§ Lord Althorp moved, that the House should go into the Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
592§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, the House was so well attended on Saturday last when they met at two o'clock, that he wished much they had adopted that hour for the future. So much business was done then, that he regretted much the subject of the Liverpool election had not been brought before them by way of experiment.
Mr. Stuart Wortley, before the House went into a Committee, begged to ask a question of the noble Lord (Althorp). In the returns presented to the House connected with the Reform Bill he found one, No. 180, which professed to contain an account of the population of those places which were to receive a right of returning Members; he found in the return an account of the population of Doncaster. That town was not, however, in the schedule of the Bill, and he begged to know if it was intended, that Doncaster should have the right of returning a Member to that House?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that as far as he understood, there was no intention to propose that Doncaster should have the right of returning a Member.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, there were many errors in those documents. No. 111 contained the returns of population, according to the last census, of boroughs and other places, not mentioned in schedules A and B, but there were no less than twelve boroughs omitted, whilst other places were inserted that ought not to be there. In the returns of the assessed taxes for the years 1828, 1829, and 1830, a whole district of Welsh boroughs was omitted. In one of the papers of last session relating to the number of houses in different towns of England and Wales, not above two-thirds of the returns agreed with other documents. For example, the number of houses in Calne was in one 1,014 and in another 2,058. In one return Chippenham had 174 houses, and in another 541. Again, in London, according to one return, there were 17,534 houses, while according to another, there were only 8,503. Such inaccuracies were of consequence. He thought it was very important that papers of so much importance, on which the house was proceeding to legislate, should be free from all objections on the score of accuracy.
§ The House went into Committee.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the first case for consideration was that of Sudbury. On 593 Saturday he had recommended the postponement of the case of Sudbury, on the ground, that the statements made required consideration, and presented some difficulties. He was now prepared to adhere to the proposition he had first made to the House, and he would state the grounds upon which he had come to this resolution. It was stated on Saturday, that the borough of Sudbury consisted of three parishes, but that the population of those three parishes was not sufficient to entitle Sudbury, under the rules laid down to return two Members to that House. That being the case, it was contended, that the hamlet of Ballingdon belonged to the parish of All Saints, one of the three parishes in Sudbury; that that hamlet was in the same county as Sudbury, Suffolk; and that it paid tithes and church-rates, and elected a churchwarden for All Saints, and ought, therefore, to be considered as a part of Sudbury. This he understood to be the substance of the statement made on behalf of Sudbury, and he must confess, that it appeared to him to require much consideration before it was rejected. That consideration he had given it, and he would now state his opinions on the case. The claims of Sudbury had been compared with those of Truro; indeed, it had been asserted, that the two cases were precisely similar; but this was not the fact. In the case of Truro there was this remarkable circumstance—the town, in the extended sense, was defined by an Act of Parliament. There was also an Act of Parliament, a Paving and Lighting Act, respecting Sudbury, but that Act did not include Ballingdon. Upon this ground, and with that Act before the Committee, he did not think that Sudbury ought to be taken out of schedule B.
The Chairman put the question, "that the borough of Sudbury stand part of schedule B."
§ Mr. Wranghamsaid, that the borough of Sudbury embraced the whole of the parishes of St. Peter and St. Gregory, and part of the parish of All Saints, and that the town of Sudbury embraced the whole of the last-named parish, together with the former ones. Part of the parish of All Saints was beyond the limits of the borough of Sudbury; but the town of Sudbury, a continuous one, extended over the whole of that parish. The noble Lord had said, that the case of the bo- 594 rough of Sudbury was in many respects similar to the case of Truro. There was a considerable similarity in the two cases; but he contended there was a distinct and great advantage on the part of Sudbury. As he understood the case of Truro, it was this. The whole of the borough was contained in one parish, but the town extended over two other parishes which had nothing at all to do with the borough. Now the borough of Sudbury occupied the whole of two parishes, and the greater part of the third parish, the three parishes composing the town. He therefore asserted positively, that Sudbury, according to the rules laid down, had a superior claim to Truro. It could not be said, that the hamlet of Ballingdon was not a part of the parish of All Saints, for it paid church-rates and tithes as a part of that parish, and was, in every sense of the terms, parochially and ecclesiastically connected with it. In other cases, as in Dorchester and Guildford, the difficulty was, that the new part of the town was in a parish wholly distinct from that or those in which the old part of the town was situated; but in this case there was no difficulty of the kind, nor was there any assumption of a rural population; but here was a case of a town, one continuous town, containing, according to the returns of 1821, a population of several hundreds above the number required, and really, how a distinction could be drawn between the actual town and the borough, he did not at all comprehend. But the noble Lord said, there was an Act of Parliament, a Paving and Lighting Act, for Sudbury, which did not include the hamlet of Ballingdon, and, therefore, that the Committee ought not to include it, although it was not denied, that the hamlet actually formed a part of the town of Sudbury. He certainly was not aware of the existence of such an Act of Parliament, but he would ask what date did it bear? Might not the hamlet of Ballingdon have grown into importance since it was passed? But be that as it might, he had never understood the Committee to be bound by any rule which said, that the limits of a town should be defined by Act of Parliament. The inhabitants of the hamlet of Ballingdon paid church-rates, tithes, and elected a churchwarden for the parish of All Saints, and surely the noble Lord would not contend, that it was distinct, and ought to be treated as such? He 595 was astonished at the strange and great alteration which had taken place in the views of the noble Lord since Saturday last. He had fully understood, that if the statements made on Saturday, proved upon inquiry, to be facts, the noble Lord would not object to Sudbury being taken out of schedule B. He had received an intimation—he knew not whether such an intimation had been conveyed to the members of his Majesty's Government—but he received an intimation, that it was the determination of a party in that House, to keep Sudbury in schedule B, whatever might be the wish of the Government. The party to which this intimation referred, was stated to act regardless of the principle of the Bill, which it did not think went far enough, and with a determination of disfranchising the whole of the boroughs in the schedule. He knew not whether the Government would be influenced by such a party, but if it was, the proceedings of that Committee were nothing better than a mockery of justice. If a majority of that House was determined to act in this unfair and unjust spirit, the sooner such determination was openly declared, the better, for then many a long and disagreeable debate might be avoided. The conduct of the noble Lord on Saturday, had almost pledged the Government to the removal of Sudbury out of schedule B, and he protested most strongly against the strange alteration which had taken place, in the language of the noble Lord, and the violation of the acknowledged principles of the Bill.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he had received no such intimation as that adverted to by the hon. Gentleman. He admitted the facts to be as stated by the hon. Gentleman; but the hon. Gentleman did not state all the facts. The hon. Gentleman seemed to forget, when he said, that on Saturday it appeared almost to be settled, that Sudbury was to be taken out of schedule B, that since Saturday, he (Lord Althorp) had become aware of the additional fact of the existence of an Act of Parliament describing the limits of Sudbury, in which Ballingdon was not included. He thought that the hon. Gentleman went too far in saying that Ballingdon was a part of the parish of All Saints; for, in fact, Ballingdon was not in the county of Suffolk, but in the county of Essex, and it was separated from Sudbury by a river.
§ Mr. Wranghamsaid, that the hamlet 596 of Ballingdon paid church-rates and tithes, as a part of the parish of All Saints, and actually, in consideration of doing so, elected one of the Churchwardens for that parish. If doing these acts did not constitute it a part of the parish, he should like to hear from the noble Lord what would. In the course of these debates there had been much quibbling, and many rules laid down and broken, but he did not see in what way, except in the way of open violence, the case of Sudbury was to be overcome. The noble Lord found, that Ballingdon was not in the same county as Sudbury. Was that a point of any importance? If it was, what became of Tamworth? He repeated, that he was astonished at the change which had taken place in the view of the noble Lord; there was no sufficient ground for it in what had fallen from the noble Lord; and if the proceedings of that Committee were to be ruled by a majority who cared nothing for the principles of the Bill, then all remark must be useless.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergusonintended to proceed upon one plain principle, and had no communication with any party on the subject of his votes. He looked to the places proposed to be disfranchised, according to the census of 1821, and if they did not then contain the population of 4,000, he decided they ought to remain in schedule B. That was the case with Sudbury. He was of opinion that one Member was quite sufficient for any of the boroughs included in that schedule, when they considered that Manchester and Glasgow were to have but two Members each.
Lord Miltondenied, that the hamlet of Ballingdon formed a part of the parish of All Saints. It formed part of the parish of Brundon; the parish church of which had long been entirely dilapidated; in consequence of which, the inhabitants of that parish had resorted to the parish church of All Saints, had paid tithes and rates in that parish, and had acquired parochial rights there. Nevertheless, he would vote to take Sudbury out of the schedule, because he thought there was a sufficient connexion with that borough, and the hamlet of Ballingdon, to justify him in calling it part of Sudbury. Schedule B was not so great a favourite with him as were other parts of the Bill, and he was not sorry to find a justification for removing any borough out of it.
§ Mr. Crokerobserved, that if the hon. 597 member for Kirkcudbright thought that the principle of the Bill was the number of the population, he was in error, of which various instances had appeared; according to his principle, neither Tamworth nor Truro ought to have two Members, and other places not even one. The cases of Aldborough, Amersham, and Buckingham, also, might satisfy him, even after the long discussion the Bill had undergone, that he had not yet mastered its principles. For his part, he could see no difference between the case of Sudbury and the case of Truro; and maintained that if the latter was entitled to two Members, the former was equally so.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergusonintended to vote upon the principle he had before explained; and as he had not voted for Truro, he could not be charged with inconsistency.
Sir John Walsh, after alluding to the ground on which the postponement of the case had taken place, observed, that although the Members for the different boroughs attacked, were in duty bound to struggle for justice, his Majesty's Government ought also to aim at justice. Though Ministers suffered Members for boroughs to make out their cases as well as they could, they did not think proper to investigate those cases. He had himself presented two petitions from this borough, and one memorial to the noble Paymaster of the Forces, stating the circumstances of Sudbury; but his Majesty's Government were in utter ignorance of the particulars of the case, until the statements which were made on Saturday. Such proceedings were worthy of attention. Every fact which had been stated to the Committee on Saturday, had been previously laid before his Majesty's Government, and yet the noble Lord stated on Saturday that he was not aware of them. This was a complete justification of the investigation which had been instituted, and which had been called delay. His Majesty's Government had not adhered to the rules respecting population, which it had originally laid down, and it was the duty of every Member to go minutely into every case, and to see whether it did not come under some of the exceptions which had been made. A noble Lord had said, the country would appreciate the real motive of the delay. He trusted the country would appreciate the real motive, which was, to obtain fair, full, and impartial justice. It 598 must now be evident to every one unprejudiced, that these boroughs would not receive justice at the hands of the Government, for that Government had not even made itself master of the facts laid before it. The noble Lord had asserted, that Ballingdon was not a part of the parish of All Saints. Now, although the noble Lord did not attach much importance to that point, he trusted the noble Lord would do him the honour to attend to him, while he endeavoured to prove that position. For his part he attached great importance to that point, conceiving, that on it, in a great measure, rested the claims of Sudbury. The detail might be dry to the Committee, but it would be peculiarly pleasing, he believed, to the noble Paymaster of the Forces. He would transport that noble Lord at once to the days of black letter, and the reign of the Plantagenets. In answer to what had been stated by the noble member for Northamptonshire, he begged leave to inform that noble Lord—and he had the high authority of Dugdale's Monasticon in support of his assertion—that Brundon was never a parish, that the church there, which, as the noble Lord said, had been entirely dilapidated, was not a parish church, but was, in the time of Henry 1st, a chapel, attached to the parish of All Saints; and as a part of that parish, was attached to a monastery. The noble Lord had said, the parish church had fallen into decay, but the truth was, that Ballingdon never had a distinct church. It appeared also, that in the reign of Richard 2nd, in 1382, there was a grant made of the rectory of All Saints, including the hamlet of Ballingdon, to the monastery of St. Gregory in Sudbury. At the Reformation, the rectorial tithes were sold, and the vicarial tithes of Ballingdon continued attached to the parish of All Saints. Having gone into these details, he apprehended he had given a conclusive answer to the assertions of the noble Lord, and fully proved, that the hamlet of Ballingdon was, to all intents and purposes, a part of the parish of All Saints. As to Brundon being a parish, the statement was quite erroneous; it consisted of one mill, one farm-house, and two cottages, and was a part of the hamlet of Ballingdon. He thought this proof must be decisive with every one upon the point at issue; but he had yet another fact to state. Since 1653, the births, and mar- 599 riages, and deaths in Ballingdon, had been registered in All Saints, and that not in a separate book, kept particularly for the hamlet, but in the common general register of that parish. Antecedent to 1653, no register had been kept in the parish of All Saints. Further, the glebe lands of the vicar of All Saints were situated in the hamlet of Ballingdon. With these facts before them, he contended, that the Committee would be acting most unjustly, if it took for granted that Ballingdon was not a part of the parish of All Saints. But the noble Lord had alluded to an Act of Parliament, and upon that Act his whole argument appeared to rest; but a more arbitrary and unjust measure, except the present Reform Bill, if it passed, could not be found in the Statutes, than an Act which limited the size of a town. Was there any reason, common sense, or justice, in the construction put by the noble Lord upon this Paving and Lighting Act? The noble Lord made the Act say to the town of Sudbury, "These are your limits; into the hamlet of Ballingdon you shall not go; no, not a foot beyond the bridge; and to your present size you are for ever doomed." This was the most unfair and arbitrary construction of the Act that could be adopted. He protested against the borough of Sudbury being continued in schedule B. If it was continued there, it must be in violation of a variety of precedents. It had a large population, and was a more considerable town than any in the schedule, and than many out of it, and ought to be allowed the privilege of sending two Members to that House.
§ Mr. Tyrrellsupported the claims of Sudbury. It was the only manufacturing town in Suffolk. It contained a considerable population, and was in a flourishing condition, and he trusted it would be taken out of schedule B.
Mr. Baringsaid, the Ministers had acted in a most capricious way with regard to the franchise of many of the large and prosperous towns of this country. Sudbury was neither a rotten borough nor a nomination borough. It had been frequently contested. It might be that the electors were corrupt, but they were more likely to be corrupt when the 10l. franchise was introduced than they were before. The country ought to know upon what principle it was, that some little dirty towns were allowed to retain two Members, 600 while the prosperous town of Sudbury was to have only one. It was clear, that Horsham in 1821 had only 1,600 inhabitants, while Sudbury had upwards of 4,000, and was now deprived of one of its Members by a mere quibble. Was there any thing like common sense or justice in this? If in truth it came within the rule laid down by Ministers, that alone was sufficient to prove their rule good for nothing. It would be better and fairer to sweep away at once the whole present system of Representation, and to build up another, de novo, than to proceed in this manner. When the House came to decisions of this kind, it was impossible that they could avoid the imputation of partiality.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the principle upon which they proceeded was the population returns of 1821, and according to that, Sudbury came within the line laid down of those towns which were to lose one Member. It was clear, that in 1825 the hamlet of Ballingdon was not considered part of Sudbury. This hamlet was in the county of Essex, and Sudbury was in Suffolk. In the Act for paving and lighting Sudbury, brought in in 1825, it was so stated, and Ballingdon was not connected with Sudbury in the Bill.
Sir Robert Peelmaintained, that no stronger case could possibly be brought forward than that of Sudbury. Undoubtedly Ballingdon was part of the town, and undoubtedly it had more than 4,000 inhabitants in 1821. The noble Lord, who took a different view, had only two things to rely upon; first, that Ballingdon was not part of the parish of All Saints; and secondly, the Act for paving and lighting in 1825. Now, that Ballingdon was part of the parish, there really could not be a rational doubt—it paid taxes, tithes, and church-rates, as part of the parish—it appointed one of the Churchwardens—it had no chapel of its own, so that all the ceremonies relating to births, deaths, and marriages, were performed at the church of Sudbury. In a word, Ballingdon was part of the parish of All Saints, for all legal purposes, and how or why should they then deny the relation? Then as to the Act, he observed, that it was, in itself, a most preposterous piece of legislation; it consisted of 120 clauses, and one of them provided, that all houses thenceforth built in Sudbury should be perpendicular. Besides, no argument could be drawn, even respecting the limits of the borough, from 601 such an Act. There were numerous instances in which parts of boroughs had been known to be left out in such Acts; and here there was an especial reason why the hamlet of Ballingdon should be omitted. It lay in the county of Suffolk, wherein the Magistrates of Essex had no jurisdiction; there were, therefore, cogent, legal reasons why Ballingdon should not be included in the Act. He insisted that no claim could be more satisfactory, or more clearly established, than that which had been set forth for the borough of Sudbury; and he considered the Ministers need not hesitate to do justice in this case, because it was one essentially peculiar, and could not be possibly drawn into a precedent.
Lord John Russellsaid, that by the Act of Parliament referred to, it appeared that Ballingdon was not, in 1825, a recognized part of the town of Sudbury; nor was it, in his opinion, part of the parish of All Saints. In the Topographical Dictionary, Ballingdon was described as a chapelry within half a mile of Sudbury. He would use the present opportunity to assure his hon. friend, the member for Thetford (Mr. Baring), that the population of Horsham was not divided, as he had described, in 1821. There was no quibble in the case.
Mr. Baringreplied, that it was to the population returns of 1831 he alluded. Even in the return of 1821, 2,000 of the population of Horsham were mentioned as being engaged in agricultural pursuits.
§ Mr. Wranghamsaid, the only way in which arguments from his side of the House were met, was by drawing contradictory inferences from facts. The hamlet was said to be half a mile from Sudbury. Now he could assure the Committee upon his honour, that the nearest house in Ballingdon was not distant from the nearest in Sudbury more than twenty yards, and they were separated only by a small rivulet, over which there was abridge. It was a most flagrant injustice to decide on alleged facts, which had no existence, and could be disproved as soon as they were stated.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, much reliance was placed on an Act of 1825, for paving and lighting Sudbury. He did not consider that, however, to be of material consequence, or decisive of the limits of the borough. Two Acts had been passed for paving and lighting Shrewsbury, the last 602 of which was introduced about two years back, and to his knowledge a great part even of he borough was not at all included in this Act. He could not conceive that the fate of Sudbury would be made to depend upon such evidence as a local Act of Parliament, which was not obtained for the purpose of defining the limits of the borough.
§ The Committee divided on the question, "That Sudbury stand part of schedule B." Ayes 157; Noes 108—Majority 49.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adams, C. | Hawkins, J. |
| Althorp, Viscount | Heathcote, G. |
| Anson, G. | Heywood, B. |
| Atherley, A. | Hobhouse, J. C. |
| Baring, Sir T. | Hodges, T. L. |
| Baring, F. T. | Hodgson, J. |
| Barnett, C. J. | Horne, Sir W. |
| Benett, J. | Hoskins, K. |
| Berkeley, Captain | Howard, P. H. |
| Bernard, Lord | Howick, Lord |
| Blake, Sir F. | Hughes, H. H. |
| Blamire, W. | Hunt, H. |
| Bouverie, Hon. D. P. | Ingilby, Sir W. A. |
| Bouverie, Hon. P. P. | Jeffrey, Right Hon. F. |
| Brabazon, Lord | Jerningham, Hon. H. |
| Brayen, T. | Johnstons, J. J. H. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Kennedy, T. F. |
| Brougham, W. | Killeen, Lord |
| Brougham, J. | Lamb, G. |
| Brownlow, C. | Langston, J. H. |
| Bulwer, H. L. | Lawley, F. |
| Byng, G. | Leader, N. P. |
| Byng, G. S. | Lefevre, C. S. |
| Calcraft, G. | Lennox, Lord J. G. |
| Calvert, C. | Lushington, S. |
| Campbell, W. F. | Macauley, T. B. |
| Carter, J. B. | Macdonald, Sir J. |
| Chapman, M. L. | Mackenzie, J. A. S. |
| Chichester, A. | Macnamara, W. N. |
| Clive, E. B. | Mangles, J. |
| Colborne, N. W. R. | Marjoribanks, S. |
| Cradock, S. | Martin, J. |
| Crampton, P. C. | Maule, Hon. W. R. |
| Curteis, H. B. | Mills, J. |
| Davies, Colonel | Morpeth, Lord |
| Denison, W. J. | North, J. H. |
| Denman, Sir T. | Nugent, Lord |
| Dixon, J. | O'Connell, D. |
| Dundas, Hon. Sir R. | O'Connell, M. |
| Ellice, E. | Offley, C. |
| Evans, De Lacy | Ord, W. |
| Ewart, W. | Paget, T. |
| Fergusson, Gen. Sir R. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Ferguson, R. C. | Pendarvis, E. W. W. |
| Fitzroy, Lord J. | Penrhyn, E. |
| Gisborne, T. | Ponsonby, Hon. G. |
| Gordon, R. | Power, Robert |
| Graham, Sir J. | Price, Sir R. |
| Greene, T. G. | Protheroe, E. |
| Harvey, D. W. | Rice, T. S. |
| Robarts, A. W. | Troubridge, Sir T. |
| Robinson, Sir G. | Tynte, C. K. |
| Robinson, G. H. | Venables, Alderman |
| Rooper, J. B. | Vernon, Hon. G. J. |
| Ross, H. | Vernon, G. |
| Russell, Lord J. | Villiers, H. |
| Russell, C. | Vincent, Sir F. |
| Sanford, E. A. | Walker, C. A. |
| Sinclair, G. | Warburton, H. |
| Slaney, W. | Warre, J. A. |
| Smith, V. | Wason, R. |
| Smith, J. | Watson, Hon. R. |
| Smith, G. M. | Western, C. C. |
| Spencer, Hon. F. | Whitbread, W. H. |
| Stanley, E. G. S. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Stanley, E. G | Wilkes, J. |
| Stanley, Lord | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Stephenson, E. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Stewart, P. | Wood, C. |
| Strickland, G. | Wood, Alderman |
| Strutt, E. | Wood, J. |
| Tennyson, C. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Thicknesse, R. | Wrottesley, Sir J. |
| Traill G. |
§ The next question was "that the borough of Totness stand part of schedule B."
§ Mr. C. B. Baldwinsaid, that by the census of 1821, the population of Totness amounted to upwards of 3,000 souls, and including the parish of Bridgeton, which had always been considered as belonging to the town, the population amounted to 4,383 souls. It had at the present moment 213 houses which rented for more than 10l. a year. The borough, therefore, was more populous than Calne, Bodmin, Andover, Christchurch, and several other boroughs which had been allowed to retain their two Members. Totness was not a nomination borough, but it was an opulent town, and contained several thriving manufactures. If Bridgeton were considered as a part of Totness, the borough would have higher claims than Truro, and ought to be excluded from schedule B.
§ Mr. Courtenaysaid, he had expected that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would have said something in answer to the observations just made by his hon. colleague (Mr. Baldwin). The ground of the application made by his hon. colleague was, that Bridgeton ought to be considered as a part of Totness, and certainly any person who paid toll at the Bridgeton gate must consider himself as in the town of Totness. It had the 300 voters required by the Bill, and there was no occasion to gallop round the country to find them. The case of Totness was certainly not so strong as that of Sudbury, and after the decision to which the Committee came just 604 now, he was not disposed to put them to the trouble of dividing upon the borough of Totness. He had represented it for twenty years, and was, therefore, well acquainted with it. Upon a former occasion he challenged the noble Lord who brought in this Bill to say whether it was a nomination borough, a rotten, a decayed, or a delinquent borough. The noble Lord did not condescend to answer this challenge. He was satisfied the noble Lord meant no disrespect to him, but abstained from giving an answer because he was not acquainted with the circumstances of the case. Every objection that could be made to the present constituency of Totness would apply with still greater force if this Bill should pass into a law. It was not rotten or corrupt, and for a hundred years no complaint of delinquency had been made against it. Under the new Constitution, and under the new system of Representation, which this Bill would introduce, Totness and other places would become much more susceptible of bribery than they were at present. When there were 300 10l. voters, a man who went down to Totness with 4,000l. or 5,0001. in his pocket might do what he had now no chance at all of doing. As long as he was acquainted with the place he never knew a single instance of bribery there. If he felt conscious that his constituents had thus disgraced themselves, he should not have ventured to say a word in their favour; but, knowing, that no proceedings took place at elections there which were not strictly and entirely honourable, he was bound in justice to protest against the manner in which it was now proposed to treat them. The principle of schedule A was intelligible enough; but, with respect to schedule B, it would create as many anomalies in the new system of Representation as existed in the old, and he would pledge himself to show this at a fitter opportunity.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman saw no reason for the borough of Totness being placed in schedule B, he could not see any that would justify the Committee in removing it from the schedule. It was acknowledged, that the borough stood in a similar situation to that of Sudbury, but had not quite so many claims on exemption. As the Committee had decided, that Sudbury ought to remain in schedule B, and as the two cases were admitted to resemble each other, the decision in the one case must 605 be taken to decide the other. In the present instance there was no proof whatever offered, nothing but a mere allegation that the town belonged to the borough, and unless that were proved, its population did not come up to the required number. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate that, in future, bribery and corruption would be resorted to, but it was more probable, under the operation of this Bill, that such an anticipation would prove unfounded.
§ Question agreed to without a division.
§ On the question, "that the schedule B, as amended, do stand part of the Bill,"
§ Mr. Crokerobserved, that he could not let this schedule pass without entering his protest against it, and without saying that, objectionable as the whole Bill was, this particular part of it was the most objectionable. Having thus expressed in general terms his disapprobation of this schedule, he should say nothing further on the subject. The House having, when the schedule was first introduced, discussed the whole principle involved in it under the question whether the word "one" or "two" should fill up the blank in the first line of it; and having subsequently, on the questions relating to Sudbury and other boroughs, discussed the application of that schedule to particular cases, he thought it would be a deviation from the voluntary engagement into which he had entered, if he were to do more at present than declare that he protested most strongly against this particular part of the Bill.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, on this occasion he should take the liberty of summing-up the proceedings that had taken place with regard to the Bill, and especially with respect to this particular schedule. He was happy to include the noble Lord (Lord Milton) among the opponents of this clause. The reforming Ministers had disfranchised fifty or sixty boroughs in schedule A, as being rotten or nomination boroughs; and in schedule B, continuing their work of destruction, they had deprived about forty other boroughs of half their Members. Some of the latter were considerable towns, and the seats of rising and important manufactures, and were to be partly disfranchised, because it was said their constituency was not sufficiently numerous. The Bill proceeded upon no system, except one of destruction, and equally violated principle and consistency. 606 He would affirm, that the supporters of the Bill differed among each other; so that those Siamese twins, the noble Lords, the members for Northamptonshire, could not agree about all the boroughs; and he had, therefore, had the benefit of the vote of one of those noble Lords upon some of the boroughs in the schedule. In his opinion, this Bill was a Jacobinical insult towards the towns and boroughs it disfranchised. It committed an injustice towards them, in depriving them of their franchise, and it insulted them by the manner in which it did so. The local feelings and prejudices of the inhabitants had been much interfered with in disfranchising, in part, the county-towns; several of which, such as Guildford and Dorchester, were as ancient and respectable towns as any in England. He had referred to the division of opinion between the two noble Lords, the members for Northamptonshire, and he should only now add, that he hoped to see one of those noble Lords, whose ability and experience gave to his opinion considerable weight, become the leader of the Opposition on the schedule C, on the ground that a greater number of towns ought to be put into that schedule.
Colonel Woodwished to enter his protest against this schedule, which, as it was now framed, contained boroughs that could not be inserted in it without a manifest violation of the principle of the Bill. If it was necessary to give additional Representatives to Ireland and Scotland, and Members to the large manufacturing towns, let that be done by any other means, than by partially disfranchising the respectable boroughs of England. He thought there was a disposition on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to force this Bill, and the whole of this Bill, with all its blunders and inconsistencies, through that House; and if, when it had passed there, any indisposition to pass it in that state should be exhibited in another place, whatever might be the consequences of that indisposition, his Majesty's Ministers would be responsible for them. He could not believe, that the public desired so extensive an alteration as the present Bill. They had already disfranchised many nomination boroughs; and he, therefore, should wish to get rid of schedule B, which was of too sweeping a character. They had already 112 seats to dispose of; these I would enable them, if properly applied, to 607 give two Representatives to every place that had a population of more than 12,000 souls, as well as an additional Representative to the more populous counties. This would give more general satisfaction than the present measure, and would be more consonant to the spirit of the Constitution.
Lord Miltonhoped that, as the learned Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wetherell) had expressed himself grateful for his (Lord Milton's) alliance, the learned Gentleman would demonstrate his gratitude by voting for his (Lord Milton's) proposition, to give two Members to certain large and populous towns, such as Halifax and Brighton. If the learned Gentleman was so scandalized at the boroughs in schedule B losing one Member, the learned Gentleman must surely be anxious that more populous places than any of those boroughs should have two Members instead of one.
An Hon. Membersaid, that Ministers had acted unfairly in taking the population returns of 1821 as the criterion by which to disfranchise boroughs, and the returns of 1831 as the criterion of enfranchising new places. By not dividing the House on this clause, he wished it to be understood that he did not consider himself as precluded from doing so at some future stage of the proceedings. He certainly hoped that this clause would be re-considered.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, that Ministers had proceeded most inconsistently, and without any principle whatever, with regard to schedule B. Their own rules had been unjustly applied, and some Gentlemen had laid down rules of their own, quite separate from those of the Government. Many respectable individuals, resident in the towns disfranchised, would feel greatly exasperated at comparing their situation with that of other towns, not so considerable, which retained their full Representation. They had, however, completed the destructive part of the Bill, and had now to reconstruct the edifice of the Constitution. In looking to the qualification proposed to be created, it was quite impossible to form an estimate of the result of the measure, but he was very much afraid some of the interests, now adequately represented, would not be so under the new system. He had always been prepared to support an extensive measure of Reform, but he considered this as much too sweeping.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that before this question was agreed to, he thought that there were one or two points upon which the Committee had a right to receive information from the Ministers. Several cases had been brought forward by Gentlemen on that side the House, with great force of reason and argument. These cases, however, had been invariably rejected, while Ministers had, on their own accord, done that with regard to some boroughs which they had been in vain solicited to do with regard to other boroughs. This was the moment at which he thought, that hon. Members had a right to demand from the Ministers an explanation of the grounds on which they had so acted. He begged, therefore, that the noble Lords opposite would now be good enough to state those grounds. For instance, why was Morpeth, with a population, in 1821, of 3,661, but brought, with the addition of some tithings and townships, to amount to 4,260, allowed to retain two Members? Again, there was Malton, which, in 1821, contained 2,339 inhabitants, but, with some townships added, was made up to 4,005, and was now not disfranchised? Was it just or reasonable such places should continue to return two Representatives, while Guildford, a place of much more importance than either of them, was deprived of one? Northallerton, by the same returns, contained 2,626 inhabitants, but then three chapelries and three townships were added, and the number was made up to 4,431. In Tamworth the population was 3,863, but with three townships, two liberties, and one extra-parochial district, it was made up to 7,185. Westbury and High Wycombe were brought up to the standard in the same manner. All these places should have been included in schedule B, if the principles of the Bill, as originally laid down, had been adhered to. Other places had been as arbitrarily included. Strong cases of exemption were made out, for Clitheroe and Cockermouth, in particular, and no explanation had been hitherto given of such inconsistent conduct. He, therefore, called upon the noble Lord for information on these points.
Lord John Russellsaid, that this subject had been repeatedly explained, and that the grounds for which the hon. Gentleman now called, had been more than once given to the House. The hon. Member must be aware that many boroughs 609 were now under very different circumstances from those in which they had formerly stood. Even in cases where statements of the population and the amount of taxes paid by boroughs could be obtained, those cases sometimes furnished no guide for the regulation of their proceedings with regard to placing such boroughs in the schedule, or leaving them out of the schedule. The rules which had been laid down were adopted upon full consideration, and in the belief that they were calculated to produce the most extensive advantage. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, however, that these rules, though excellent in themselves, could not be exactly applied in all cases, and that there were, of course, particular cases, which would depend only on their particular circumstances. In some instances, if the limits of boroughs, as fixed by the decisions of that House, had been taken as the invariable rule, much injustice would have been the consequence. For the purpose of elections, a borough had, not unfrequently, been confined to one-third of its proper limits by the capricious decisions of that House, before the judgment of election petitions was referred to sworn Committees. Take Shrewsbury as an instance. A considerable portion of that town was deprived of the right of voting, by a decision of that House, because the property in that part of the town was in the hands of a person who was adverse to the Ministry of the day. The population returns formed the foundation for their judgment. They had then obtained further information by means of circulars; and, where the exact limits of certain boroughs could not be accurately ascertained from these sources, they were ready to receive and act upon other authentic information. When these rules had not operated fairly, they had always given way, as was the case with Buckingham, which had several hamlets, that were, in fact, part of the town, being all in the same parish; this place had, therefore, been removed from schedule A. In every instance, as had been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee in the progress of the measure, the Ministers had been justified in not carrying the exceptions further than they had done. Every concession, however, which had been made by his Majesty's Ministers, in reference to those two schedules, had been met with taunts and reproaches, more particularly 610 on the part of those who had themselves called for such concessions. If the Ministers had committed any fault, it was, that they had shown too great a readiness to listen to the objections of those who desired to show, that they could establish exceptions in their own favour. After all the special pleading processes that had been resorted to, and after all the ingenuity that had been displayed on this subject, he thought that no case of exception had been fairly established which had not been allowed. On the whole, it appeared to him that they had made fair distinctions, and on reasonable grounds, and he was disposed to think, notwithstanding all the ingenuity which had been displayed, and all the efforts which had been made to torture the circumstances of one case into a similarity to those of another, that, on the whole, schedule B had been fairly drawn, according to the population returns and the principles laid down in the Bill.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the noble Lord had remarked, that his Majesty's Ministers had met with reproaches from that side of the House for the concessions which they had made, and the noble Lord had spoken as if those concessions had been asked for on that side of the House on private grounds, and as matters of favour. The noble Lord was quite mistaken if he entertained such an impression as that. The concessions which had been called for by those who sat on that side of the House, and some of which had been granted to them by Ministers, had been asked for on public grounds, and in reference to great public trusts, public principles, and large and important bodies of constituency. It was plain from the speech of the noble Lord, that Ministers had found it extremely difficult to act up to the rules which they had themselves laid down, and the noble Lord had summed up their merits in the statement that, on the whole, he thought that they had acted well. This was the way in which his Majesty's Ministers had dealt with the important interests which schedules A and B embraced. They proceeded to their task without proper inquiry or information, and when it was performed in some way or other, they consoled themselves with the reflection that, on the whole, they had acted well. Ministers ought to have made themselves properly acquainted with the circumstances of each particular borough, the amount of 611 its population, and all other matters connected with it, before they had introduced such a measure as this. The mode in which the noble Lord had dealt with county-towns, and with boroughs possessed of large bodies of enlightened constituents, was not defensible, even upon the principle of the noble Lord's Bill. The noble Lord had abandoned the principle of the Bill in several instances, and had rested his case, as it appeared to him (Sir E. Sugden), upon no grounds whatever. If the authors of the Bill expected it to work well, they must be prepared to make concessions to the respectable minority opposed to it. The rule, it appeared, was, to obtain 300 householders at 10l. rent, to form a constituency, and population was taken as a presumptive proof of this number; but some towns, possessing all these qualifications, were excluded; as, for example, Guildford, which had a most respectable constituency, but it was refused two Members, on the pretence that it was divided by a rivulet. At the same time, other places had considerable districts added. Was the same measure of justice dealt to Guildford as to Horsham and Northallerton? If there was any principle in the Bill when it was first brought forward, it had since been abandoned. To these arguments, which he had often urged before, he did not imagine, that the noble Lord, or any of the supporters of the Bill, would be able to give a satisfactory answer. He might be met with the statement that his arguments had been replied to by nothing but laughter and loud clamour. It had been certainly stated, on Thursday last, in a public vehicle, possessed, as he understood, of great weight and influence in the country, that the observations which he (Sir E. Sugden) had addressed to the Committee on the preceding evening, had been met with roars of laughter, shouts of laughter, loud clamour, &c. He remembered very well, that on that evening, while he was addressing the Committee, his attention was directed to a slight laugh which occurred; and he took occasion to refer to it, and to make some observations upon the circumstance. The Paper, however, to which he alluded in giving his observations, had made it appear, that they had been received with "roars of laughter," "shouts of laughter," &c. He did not complain of this as a personal grievance: he cared not for it as such; but he must 612 say, that it was a lamentable thing, that the debates in that House should be so misrepresented as to deceive the whole country. Whoever had written the report to which he, in this instance, alluded, must have seen, that it was not a correct report of what had occurred on that occasion, and that he had unjustly given a crushing to one party, and a triumph to the other. Such a mode of proceeding was manifestly partial and unjust, and, in the long run, the Government would find that it would recoil upon themselves. If they continued to pursue their present course they would be deceiving the country; and their organs out of the House would also discover, when the people returned to their habitual sobriety and good sense, that their false reports would do their interests that injury from which he, and the hon. friends with whom he acted, wished to rescue them.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the Committee had uniformly paid that attention to the arguments and statements of the learned Gentleman, which his talents and the respectability of his station entitled him to. It was impossible but that in long discussions, like those which were carried on in reference to this Bill, and in the course of which the same arguments and the same statements were over and over again repeated, instances of inattention on the part of hon. Members must have now and then occurred. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he believed, did not apply any of his observations to him. He had always paid the best attention he could to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained, he believed, of a report in one of the vehicles of public intelligence; but the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that it was irregular to refer at all to the reports which appeared in those vehicles of information which contained accounts of the Debates that took place in that House. He should now refer to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to the principles on which Ministers had acted in reference to the boroughs in this schedule B. He would contend, in the first instance, that it was absolutely necessary that they should take some rule or other to bind them, and on the whole they thought, that population was the best test to enforce the principles laid down in the Bill. There was no general rule which was not attended with its disadvantages, and it was impossible, 613 when such a rule was adopted, but that some cases should come so near the line that had been fixed upon, that they could not be decided without hardship on one side or the other. Taken as a whole, however, and that was the only way in which a general rule was to be properly considered, he did not think, that the rule which had been adopted in the Bill had operated unfairly. In proof of that, he would state the following facts. The average amount of taxation paid by the boroughs in schedule A was 201l., and the average amount of the taxation of the boroughs in schedule B, was 783l. That fact clearly showed, that the boroughs with the larger population, possessed also the greater quantity of wealth, and were better entitled to consideration in a system of Representation. He had stated the average taxation of the boroughs which were totally disfranchised, and of the boroughs which were partly disfranchised. He had now to state, that the average amount of taxation paid by the boroughs which were not disfranchised at all, was 1,209l. That fact proved, that the taking population as a rule in establishing a system of Representation was not such an absurdity as it had been described. Particular instances of hardship might be pointed out, but, as a general rule, the rule which they had adopted he conceived was the best one.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he had no inclination to prolong this discussion. His great objection to the Ministers was, that they were not masters of their own measure—that they were legislating in the dark, and deluding the country by their present proceedings. They were invading the rights of thousands, which had been acquired under the law as it stood, and were doing that without shewing any fair, any just, or any adequate reason. They laid down a rule to-day, which they felt compelled to retract to-morrow—and as to whether boroughs in schedule A paid only 201l. in taxation, as against those in schedule B which paid 785l., he utterly denied that such an average Estimate was either fair or honest. Every case should be decided upon its own merits—and a borough should not be deprived of its franchise because of such an average calculation as that stated by the noble Lord (Lord Althorp.) Sooner or later, the noble Lord might depend upon it that the boroughs in schedule B, which had each lost one Member, would raise an outcry against 614 this injustice. And with respect to the borough of Guildford in particular, he could not see anything more unnecessary or unjust. It was only a week ago that he was at Guildford. He knew its wealth, its independence, and its high character; and he could assure the noble Lord, that the manner in which its inhabitants had been treated, had excited a feeling of disgust which they would not allow to slumber.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that the questions which he had put to the noble Lord opposite had not been satisfactorily answered by him. He was not one of those who had ever reproached Ministers for the concessions which they had made. They were not concessions made to those who sat on the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Members who sat on that side of the House were fighting the battle of the people in this case, and the concessions which had been made were not made to them personally, but to the truth and justice of their arguments—to the facts which they adduced, and to the rights for which they contended.
Mr. Baringsaid, that it would be found, that in a Reformed Parliament, when the day of battle came, the country Squires would not be able to stand against the active, pushing, intelligent, people who would be sent from the manufacturing districts. He stated this in order to draw the attention of country gentlemen to the wide difference which there would be between persons now sent into the House, and the persons who would come up from the field of coal in the North. They would be persons who would sit in the House from the time the Speaker took the Chair to the time he left it; who would read every paper that was laid before the House, and attend diligently to the business of the country. He stated this, to call the attention of country Gentlemen in the House to the question, whether they would not then be overmatched? Country Gentlemen would have no more chance of contending against such a species of Representation than the Church Establishment had of maintaining itself against the three religious sects, the friends of the noble Paymaster. The Bill involved both disfranchisement and enfranchisement, and perhaps a measure had never been submitted to Parliament that called more for cautions examination and complete discussion than this. A question of such 615 magnitude ought not to have been comprised in a single Bill, and he would recommend, even yet, that it should be separated into a number of distinct Bills. For instance, the disfranchisement clauses were agreed to; why not bring in a definite measure, confined to those clauses, stating precisely the principle on which they were constructed He could not help feeling, indeed, that the boroughs in those schedules had been treated with the greatest injustice, and that the course pursued was most absurd and extravagant. The Ministers laid down rules with regard to boroughs containing a population of less than 2,000, and of less than 4,000, but surely there was no necessity to adopt an arbitrary and fanciful distinction with respect to the boroughs and parishes. The result was, that the greatest possible injustice had been committed on the constituency of the country. Could anything be more monstrous, more partial, or more unjust, than to permit Andover to retain two Members, while Guildford was to have only one? Any person acquainted with these places, must, of course, be aware that Guildford was at least three times the size of Andover, and of three times the relative importance. This, again, was the case with regard to the borough of Horsham. According to the rule, the place should contain 4,000 persons, to be entitled to return two Members; Horsham contained only 2,600 inhabitants, and the Ministers gave it the environs, with 900; and adding the surrounding district, made up a population of 4,200. In Andover, also, they went to the surrounding districts to make up a sufficient population. But in the case of Guildford they would not, although the chief town in the wealthy county of Surrey, allow it to include those portions not in the borough. What reasonable ground could be assigned for such gross partiality? It was stated, that the population returns of 1821 were to be the rule, but the rule could have nothing to do with those places. A mere fanciful line had been resorted to, and, from beginning to end, every rational principle had been abandoned. Looking to the county-towns, the Committee had decided in the most arbitrary manner. If the question was put, whether such places as Dorchester and Guildford were entitled to their usual number of Representatives, every unprejudiced person would say, they were, and for their disfranchisement no 616 reason could be assigned but the will of the Ministers, or some rules laid down by them, without due regard to the consequences. He looked upon the consequences of disfranchising these boroughs as very alarming, and calculated to lead to most deplorable results. But after the noble Lords and their hon. friends had settled in this arbitrary manner the principles of disfranchisement, what did they expect from the new enfranchisement scheme they had propounded? Under the new and popular scheme of 10l. voters, if this country should ever happen to have a mob-courting Ministry, afraid to levy taxes, or to take any step which was not popular, he begged to ask, how such a Government could maintain itself? But looking even to the effects of the measure, as it would affect such a mob-courting Ministry themselves, he would ask how they were to return to that House an Attorney or Solicitor General who had instituted an unpopular prosecution, or supported an unpopular tax? According to the system which this Bill was intended to introduce, a Minister required not only to possess general popularity, but also local popularity. He could suppose the case of a Chancellor of the Exchequer consulting local interests, and refraining from levying a particular tax, because it pressed heavily on his constituents. Such a case was not merely fanciful. When Mr. Lushington represented Canterbury, it was said, though perhaps very unjustly, that he never was without a Bill for furthering the interest of the hop-dealers in Canterbury, and an insinuation of a similar description was more than once thrown out with respect to the late Mr. Huskisson, when he represented Liverpool. By the system of popular Representation, which this Bill was calculated to introduce, the Crown would be restrained in its choice of servants to conduct the public business; and the people with their liberties, in his opinion, would greatly suffer—unless, indeed, it was intended to introduce a clause giving the servants of the Crown the privilege of sitting in that House, as Ministers, and not as the Representatives of the people. He begged to know, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to propose such a clause in the Bill?
Mr. Stanleywould readily answer, that there was no intention on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to introduce into the 617 Bill any such provision as that which had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He assured the hon. Gentleman, that it was not through want of deference when he reminded him, that this was not the time to discuss the expediency of such a clause. The question before the House applied to schedule B only; and in the midst of the consideration of that question, the hon. Gentleman asked his Majesty's Ministers, how were Governments in future to bring into that House any individual who should have accepted office—not being, as the hon. Gentleman rather uncourteously expressed it, a mob-courting Minister—if they were to have no corrupt boroughs? That topic might properly have been made part of the discussion on schedule A, but had no connection with schedule B. The argument was, that unless there were corrupt places open to a Ministry, the servants of the Crown could not obtain seats in that House. It was said, that if the nomination boroughs were disfranchised, unless there was a mob-courting Ministry, the members of the Administration could not obtain seats in that House. This argument had no connection with schedule B, because Gentlemen opposite contended that schedule B contained no rotten boroughs, and, therefore, none of the boroughs in schedule B could be used to induct members of the Government into that House. If the question put by the hon. Member had really any thing to do with the Bill, it was certainly one which, like the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, would apply equally well to schedule A, as to schedule B. There was no place excepted from those schedules which could be a nomination borough ["Yes—Calne."] He heard somebody say, Calne; but he would assure that Gentleman, that he was not to be induced then to discuss the principle of the Bill. He would repeat his determination not to enter into the question, whether it might or might not be expedient to preserve places for securing admission to the House of Commons of the Officers of the Crown, without imposing upon them the necessity of courting a mob. It was a question to which the schedule did not naturally give rise, and it was not the intention of the authors of the measure to include in the Bill that alteration in the existing system of our Representation. His hon. friend had paid the country gentlemen but a very poor compliment, 618 in saying that, in a Reformed Parliament, they would incur the hazard of being overpowered by the Representatives of the manufacturing districts;—that, in fact, the country gentlemen generally were not of that pushing and active turn of mind, and of those habits which would qualify them for competing with the formidable rivals to them, which the great towns would send into that House. He confessed, that he listened to that assertion with no little surprise, for his experience of the House warranted him in affirming, that no Members were more attentive, more regular in their attendance, or more diligent in the performance of their duties, than were the country gentlemen—that very class of Members whom his hon. friend blamed for their inefficiency. On Committees and in the business of the House, they proved themselves as active and as intelligent as any who could find their way into that House; and he felt perfectly assured, that those who came from the barley-field, as it had been called, would not be overpowered by those who came from the coal field. But was it a just reproach to the class of manufacturers that they would attend to their business? were the Representatives of the manufacturing districts to be blamed for doing that in the House which they were expressly sent to do? were they to be blamed because they would do their duty, and would know what was going forward in that House? It would seem that his hon. friend wished to have the agricultural Members so circumstanced that they might come down to the House for an hour or two, then go to dinner, to an evening party, or where they pleased, and in the latter end of the evening give such time or attention to their parliamentary duties as might suit their convenience. But was such known from experience to be the conduct of the country gentlemen, or ought it to be their conduct? Was it to be accepted as a sound argument, in a discussion like the present, that there should be two Members from the barley-field for one from the coal-field, that they might relieve each other, and take the work in turns of opposing the Members from the towns? The effect of the Bill would be, that all the Members of that House would do what they were sent to do—they would be efficient Members of Parliament, they would examine every question for themselves, and not merely come down to that House when they had 619 no other engagement, to lounge away an hour for the good of the country. The hon. Gentleman's argument was, that one manufacturing Member would be equal to two agricultural Members, and therefore, to make an even balance, that there should be two agricultural Members for every one connected with the manufacturing districts; but this argument involved a severe censure on those Members who represented the agricultural interests, which he was much surprised at hearing from his hon. friend, who was always an advocate for the agricultural interest. When schedule B was first discussed, the proportion of Members given to the north and south of the kingdom was considered. The proportion which at present existed might have been just, centuries ago, when it was established, but it was not just now, when the northern part of the kingdom had increased so much in wealth, population, and manufacturing industry and skill. According to the arrangements even of the Bill, there would be only one Member to every 25,000 inhabitants of the north of England, while in the south there would be one to every 20,000: with such a proportion, he could not admit that any undue advantage was given to the coal-field, or that the agricultural interest was in the least danger from the preponderating weight which the Bill would give to the manufacturing interest in that House; but he believed, that all interests would be in great danger if existing abuses were perpetuated, and great and opulent towns were excluded from their due share and influence in the Representation. It was insinuated that Government had not been just in the application of the rule which had been laid down to particular boroughs, but he confidently asserted, that they had done their best in each individual case, and on the whole, to do equal and substantial justice. Before he sat down, he wished to notice one topic respecting which some misapprehension appeared to have arisen. It was stated, that the assessed taxes in the boroughs to be disfranchised gave an average of 200l., and in those having one Member, an average of 700l., and it was assumed, that taxation was to form the rule, whereas it had been merely mentioned for the purpose of reinforcing the arguments founded upon population.
Mr. Baringexplained. He had too much respect for the members of the present Government, to apply the epithet 620 "mob-courting Ministry" to them individually; he used the expression with reference merely to the condition of the future servants of the Crown, and not to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. No answer, however, was given to his objection, that, before the King appointed his Ministers in that House, he must first inquire whether the individual whom he had thought fit to appoint, had local interest enough to obtain a seat under such a system; the people would possess the initiative power, and the Crown only a veto. It was true, there was tyranny and oligarchy in the world, but there was also democracy and anarchy; and hitherto there had happily existed a balance of power in this country which secured the happiness and liberties of the people. It now appeared, that it was not intended to remedy the inconvenience which must exist from having the Ministers of the Crown dependent on popular and local favour for seats in that House. The right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Stanley's) own case was a proof that nomination boroughs was not useless in this respect; for, having failed in a popular election, that right hon. Gentleman found his way into that House through the royal, he should not say rotten, borough of Windsor. It was a nomination borough, however; and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, perhaps, had never seen him, nor heard his name, before he was proposed as their Member. Now this was much better than that the country should be saddled with jobs to secure the favour of local constituencies for Ministers of the Crown.
§ Mr. Crokerhad listened to the right hon. Gentleman, with the hope that he might throw some light on the principles of the Bill, which had in vain been sought from the noble Lords (J. Russell and Althorp) opposite, but was disappointed. All three united in saying, that Ministers had drawn a line of disfranchisement, which might be considered as the population principle of the Bill. Now, what they on the Opposition side of the House had to complain of was, not that this was or was not a proper line, or that it ought or ought not to be taken as the principle of the Bill, but that Ministers had not adhered to it with strict impartiality; that, in fact, they (the Opposition) could not bind the Ministry to their own principle. How, for example, did they venture to justify the placing Sudbury in its present position? 621 Its population was above 4,000, and Ministers could not apply to it their "principle," that though the population was so much, it was not the population of the one parish including the one borough: for here was not merely a town and a parish, forming together the requisite number, but the actual town—the streets covered with contiguous buildings furnished more than the required amount. How, then, did they defend their placing it in schedule B, and making it an exception to their own line of principle? By saying that, true it was, that the town contained upwards of 4,000 inhabitants; but that there was a part of the town not included technically within the limits of the borough. What an absurdity! in other cases, as in Calne and Northallerton, they reckoned in whole rural districts, which had no more connexion with the borough than they had with Westminster; and here they will not reckon as part of Sudbury, a portion of the town which is as much connected with it, as the liberties of Westminster are with the city of Westminster; and, how is the distinction, which, even, if true, ought to be of no value, proved? Why, by quoting some ex parte statement of a private Lighting Act, which had no reference whatever to such parochial distinctions as the Bill professed to observe. This extraordinary astuteness in making distinctions without a difference and advancing new principles and abandoning old ones as it might suit their particular objects, was just of a piece with their conduct with respect to Appleby. Say they, if the parish and the borough have the same name, we take the sum of their population; if not, we count only the resident inhabitants of the borough. And yet Appleby, which answered to the former description, was disfranchised, under the pretext that its parishes were distinguished as St. Michael's, Appleby, and St. Lawrence, Appleby. Bridport, a thriving, manufacturing, and he might almost say, commercial town, in the same chance-medley way, was disfranchised, because a stream chanced to flow through it, and, because Ministers chose to reckon as the borough only that part of the town which lay on one side of the brook. What, if the Commissioners employed by Ministers had happened to visit that borough a couple of months later in the season? they might probably have found the streamlet dry, and thus Bridport would 622 be saved from disfranchisement. "But," says the noble Lord, "the line we have drawn is on the whole satisfactory." To whom was it satisfactory? Certainly not to the Opposition side of the House, and certainly not to the noble Lord himself, for how, if it were so, could it be explained, that of the forty-seven boroughs originally set down by him in schedule B, not less than twenty had been since removed from that schedule, or made to change their places by the noble Lord? He had shifted some from A to B, and others from B to A; and some again were removed from both A and B. He was now speaking of the original lists presented by the noble Lord in the outset, as the grounds on which his schedules were afterwards arranged; and he was content, not to reckon as changes of the Ministers original intentions, the removal of the Welsh towns from that list; but after every allowance, it would appear, that eight or nine alterations had taken place in schedule A, and that full one-third of the boroughs in schedule B had been also changed. Such changes might, or might not be right; but they proved, either that the Ministers did not originally understand their own principle, or were obliged by its injustice and partiality to abandon it in a large proportion of cases. This was, also, an admission, that the Bill introduced last Session contained twenty or thirty instances of injustice, and yet it was for not passing that very Bill wholesale, and in the lump, that the late Parliament was dissolved. So much for the satisfaction and consistency of those who framed the Bill. In this awkward dilemma, between their profession of taking some rule as their guide, and their violating it in fact, the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) came to his noble colleagues' relief, and said, "Why, it is true, that the line does not always hold good, but see what a steady light the amount of assessed taxes paid by the several places in schedules A and B, and by those others which retain the present complement of Representatives, throws on the practical effect of the Bill;" and then the noble Lord told them, that it would be found, that the average amount paid by the boroughs to be disfranchised by schedule A, was 200l. per annum; of those in schedule B upwards of 700l.; and of those which were still to retain two Members 1,200l. per annum. But how did the noble Lord obtain those averages? Why, by 623 actually taking the parish and the borough together, which they refused, in several instances, to do in the Bill itself. This was the fact, and he defied the noble Lord to gainsay it. Nay, this was not all: the noble Lord not only joined the parish and the borough amount of assessed taxes together in those places which were to be retained under the Bill, but actually separated them in those places which were set down for disfranchisement. Thus, for instance, to swell the account of Calne, he reckoned in the whole taxes of the parish of Calne, while in the case of Appleby he calculated, neither of the two parishes and only half the borough itself. By this convenient mode of first begging the very question in dispute, and then striking a general average, there was nothing which might not be shown. Without, however, dwelling on this point, he would take the noble Lord's own selected principle, and, divesting it of the vague delusion of averages, would show, from the individual sums, how it applied to the favoured and unfavoured places. Morpeth was to retain two Members; and therefore, according to the noble Lord, should pay at least 1,200l. of assessed taxes. What was the fact? According to the returns on the Table of the House, the amount was but 828l. Northallerton was also to retain two Members, and yet its amount of taxation was 300l. under the noble Lord's average. Calne paid, according to the returns taken as a test by the noble Lord in March last, but 650l., and yet was to retain two Members. And here, again and again, Calne presented itself and obliged him to observe on a piece of—he knew not how to term it, save as official chicane, with respect to the returns made for that place, which seemed to him to be got up in a way peculiarly calculated to confuse an inquirer, and magnify the borough. He had himself moved for returns of the population and amount of taxes paid by the several boroughs and parishes in England, distinguishing the borough from the parish, and was told, that so far as Calne was concerned, these returns could not possibly be separately made out. Other returns also stated, that the population of the borough and the parish could not be distinguished from each other, but the papers laid upon the Table of the House by the noble Lord, in the month of March last, showed that the population of the borough and the parish had been 624 distinguished from each other, and the male population of Calne was ascertained to be 996; therefore it was possible to distinguish between the borough and the parish, although the other returns had officially denied the fact; and mark the result: if the returns had been correct, Calne would have been in schedule A; but by confusing and confounding the accounts, Calne had been juggled into the continuance of its full privilege. But, notwithstanding all this care and trouble, the truth escaped by crevices unobserved by the foresight of Ministers; and the House now knew, that Calne had not the requisite population, and the tax returns betrayed, that it paid little more than half of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's average. In short, as he had already stated, its assessed taxes were only 650l., those of Malton were 950l., those of Horsham, 974l., yet all these places, Whig boroughs let it be remembered, were each to retain two Members. So far it was plain, that the noble Lord's average did not apply to the favoured boroughs. On the other hand, if they examined those places to be disfranchised, either wholly or in part, they would find, that the amount of assessed taxes was as much above the noble Lord's average, as those already alluded to fell under it. He could select many instances of injustice, but for the present he should confine himself to five boroughs, all of which were in schedule B, and each of which paid more taxes than the amount taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the standard average of boroughs retaining two Members. The first he should refer to was Huntingdon, a county-town, which paid 1,750l. There was another county-town, Dorchester, which, in point of the wealth and respectability of its inhabitants, was fully entitled to its present Representation, was yet put into schedule B, by the exclusion of a part of the town called Fordington, which, however, was so much a part of it, that the boundaries could not be well distinguished, and yet that place was not to be included in the population. To these claims Dorchester united that of paying 2,100l. in assessed taxes; and all this was considered as adhering to the fixed line, and to be defended by the evidence of averages. So, of assessed taxes, Guildford paid 1,960l., and Chippenham, 2,231l.; and all these boroughs were to return but one Member each, while Calne, with its 650l., was to retain two, 625 Even Sudbury, with its 1,131l. of assessed taxes, was also above the amount of the places he had just mentioned as retaining two Representatives. Northallerton, which was to return two Members, paid only 901l. for the borough; but then a parish was added, extending sixteen miles, which gave an additional sum of 227l.; making in the whole, 1,128l.; being some pounds less than Sudbury paid alone within the square of half a mile. These were some of the anomalies exhibited by the scale applied by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). He (Mr. Croker) did not think the payment to the assessed taxes, by any means, a bad measure of the claims of a place for representation. He might agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was an excellent criterion—but what he complained of was, that the noble Lord, who advanced it in argument, did not apply it in practice. It seemed the strangest mode of reasoning, to state, that the amount of taxation should be a measure of electoral rights, and then to insist on granting the electoral right in direct defiance and contradiction of the principle so advanced. Had it been properly or fairly applied, all the towns he had named, and he believed, all those towns in schedule B, on which divisions had taken place, would still be entitled to return two Members. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that if any one of the various rules upon which Ministers professed to go with respect to the constituency had been consistently applied, many of the places which were now excluded would have been saved, and, which he could not but think Gentlemen opposite would think of still more importance—many of those called the Whig boroughs could not have escaped disfranchisement.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was based on a fallacy. In the first place he took the exception for the rule, and in the next place he took for a rule what was never meant for more than an illustration. He had never said, there was any other rule or principle on which the Bill was framed than population: and it was merely as an argument, which sprung up fortuitously in the course of the discussion, that he endeavoured to show, that the amount of assessed taxes paid by the several boroughs and places to be affected by the Bill corresponded in general with the amount of population taken as 626 the line of disfranchisement. This was the case in general, but not invariably, as the right hon. Gentleman had shown. But population, as he had stated, was the principle of disfranchisement, and not taxation.
§ Mr. Crokerhad only to observe, that the argument had emanated from the noble Lord himself, and therefore that he was not responsible for its defects.
Mr. C. W. Wynncould not agree with the noble Lord, that the principle of population was invariably adhered to by the Bill. Indeed, Ministers seemed to act on no one consistent principle, save doing away with the ancient land-marks of the constitution. See how their refusing to take in the adjacent population of a town or borough—the overflowing in general of that town or borough—would apply to the city of London. In point of fact, the resident population of the city was less now than it was a century ago, in consequence of change of habits in the merchants and traders, and the great increase of commerce; so that the very circumstance which ought to entitle London to an increased Representation, would, under the Bill, actually lessen the number of its Representatives. But these were not his chief objections to the Bill; under it the most ancient rights and privileges were destroyed. The Constitution already shook under the blows, for they heard many Gentlemen assert, that they were advocates for this measure, as only the first step to greater and more extensive changes, and he feared it would ultimately lead to Universal Suffrage. With these feelings he must resist the measure.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamthought, sufficient exertions had not been used to obtain evidence on which to found their proceedings. Instead of dwelling so much upon rules, the Committee ought to consider facts, and not to decide upon any case without full investigation. They would not then have met with so many, and, in his opinion, proper delays, in every stage of the Bill. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had alluded to Shrewsbury; and having made inquiries into that borough he could inform the noble Lord, that in the reign of Elizabeth a part of the city which then formed the suburbs was added to the town, for the purpose of enlarging the constituency. If the noble Lord, therefore, meant to say, that additions had never been previously made for increasing 627 the number of voters, he was certainly in error. They were so much in want of evidence, that he would recommend a Committee to be appointed to obtain it.
Mr. Ramsbottom, in allusion to the observations applied to a right hon. Gentleman, the member for Windsor, denied, that the right hon. Gentleman had sought refuge in that borough, to be returned on the Reform interest. The election had been free and independent, and had he not entertained sentiments of Reform, he would not have been elected.
§ Mr. Praedobserved, if that was so, he would ask on what principle the right hon. Gentleman had been returned to a seat in that House? He had always understood that the King's name was a tower of strength in Windsor.
Mr. Stanleysaid, his election had been free and independent. His return had not cost him one shilling.
§ The question "that schedule B stand part of the Bill," was carried.
Mr. Bernalthen called the attention of the Committee to schedule C, as follows: "And be it enacted, that each of the principal places named in the first column of the schedule C, shall, for the purposes of the Act, be a borough, and shall as such borough include the several parishes, townships, and places, mentioned in conjunction with, and named in the second column of schedule C; and that each of the said boroughs shall, at the end of this present Parliament, send Members to Parliament; and that each of the principal places named in the first column of schedule D to this Act annexed, shall be a borough, and send Members to Parliament."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the clause which had just been read, alluded to schedule D. He did not see how they could look at that schedule until they had gone through the details of schedule C. He thought it had been determined they should go through all the schedules to the Bill, before they decided upon any of the other clauses it contained.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, they were about to quit the ruinous part of the Bill, and proceed upon the architectural part. They were to build up boroughs out of towns. Before they made Manchester, the first great town upon the list, a borough, they ought to be sure they had not improperly disfranchised other boroughs to accomplish that object.
§ Lord Althorpsuggested, whether it would not be better to read the names of places as they stood in schedule C, and confine themselves to those places which Gentlemen might consider objectionable.
§ Mr. Crokerconsidered that the most regular course.
Colonel Woodthought, they ought to begin by taking the great counties, and giving the additional elective franchise to them before they considered the cases of large towns and boroughs.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, it would be more convenient to divide the schedule, taking the question of supplying two Members first. They might then proceed with the towns to be formed into boroughs.
§ Lord Althorphad no objection to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet, and he would therefore propose, that the former part of the clause which related to schedule C be read, and that the blank be filled up with the word, "Two."
§ Question carried.
§ The question was then put, "that Manchester (including the Townships of Manchester, Chorlton-row, Ardwicke, Beswick, Hulme, Cheetham, Bradford, Newton and Harpurhey, in the hundred of Salford, Lancashire) stand part of schedule C."
Mr. Stuart Wortleycould not understand why it was necessary to give two Representatives to Manchester, and one to Salford. It might be proper that he should state the grounds for this opinion. Manchester was separated into two parts by the river Irwell; one of these divisions was called Irish Hill, the other Salford. This latter place was formerly a suburb, but now formed a part of the town of Manchester, being brought within it by the turnings of the river. In the first Bill brought forward for Reform, Manchester included eight adjacent parishes, of which Salford was one. In the second Bill, Salford was omitted; and in the third Bill, again introduced. The second was the remarkable part of the case, that Salford should be separated, because it was wholly identified with Manchester in character and population. In the event of these places returning Members to Parliament, under the plan now before the Committee, the electors must be bonâ fide householders, of the value of 10l. a-year and upwards, and he found the number of such houses in both places amounted to about 32,800. Now, the Tower Hamlets district would exceed this number by 4,000; 629 Marylebone by 8,000; and Liverpool by 244. If they took the amount of the assessed taxes as a test, the result would be the same. In Manchester and Salford these amounted to 149,000l.; while the Tower Hamlets were assessed at 182,000l.; Finsbury at 205,000l.; Marylebone at 292,000l.; and Lambeth 205,000l. The only argument in favour of Manchester was, its being the centre of the cotton trade, and as this trade would otherwise be adequately represented, he thought this argument of no importance, compared with the great inconvenience arising from widely distributing, into separate divisions, the system of Representation, instead of combining the parts of one district, and keeping the different interests balanced. Such an argument applied particularly to places where the population was numerous, and a large proportion of the lowest orders, who, from their living and acting together in numbers, would be always subject to some kind of excitement. Such a class of persons could, in this case, pass from one to the other town, and, by tumult and riot, put down all opposition to their own wishes; whereas, if the two places had only two Members, and the election took place at Manchester, there would, he thought, be a balance of parties, and the peace be preserved. He should, therefore, move, as an amendment, that the Townships of Salford, Pendleton, and Broughton, be added to the Townships already given to Manchester, and the whole should return only two Members.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that there was a great distinction between Manchester and Salford, even more than there was between London and Southwark; for in the latter case the Corporation of London had jurisdiction in Southwark, while in the former, the two towns had entirely separate jurisdictions. He therefore trusted, that the Ministers would not for one moment listen to the proposition which the hon. Gentleman had made. While the question was the disfranchisement of boroughs, he had not always been able to agree with the Government; but now that they had come to the enfranchising part of the Bill, he could assure the Ministers that they would meet with no opposition from him. If Manchester by itself was not to have two Representatives, after all they had heard of the injustice done to Birmingham, great dissatisfaction would prevail.
§ Mr. Heywoodsaid, he could not refrain from expressing his satisfaction, that an act of justice, so long delayed, was at length about to be conferred on this opulent and important manufacturing town, which had now become one of the most flourishing marts of industry and traffick in the whole British empire. The population of Manchester and its neighbourhood had increased within the last sixty years from 40,000 to 270,000, being an increase of 230,000. The township of Manchester alone contained 129,000 people. It was unnecessary to point out how great had been the increase of its manufacturing establishments, its machinery, and other interests, within that period. A place of this importance ought to have its proportional share in the scale of Representation. At the present moment the population of the parish of Manchester was as great as that of the whole county of Lancaster, within the memory of some of its present inhabitants. Within that period there had been an increase of a million of inhabitants in the whole county. Salford was a distinct town from Manchester—as distinct as the borough of Southwark was from London, and separated in the same manner. It contained a population of 50,000 inhabitants, it had distinct interests, and it would be, therefore, unfair to throw it into the Representation of Manchester. There were other great towns in the county of Lancaster, such as Ashton, the population of which was 33,000, Blackburn with 22,000, Rochdale with 33,000, and Burnley 13,000 people, all increasing in industry and intelligence. The whole county, with a population equal to several of the southern counties, only returned fourteen Members, and of these only six were sent by the popular voice. It was beyond his power to state the deep conviction that prevailed in Lancashire of the value of returning Members. He had himself been most unexpectedly called on, and with no other passport than a promise to support Reform, he had been sent to Parliament. He must, in fact, state, that his own triumphant return for that county—not triumphant as far as related to him on personal grounds, but as respected the principles of that great measure of which he was known to be the advocate, was a strong, and a decisive proof of its necessity. He concluded by impressing on the Committee the justice of giving Salford a Representation distinct from Manchester.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, they had been debating several days, whether a doubtful population of 4,000 persons, more or less, should continue to return two Members to Parliament, and when that question had been disposed of, he was surprised to hear it asserted, that a condensed population of 187,000 ought not to have two Representatives. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman who proposed this, if of any value, only went to shew the necessity of additional Representatives for large towns, instead of deductions. It had been proved, that the wealth and population of Manchester exceeded that of all the boroughs in schedule B; and the parish of Pancras alone, paid more than double the amount of taxes paid by all the boroughs in schedules A and B.
Mr. Slaneywished to be allowed to make a few remarks, in reply to what had been said by a right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), of the advantageous change in Representation about to be made, in favour of the coal districts. The increase of population and wealth in these districts, was the cause of this. In most of the large manufacturing districts, the population had increased fifty per cent in the last twenty years, while the population of the whole country had not increased above twenty per cent., in the same period. In Liverpool, the population had increased fifty-two per cent; Coventry, fifty-three; Birmingham, forty; and Glasgow 100 per cent, in the period referred to. As an instance of the increased and comparative wealth of those places to which the franchise was about to be extended, he would mention, that thirty-eight of the new boroughs to which they were about to give Representatives, paid, on an average, 26,000l. a year each in assessed taxes, which was 260 times more than the average of the taxes of all the boroughs from which the franchise was about to be transferred.
Mr. Ewartcorroborated the statement made by the hon. member for Lancashire, as to the immense increase of wealth and population of Manchester. He perfectly concurred in the act of justice now about to be done to that place, which was hourly increasing in importance. The inhabitants of Manchester had recently established a silk-market, and he hoped they would rival the whole world, now that the two great places of Manchester and Liverpool were so closely connected, by the great 632 work recently completed, which united them so closely, that they might be said to be almost one town.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that in the first Bill introduced, Salford and Manchester were joined together, but it was found afterwards, that local jealousies would prevent them from doing well together, and, considering the wealth and population of Salford, it was not too much to give one Member to Salford, and two to Manchester.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamobjected to the principle so much insisted upon by hon. Members, of giving Members to population, and not to property. To hear hon. Members speak on that side, one would infer that manufactures were the road to population and wealth, and that agriculture was the road to ruin; but when hon. Members talked of the great increase in the manufacturing districts, they omitted to notice that the increase in the population of Sussex, was as great as that of any manufacturing district. At all events, he hoped the new Members for the manufacturing districts, would remember, they came to that House as Representatives of the whole empire, and not for the advantage of a particular district.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that though he admitted, that Manchester and Salford were distinct as to their local arrangements, yet practically, they might be considered as one place, and giving a Representative to Salford, was, in effect, giving three Members to Manchester. He would not, however, divide the House upon his amendment.
Sir Robert Peelcontended, that his hon. friend was perfectly justified in calling the attention of the Committee to this subject, as the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had himself, when he proposed to extend the franchise from Penryn to Manchester, included Salford, and had done so in the bill of last Session. At the same time, as far as the question of separate Representation depended on the fact of Manchester and Salford being distinct, he admitted the force of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. If, however, Salford was to be enfranchised, he thought the noble Lord was holding out a premium or bounty to future contests, by giving it only one Member.
The amendment withdrawn, and the original question, "that Manchester, including 633 the townships of Manchester, Chorlton-row, Ardwicke, Beswick, Hulme, Cheetham, Bradford, &c. stand part of schedule C,'' again put.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, they were now out of the disfranchising clauses, and were proceeding to those of enfranchisement, and he rose to protest against that part of the Bill which had for its object to enfranchise large towns at the expense of boroughs. If these were considered as spoils taken from places which had long enjoyed the privilege, he should decidedly object to the principle. He objected also to the principle, because it went to enfranchise so many towns. At the same time he was called upon to state, as he had done previous to the dissolution, that, looking at the difficulties which the Government had to contend with, and though differing as he did from a majority of the House on the subject of Reform, and taking into account the circumstances of the country, he should not throw any obstacles in the way of a moderate Reform. As a member of the late Government, he had opposed the enfranchisement of large towns, not because he apprehended any immediate dangers from such a measure, but because he was afraid of entertaining the question of Reform at all, and was fearful that any plan of Reform, limited exclusively to enfranchisement, proposed by a Government which had been previously opposed to all Reform, would not give satisfaction, and would not, probably, be permanent, considering the feeling of the country on the question. On coming to schedule C, he should consider himself privileged to object to any of the clauses, particularly if those clauses should be urged on the ground that the boroughs in schedules A and B, had been disfranchised, and that the vacancies caused by the disfranchisement must be filled up. What he meant was, that he would not consent to any enfranchisement on the ground that disfranchisement must be a necessary preliminary. With regard to the first clause, and notwithstanding the feelings of the country, he must say, that disfranchisement as a rule was unjust, and on that point he was prepared to yield nothing. Having regard to the prevailing opinion of the country, however, he thought it impossible to deny the right to Manchester, the first place mentioned in the schedule, to send Members to Parliament; but he thought that the principle of disfranchise- 634 ment was unjust. He thought the rule adopted by Ministers an absurd one; there was no sufficient ground, in his opinion, for disfranchisement, but he was not prepared to say, that he would not yield on the score of enfranchisement. He thought that it was impossible to contend against the feeling of the country on the subject, and he was not disposed to diminish the favour of concession by unavailing opposition. But if he were proposing enfranchisement, he should say, that in all cases he would give the enfranchised place two Members, not one. That was, if he had fifty Members to give, he would select twenty-five places, and give each place two Members, rather than select fifty places, and give to each one Member. He certainly thought, that the enfranchisement proposed was much too extensive; but as it was, if priority were given to any place, Manchester certainly deserved to be the first place enfranchised. Birmingham also was fairly entitled to the same advantage, and then followed Leeds, which ought to have the same privilege. On former occasions these were the towns to which it was proposed to give the forfeited franchises; then the franchise of Penryn was to be given to Manchester: that of Grampound to Leeds; and that of East-Retford to Birmingham. That was proposed by those Gentlemen who were favourable to the transfer. To the three towns which stood first, he had no objection; to the fourth town on the list he should object. He never could have supposed when he heard of a Reform Bill, that Deptford, and Greenwich, and Woolwich were to send Members to Parliament. He believed, too, they dreamed as little of it themselves as he did. He understood that the principle of the Bill was, to destroy nomination boroughs; and yet it was proposed to give the franchise to Woolwich, Greenwich and Deptford, places under the immediate influence of the Government, and by that means to constitute an enormous nomination borough. He objected also to the enfranchisement of the metropolitan districts. If it were desirable to give those districts increased Representation, he should prefer doing so by adding two Members to the county of Middlesex. The proper principle upon which to give Representation was population, in order that large masses of the people might have a voice in the Representation. On these grounds, and seeing the impossibility of resisting the proposed enfranchisement to 635 certain large towns, he would not waste the time of the House by discussing or opposing the enfranchisement of Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds, and no man more sincerely hoped that this change would turn out for their good. Taking, however, any single case—taking the town of Manchester, and the description given of it by hon. Members, as to its increase in population, wealth, and industry—he would ask, was not this very increase the best proof, that the right of sending Representatives was not necessary to improvement, and that towns could flourish without having Representatives within the walls of the Temple of the State? Enfranchisement certainly was consistent with the practice of former times, but it ought to be recollected there was no corresponding disfranchisement. On these grounds he would not make any objection to the enfranchisement of the first three towns in C; but he should reserve the right to deliver his opinion on all the other places included in that schedule. When the Committee came to Greenwich, Deptford, and Woolwich, he should move, as an amendment, that they be omitted, because he considered they were under influence—because it was dangerous to give the franchise to places in such proximity to the House—and because, both from moral and physical strength, they might influence the deliberations of that House. For these reasons he would take the opinion of the Committee on giving the franchise to Greenwich, and other places close to the metropolis. But he should consider himself at liberty to form what opinion he pleased with respect to the other proposed boroughs. He should certainly propose that Greenwich be omitted from the schedule C, and take the sense of that House on the question, because he objected to the undue influence which the metropolitan districts exercised over their Members.
Lord John Russellsaid, he was glad to find that Ministers were to have the right hon. Baronet's support on one point at least, though he could not help thinking that the right hon. Baronet's present declarations were a little inconsistent with his former opinions. The right hon. Baronet had now no objection to enfranchisement without disfranchisement; but he must declare his decided opinion, that such a thing was impossible. He did not believe that the right hon. Baronet would find it 636 any more possible to carry on the Government by the help of the 111 Members, representing the boroughs in schedule A, than to exclude Manchester and Birmingham any longer from sending Representatives to that House. The public opinion had expressed itself as decidedly on the one subject as on the other. The right hon. Baronet had, in fact, broached a new plan of Reform, but he did not think it would prove satisfactory to the country. As he stated before, he was glad now to have the right hon. Baronet's support in the proposal to give Representatives to Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds. He would argue the case of Greenwich with the right hon. Baronet when it came before the House, but he must at present observe, that the right hon. Baronet's assertion, that Greenwich had no wish or suspicion that it would receive Representation was incorrect. Previous to the introduction of the Reform Bill, Greenwich had sent a petition to that House praying that its ancient right of returning Members might be restored. He supported the extension of the franchise to the metropolitan districts, which contained a vast population, and possessed a rental of some millions a-year; and he did not see why, because they were situated close to the metropolis, the capital of all the wealth and intelligence in the country, they should not receive Representation as well as Leeds or Birmingham.
Sir Robert Peelwished to make one or two observations on what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord could not imagine how any person could support enfranchisement without disfranchisement. But he told the noble Lord, that one was a question of expediency, and the other of justice; and those who might be prepared to yield to the point of expediency, might still think themselves justified in resisting proposals which, in their opinion, were founded on injustice. But the noble Lord had said, "You who have been against Reform, never should be a Reformer: you are cut off from all possibility of ever becoming a Reformer, and not even the circumstances of the country (altered in consequence of one Government leaving office because they would not concede Reform, and another coming in pledged to grant it; altered by the sanction of the King's Government and the King's name being given to their 637 plan of Reform, and by the weight and influence of the royal character being taken away from the Constitution, as it had hitherto existed, and transferred to the support of an extensive change) will form any excuse for your turning Reformer." And was it the noble Lord who said, that he ought to allow no change to take place in his opinion, on the subject of Reform? Had he ever taunted the noble Lord with a departure from his principles? Had he said, that he would bind the noble Lord down to the opinions which he had formerly expressed? If the noble Lord's doctrine, that no change should take place in a man's opinions, was to be considered as correct, what must be the feelings of his two right hon. friends opposite (probably Mr. Grant, and Viscount Palmerston) who, for fifteen years past, had distinguished themselves for their adherence to the political opinions of Mr. Canning, whose domestic policy was marked by the most decided resistance to Reform in every shape. But did he deny to the noble Lord, and his right hon. friend, the perfect right to take what course they thought fit, on account of the altered circumstances of the country, on the question of Reform? Had they any other reason or pretext to assign for their support of the present measure, except the altered circumstances of the country? In 1826, when the application of the forfeited franchise of Grampound came to be considered, what course did his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston) take? Did he concur in the expediency of transferring it to some large town, or did he not rather adhere to the policy of Mr. Canning, and vote for transferring it to the neighbouring hundred. Had he (Sir Robert Peel) even insinuated that there was anything unworthy in the course which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had pursued? But he thought that the noble Lord, after the speeches which he had made, and the able treatises which he had written on the subject of Reform, and flanked as he was on the right hand and on the left by persons who had always opposed Reform, should be the last person to taunt his opponents with change of opinion on the subject of Reform. He knew not what possible advantage would result to him by changing his opinion, if change there was. He had uniformly held the same language, since the Question had been under consideration. After the change of Government had taken place, he declared, that 638 rather than risk another change of Government, in the then state of the country, he would lend his assistance to the Government, in the hope that some moderate plan of Reform would be proposed, to which he should be able to give his consent with justice. He still adhered to his declaration, and would support such parts of the Bill as he could without violation of principle, and perpetrating injustice, and in spite of the taunts of the noble Lord, he intended to persevere in the course he had marked out for himself.
Lord John Russellstated, that when he observed, that he could not reconcile the right hon. Baronet's observations to-night with his former opinions, he did not allude to the conduct of the right hon. Baronet in former Parliaments, but to the declarations which he had made that night, and ever since the Reform Bill was brought in. If he understood the right hon. Baronet's declaration rightly, it was this—that he objected to give enfranchisement to large towns, because it set the question of Reform afloat, and led to still further changes. Now he did not understand how the right hon. Baronet, consistently with that declaration, could be ready at the present moment to grant the franchise to Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham. He thought, that if the right hon. Baronet kept to his first declaration, that would be an intelligible course of proceeding. He wished to throw out no taunt against the right hon. Baronet; but, holding the place which he did in the country, he was bound, if he became a Reformer, to take a line which would give permanent security to the country. He thought, however, that the right hon. Baronet had assumed a line by which he would find it impossible to govern England.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he was willing to adhere to his opinion, and not take any share in the Government. He was ready to pay that penalty for his opinion. He would not be a party to the hazard which he thought they were incurring by this Bill. He would infinitely prefer paying the penalty of permanent exclusion from office, to sharing the noble Lord's responsibility. But the proposal which he had made to-night was, in reality, the proposal which the noble Lord had himself made a few years ago. The noble Lord had thought proper to change the proposition which he first 639 made, to grant compensation to the disfranchised boroughs, in consequence of the altered condition of the country, and that was the excuse he then offered for his own change of opinion, viz., the altered circumstances of the country.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had founded an argument on the rising prosperity of Manchester, that Representation was not necessary to insure greatness; but, during this time, had the people not been constantly petitioning for Members? He begged to call the attention of the Committee to what had transpired upwards of ten years ago, at Manchester. At that time the people of Manchester were attacked by an armed Yeomanry, and ever since they had continually demanded Reform. If ever there was a period when that circumstance ought to be alluded to in that House, the present was that moment. Ten years ago, they met for the purpose of petitioning for a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament, and the abolition of the Corn-laws—[cries of "Oh, oh!"] If those hon. Gentlemen who now cried "Oh, oh!" had been there, they would have cried "Oh, oh!" a little more in earnest. He was present, when this armed Yeomanry charged a peaceable multitude, and killed sixteen persons, and badly wounded 618. It appeared to be a very laughable subject to some hon. Gentlemen. He begged to say, that, if the principles of the right hon. Baronet were to be acted upon, the Yeomanry would have to kill the people again. He would repeat, that, if Reform were not granted, the arms of the Yeomanry would have to be put in requisition, in various parts of the country.
Mr. Calleyreminded the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee, that he had been in a Yeomanry corps, and, therefore, he was surprised at the hon. Member attacking them. He (Mr. Calley) could affirm, they were a brave and intelligent body, and had always shewn great forbearance, and a desire to conciliate the people.
§ Mr. Huntadmitted the fact, that he had been a Yeoman, thirty years ago, and he would moreover allow, that the corps to which he belonged certainly did run away on the first occasion of their being called into active service.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that he had objected at the time to the enfranchisement 640 of Bassetlaw, because he felt, that a sufficient number of the electors of East Retford had not been convicted of bribery, and, therefore, he could not consent to the disfranchisement of that borough. But he had never contended for the impossibility of giving new representative rights to new places. He had no objection to give the right of Representation to Manchester, but to give that town a franchise, which had been unjustly and illegally spoliated from another town, was a point to which he, for one, would never willingly consent. That was the ground of his reluctance to disfranchise any borough. As to the collateral proposition, however, of giving the right of Representation to Manchester, he admitted, that it might be possible to bestow upon Manchester the right of sending Members to that House, provided that right was not the spoil of another borough. The Representation of Manchester involved, as it appeared to him, three principles. The first principle was—what ought to be the qualification of the voter? Another was—what districts ought Manchester to be composed of? and the third was, ought they to establish a rule or an exception, in giving the franchise to such a town as Manchester? If the right of Manchester to return Members were to be put on the ground of population, then they would have to introduce a new feature into the House of Commons; for that House had never, at any period, been framed on the basis of population. If he should be induced to support the proposition for giving Members to Manchester, it would not be, whilst the Representative was to be elected on the principle of Universal Suffrage; and, if he were to give the elective franchise to 10l. householders in that town, he knew that he should be making the suffrage universal. He contended that, according to the present Bill, the Representation of Manchester, and, indeed, of every other place in schedule C, was founded upon Universal Suffrage. As the points to which he had alluded formed the whole essence of the qualification to entitle an individual to a vote in future, he should have no objection to the enfranchisement of Manchester, subject to certain limitations on the right of voting, which it would be improper then to discuss. When they came to the 101. clause, as it was called, he should deliver his opinion on this subject.
§ Lord Althorpwould not follow hon. Members into the lengthened discussion into which they had entered, on the districts which were to compose Manchester. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that in giving his vote for granting the right of Representation to Manchester, he must take into his consideration three circumstances—first, the qualification of the voter; secondly, the district to be included in Manchester; and lastly, the question whether the case of Manchester was to be considered as the case of exception, or the general rule, in; instances of this sort. As to the qualification of the voter, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed with him, that the present was not the proper time for deciding that point: the proper time would be, when the qualification clause came under the consideration of the Committee. When that clause came to be discussed, he should be ready to argue, that the qualification fixed in the Bill was the best that could have been selected. As to the second point, it was necessary that they should come at once to some agreement as to what was part of the district to be included in the new borough of Manchester. Ministers said, that the parts included in schedule C, were to form Manchester. Now he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that he had no objection to that. As to the third point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded, Ministers had no right to expect that that hon. and learned Member would vote for the enfranchisement of Manchester, upon the same grounds upon which they voted for it. As to the hon. and learned Member's objection, that the grant of this right was the spoliation of another borough, he would only say, that the disfranchisement of other boroughs might not be necessary, if only Manchester and one or two other places, were to be admitted to the exercise of the elective franchise. But it was impossible, that the enfranchisement should be as large as it now ought to be, unless room were made for it in the Representation, by the disfranchisement of the small and corrupt boroughs. Ministers considered the small corrupt boroughs, to be an evil in themselves; it was, therefore, an advantage to get rid of them, because, by so doing, they made room for the enfranchisement of large and populous towns. His principal 642 reason for addressing the Committee on this occasion was, his desire to make a proposition to the right hon. Baronet opposite. As that right hon. Baronet had stated, that he had no objection to enfranchise Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, would he have any objection to allow that part of the schedule to be disposed of that night, and to proceed to the consideration of the remainder of it tomorrow?
Sir Rob. Peelsaid, that at present, from recent experience, he had great objection to enter into any arrangement at all. He did not mean to oppose any unnecessary obstacle to proceeding with the rest of the clause. He would, therefore, let Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds pass, without opposition, for the present. Tomorrow, the Committee might take the discussion on the rest of the schedule. If it should turn out that there was any thing to be urged, as to the local districts of the three places which he had just named, perhaps the noble Lord would permit them to agitate it to-morrow.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, his objections to the enfranchisement of Manchester were very strong. He objected to granting the elective franchise to Manchester, because it had been taken from boroughs which had been convicted without examination, and condemned without hearing or trial. They were increasing the strength of the democratic part of the Constitution, at the very moment that they were diminishing the strength of the aristocratic part of it. Whilst they were sweeping away those parts of the Constitution in which the aristocracy were intrenched, they were creating new works, from which the democracy might easily batter down the remaining fortresses of the aristocratic party. These were the principles which had induced him to oppose all measures of Reform, and with this feeling, he took the present opportunity to state, that his objections still existed in all their force.
§ Question carried.
§ The Question, that the words "Birmingham, including the town of Birmingham, parish of Edgbaston, townships of Dudston and Nechels, and Deretend, Warwickshire—Returning Officers, the two Bailiffs of Birmingham," stand part of schedule C, was then put.
Lord John Russellproposed, as an amendment, that the township of Vitcham should be added to this district.
§ Mr. Crokermust object to the addition of any particular township in this manner, which he should repeat on another occasion.
Mr. Stuart Wortleybegged to ask the noble Lord, whether he had inquired if these towns were properly designated in the, schedule.
§ Lord John Russell replied in the affirmative.
§ Question, as amended, carried; as was also the question, that the words "Leeds, including the borough and liberty of Leeds, Yorkshire—Returning Officer, the Mayor of Leeds," stand part of schedule C.
§ The Chairman reported progress. Committee to sit again the next day.