all personal considerations for the public good. He thought this petition highly honourable to his constituents; and he must claim for them the same praise which had been so justly bestowed on the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Cleveland, and others, who had declared their willingness to sacrifice their own interests in favour of the great measure of Reform which had been introduced by the Government. He hoped that the petition he had the honour of presenting would tend to satisfy the hon. member for Preston, that there were many persons favourable to the Reform Bill besides those who derived a particular and private benefit from it. There were some of his constituents who were deprived of a valuable privilege by it, and who yet, on public grounds, were anxious to give it their support—a conduct which he thought highly creditable to them.
§ Mr. Huntgave very little credit either to those members of the aristocracy or of the middle classes who now came forward by compulsion in support of this measure. As to the great body of the people, he maintained that they would derive no advantage whatever from it.
Mr. Humedeprecated the course adopted by the hon. member for Preston, who had gone on maligning the views and feelings of the people. He utterly denied, that those persons among the upper classes who had now stood forward as the advocates of Reform were actuated by the unworthy motives imputed to them by the hon. Member. He knew it to be a fact that, long before the present measure was thought of, many of those persons had shown themselves ready to do all that they had since done. He was assured that several petitions would be presented to the 1730 House from the operative classes, denying, and utterly disclaiming, the representations made respecting them by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. Huntmust still contend, that the Bill excluded the great body of the people from any practical benefit. A great deal was said about his having misrepresented the views and feelings of the working classes, and he understood that the hon. member for Stafford had a petition to present from Darlaston on the subject. With regard, however, to such petitions, he set very little value upon them. He would engage, on any day in the week, to get one or two petitions up, with double the number of signatures attached to them that, any petition had which the hon. Member had presented, for five shillings. He admitted, at the same time, that a very strong feeling prevailed in favour of the Bill, and on that ground alone it was, that he gave it his support. He would maintain that the Bill was a delusion upon the country. He wished to know what good this Bill would do for the people? Would they get bread cheaper by it? Would they get a reduction of taxes? Would they get a reduction of that accursed Pension List? No; Ministers had defended it through thick and thin, and had told the House that there was no prospect of amelioration for the people in a reduction of taxes, which was the thing most likely to prove advantageous to the community. He had no party views whatever in the course he had taken, and had only expressed his sincere opinions.
Mr. Humewished it to be understood, that he had made no attack upon the hon. member for Preston, but, on the contrary, had risen to defend him. He regretted exceedingly that the hon. Member should have expressed his opinions with regard to the Bill in the manner he had; and he hoped that he would not continue to throw out those remarks, which could have no practical good effect upon the measure.
§ Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that the Bill, in its amended state, ought to have remained longer before it had been pressed on the consideration of the House, in order that the people of the country might have a full opportunity of seeing all its objects. He concurred with the hon. member for Preston that the Bill was a delusion—a fraud, he would say—upon the people of England; and the more it was exposed and developed, the greater 1731 would be their disgust. The public was far from being contented with it. He had voted invariably against the measure, and felt that he had done his duty. By so doing he had not consulted his own interest probably, but he had obeyed the dictates of his own conscience. In all public matters he would invariably attend to a conscientious discharge of his duty, disregarding any considerations of private interest. Something had been said respecting the sacrifice made by borough proprietors in forwarding the measure of Reform, but they had not come forward with this generous sacrifice on behalf of the country until the Bill was introduced. They had disregarded the old maxim, bis dat qui cito dat, in the course they had taken. He feared not the being sent back to his constituents on account of the line of conduct, which he had pursued with regard to the opposition he had given to the Bill; and he hoped that the Bill would never meet with the sanction, of the Legislature, fraught as it was with injustice towards so many individuals who had never been proved guilty of any impropriety or delinquency, in the discharge of their political rights and privileges.
Mr. Hughes Hughesdenied, that this Bill was either a fraud or a delusion on the people of England. He had wished to ascertain the feelings of his constituents on it, and he had in consequence spent three days out of the last ten in calling upon his constituents in Oxford. He had called in that time upon more than a thousand of them personally, and he would undertake to say, that not fifty individuals out of that number disapproved of the principle, or even of the details, of the measure. He had seen some of their children playing about, in whom the right of voting was only inchoate. The circumstance of their children being deprived of that franchise which they themselves enjoyed, was the only objection which any of his constituents had urged to the measure, but they had unanimously agreed to waive that objection rather than endanger the success of a Bill which was calculated to confer so much benefit upon the country. Now the rights of the children of freemen were secured by one of the late amendments introduced into the Bill, and therefore he was certain that his constituents would not have any the slightest objection to the Bill as it. now stood.
§ Sir C Wetherellasserted, that from 1732 his long connexion with the University and city of Oxford, he had as extensive a knowledge of the feelings of the inhabitants of Oxford as the hon. Member who now represented them; and he would take upon himself to deny the assertion, that the constituency of the city of Oxford, whose Representative he had been, and to whom he still was strongly attached, were favourable to this measure of Reform. As a proof of his opinion, he would only state, that in the Common Council of that town, which consisted of sixty persons, a petition in favour of Reform had only been carried by the casting vote of the Mayor. He contended that nine out often persons in Oxford had neither read nor understood the details of this Bill.
§ Mr. Tennysonwas sure that the citizens of Oxford understood, that this Bill would destroy fifty-five rotten boroughs; and that, after it was passed, Boroughbridge would cease to exist, arid that when it ceased to exist, his hon. and learned friend opposite would be compelled to go back to the electors of Oxford, or of some other populous borough. He must say, that he should like to see how his hon. arid learned friend Would be received by his quondam constituents of Oxford, when he went back to them after his present declaration, that they neither knew nor understood any thing about the present Bill.
Mr. Hughes Hugheswished to say a few words in explanation. He contended that he was justified in declaring that there was almost an unanimity of opinion in favour of this Bill among his constituents at Oxford. Of his constituents, 2,145 had signed a petition in favour of Reform, which had been agreed to at a public meeting at Oxford, at which more than 1,000 persons were present, and at which there had been only one dissentient voice. At a subsequent period, the Chamber of the Corporation had met, and had wished to get up an anti-Reform petition. The promoters of that petition had been defeated, however, by a majority of one. There Were thirty persons for that anti-Reform petition, and thirty against it. Those thirty persons formed part of the fifty dissentients to whom he had alluded in his former speech. As the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge seemed inclined to disbelieve the statement which he had given of the feelings of his constituents on this Bill, he only Wished that the horn and 1733 learned member would meet him on the hustings at Oxford, to see whether his constituents would not verify it.
§ Sir C. Wetherellrepeated the assertion which he had made on a former occasion, that the petition which the hon. member for Oxford had presented had come from persons who did not understand the Reform Bill.
§ Petition to be printed.
§ Sir C. Wetherellpresented a Petition from the Corporation of the city of Giocester, against the Reform Bill.
§ Colonel Webbobserved, that as he had the honour of being one of the members for the city of Gloucester, he must be permitted to say a few words upon this petition. During the last fortnight he had visited his constituents, and he could say of his own knowledge, that a great majority of them were in favour of this Bill.
§ Mr. Huntwished to take the opportunity of stating, that he had never asserted that no credit should be given to the noblemen and gentry who had surrendered their borough patronage. All that he had said was, that he should have given them greater credit had they surrendered it before this Bill was introduced, which would compel them to part with it. He should give them still more credit, if they would give up the borough influence which they still retained, as, for instance, the boroughs of Calne and Malton.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that if the noble personages to whom the hon. member for Preston alluded had given up their boroughs before the present time, they would have defeated the object which they had in view equally with the people of England. They acted no less wisely than patriotically, in giving up their borough influence as part of a general measure; but till that general measure was carried they ought to hold it and to use it as trustees for the public, arid for the public benefit.
§ Petition to be printed.
§ Mr. Wysepresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Cashel, in favour of the Reform Bill. The Reform Bill was most popular in Ireland. He trusted that, his Majesty's Ministers would, by dissolving the Parliament, appeal to the people, and he would answer for it that the result of that appeal to the people of Ireland would be favourable to the measures of Reform which had been brought forward.
Mr. Shielsupported the prayer of the petition. Not having had an opportunity of addressing the House last night, he wished to take that occasion to state, that if the Reform Bill passed, it would be most satisfactory to the people of Ireland, and that one effect of it would be, to allay the feeling which existed there at present in favour of a Repeal of the Union. He concurred with those who thought that Ireland was fairly entitled to an additional number of Representatives. The two countries now formed a United Kingdom, and Ireland should be treated like Yorkshire, or any other component part of this country.
§ Mr. M. Fitzgeraldjustified the vote which he gave last night for the Amendment moved by the gallant member for Liverpool, on the ground that he was anxious to retain as many Members as they had at present for England. At the same time he was as anxious as any man to give such additional Members to Ireland as she was entitled to.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that the effect of the vote which had been given by his right hon. friend last night in favour of the motion must be to prevent Ireland from getting additional Representatives.
§ Mr. O'Briensaid, in reference to the vote which he had given against the Amendment, that if he had been the bitterest opponent of Ministers, he would yet, as an Irishman, have opposed that Resolution, the effect of which would be, to prevent Ireland from getting those additional Members which Ministers had proposed to give to that country.
§ Petition to be printed.
§ Mr. Littletonpresented a Petition, numerously signed by the workmen of West Bromwich and the neighbouring parishes, in the county of Stafford, in favour of the Reform Bill. The petitioners stated, that they heard with astonishment and indignation that declarations were made that the workmen of Staffordshire were, to a man, opposed to the Bill, and such declarations they now declared to be utterly false. As the petition was very short, he begged that it might be read by the Clerk of the House.
§ Petition, being read.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he had no doubt that the hon. Member wished to make it appear that the petition alluded to a declaration industriously reported to have been made by him, but which he had never 1735 made. What he said was, that he had conversed with some of the working people in Staffordshire and elsewhere, who disapproved of part of the Bill brought in by Ministers.
§ Mr. Littletonhad no doubt that the petition alluded to the report of what the hon. member for Preston had said in that House, and the petitioners unanimously denied that they disapproved of the Bill.
§ The Speakersaid, that if the hon. Member stated that the petition adverted to any thing that had taken place in that House, it was irregular, and could not be received; it must be withdrawn.
§ Mr. Littletonhad not meant to state a fact, he had only uttered his individual opinion. There was nothing in the petition to lead the House to conclude that it alluded to what fell from the hon. member for Preston, though he (Mr. Littleton) entertained that opinion.
§ The Speakerobserved, that such an excuse, though good from any other Member, could not be considered satisfactory from the Member who presented the petition.
§ Sir C. Wetherellthought, that the petition had been got up to contradict a statement which had been made in that House by one of its Members, and it therefore ought to be rejected.
Mr. S. Ricethought, that there was nothing in the petition, to warrant a conclusion that it referred to what had been said in Parliament, for the matter to which the petition alluded had appeared in various publications, as statements made out of doors.
§ The Speakerobserved, that his objection was founded upon what had been stated by the hon. Member who had presented the petition, and not upon the contents of the petition itself. It certainly was not usual for that House to put a forced construction on the language of any petition. As the hon. member for Staffordshire had stated his impression, however, that the petition referred to the report of a speech made in that House, if the House concurred in the impression of the hon. member for Staffordshire, it could not consistently with the rules receive the petition. There was nothing in the phraseology of the petition which led necessarily to the conclusion that it referred to what had taken place in that House, and, therefore, the House might receive it; but in doing so, the House would declare in effect that it 1736 did not agree with the hon. member for Staffordshire in the construction which he put on the petition.
§ Mr. Huntdeclared, that the petition had been got up in London, and the hon. Member who had presented it had only insinuated that it alluded to him, for the hon. Member would not charge him with having uttered a falsehood in respect to the sentiments of the working classes, for fear of the personal consequences.
§ The Speakercalled the member for Preston to order. He begged to remind the House, that the hon. member for Staffordshire had not construed the petition to allude to the hon. member for Preston—it was the latter Gentleman that had applied the contents of the petition to himself.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that the hon. member for Staffordshire had come to him, and had told him that he had received the petition, and that it contradicted what he (Mr. Hunt) had asserted respecting the hostility of the working classes to the Reform Bill. He treated the petition as altogether fraudulent.
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, that there never was a more groundless statement; and the hon. member for Preston well knew, that there was not the shadow of a foundation for his assertion that this petition was fraudulent. The petition was written in the country, and he had received from every part of the county assurances of the indignation with which the people had heard of the hon. member for Preston's assertion that they were hostile to the Reform Bill.
§ Sir C. Wetherellmerely looked upon the question as one of privilege. If the hon. member for Staffordshire did not think the petition referred to a declaration made by a Member of the House, lie should not assume that it did, and should not object to its being received.
§ Sir C. Forbeshad no doubt that the petition referred to what had fallen from a Member of that House. Long as he had been in Parliament he had never heard such personal attacks as had been made for the last few days on the hon. member for Preston, If any such attacks had been made on him, he would make the Member indulging in those attacks eat his own words.
§ Petition to be printed.