PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— BILL FOR ENGLAND — COMMITTEE—SIXTEENTH DAY.

HC Deb 04 August 1831 vol 5 cc746-86

The Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Reform in Parliament (England) Bill was read; and the House resolved itself into a Committee, Mr. Bernal in the Chair.

The question was "that Wolverhampton, including the townships of Wolverhampton, Bilston, Willenhall, Wednesfield, and the parish of Sedgeley, Staffordshire, stand part of schedule C."

Mr. Croker

wished to inquire why the township of Willenhall was placed with Wolverhampton?

Sir John Wrottesley

begged to be permitted to answer the question, as he had considerable local knowledge. The township of Willenhall was within two miles of Wolverhampton, and was part of the parish of the latter place.

Mr. Croker

wished further to be informed, whether Willenhall was not as near to Walsall as to Wolverhampton.

Sir John Wrottesley

It is situated rather nearer Walsall than Wolverhampton.

Mr. Croker

would explain to the Committee the reason of his asking the question. The proposed borough of Wolverhampton appeared to be constituted of a number of adjoining townships, which contained a very considerable population; but the town of Wolverhampton was in itself a considerable place, containing 18,000 inhabitants. He wished, therefore, to understand, why it was necessary to take in so large a number of the surrounding population, amounting in the whole to 54,000? Among the included townships were the Chapelry of Bilston, and the parish of Sedgeley, which also contained 17,000 inhabitants. Neither of these places was connected with Wolverhampton. He was quite free to acknowledge the propriety of this town having Representatives, but he protested against the adjacent townships being added, because the town itself would derive no advantage. It would, in the words of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be sluiced and drowned, by letting in upon it the population of the neighbouring districts, amounting to 35,000. He also protested against the town of Wedgebury being left unrepresented, and suggested that, according to the principle which they had pursued in the case of Wolverhampton, Wedgebury ought to be incorporated with the adjacent town of Walsall, which, including the parish, had only 11,000 inhabitants, and which, by a strange stretch of partiality, had been left to enjoy by itself the right of Representation. It was situated within six miles of Wolverhampton, and he was wholly at a loss to understand why this exclusive right should be given to it, for the hon. Baronet had informed the House, that Willenhall was rather nearer to it than to Wolverhampton. These were points on which he required some explanation.

Mr. Littleton

would endeavour to explain the local circumstances to his right hon. friend. Willenhall was comparatively a small place, about a mile and a half from Wolverhampton, and the interests of both were identified: the same argument applied to Sedgeley, which had a population of 6,471 by the census of 1821. For these reasons, both these places had been joined to Wolverhampton. He insisted that there was an identity of pursuits and interests between it and the districts added to it. But his right hon. friend then asked, if this union of townships was to take place with Wolverhampton, why should not a similar union be made with the borough of Walsall, and why should not Wedgebury be annexed to it. The simple answer was, Wedgebury was a distinct parish, and was, therefore, unlike the other places proposed to be annexed to Wolverhampton.

Mr. Croker

hoped to be able to shew at a proper time, notwithstanding the superior local knowledge of his hon. friend, that the Chapelry of Willenhall was exactly half way between Walsall and Wolverhampton. He therefore complained, that equal justice was not dealt to all, for Wedgebury was the largest town in that part, and ought to have been included in one or other of the districts marked out for Representation. Were there not several places included in the borough of Wolverhampton, quite as separate from it as Wedgebury was from Walsall. Both these places were, in point of fact, not towns, but crowded districts, the population of which had grown up by manufactures, and which had become so important as to be entitled to Representation. He therefore asked, why were not these placed together; and was told as a reason, that they were different parishes, while Wolverhampton was sluiced by letting in all kinds of Chapelries and townships. They had so managed the matter, however, that Wedgebury was left without Representatives. It was said, the people of Staffordshire were satisfied with this arrangement, but this was no argument with him. He was there to look after the general interests of the country, and to take care, that if the Bill passed at all, it should at least be made as just and fair as possible.

Sir John Wrottesley

would assure the right hon. Gentleman, that Willenhall was nearer to Wolverhampton than to Walsall. The latter place had a Mayor and Corporation of its own, with a separate jurisdiction, and that accounted for its having a separate elective franchise. The parish of Wolverhampton was a very large one, and there was no inconsistency in uniting all the townships within the parish, for the purpose of conferring the elective franchise on them conjointly. Wedgebury was also a separate place, and did not contain, as had been asserted by the right hon. Gentleman, the largest population of any of the manufacturing places in that district. He was satisfied, and so were the people of Staffordshire, with the arrangement made, and he must besides declare, that the question was, whether Wolverhampton should have two Members by taking to it these districts, or one without them. And of course it could not be doubted, that it was better to have the two Members and the increased constituency.

Mr. Croker

said, he could not assent to the argument of the hon. Baronet, that the people of Wolverhampton would rather be united with the adjacent districts, and return two Members, than to have one to themselves. That was as much as to say, they would rather have, no Representative at all, since the weight of the annexed districts, in returning the two Members, was to that of Wolverhampton in the proportion of 35,000 to 18,000. The inhabitants of the town, therefore, would have no share whatever in the Representation.

Lord John Russell

said, ground of the union of these districts was, that Wolverhampton and Sedgeley were both populous and important places, and both entitled to Representation; it was, therefore, considered more advisable to unite and allow them together to return two Representatives, than to give each one separately.

Mr. Stuart Wortley

must protest against the proposed system of enfranchisement; they were called upon to unite particular districts, rot from any natural or necessary cause, but simply "that it was deemed advisable." When they were disfranchising places in the two first schedules of the Bill, many instances were brought forward of actual identity, but such circumstances were not regarded then, although they were now held to be sufficient to incorporate places in order to return Members.

Lord Althorp

remained of opinion, that the proposed arrangement was proper, notwithstanding all that had been said. It should, therefore, have his decided support.

Sir Robert Peel

said, two Representatives were to be given to the united districts which were to compose the borough of Wolverhampton. He therefore thought two should also be given to the united towns of Walsall and Wedgebury. They had been told, as the reason why this should not be done, that the former town had a Mayor and Corporation; but that was no reason why it should not be united with another town for the purpose of Representation. The Bill totally disregarded Corporate rights or jurisdictions. Wolverhampton, they had been told, was a very large parish, with a scattered population. Regardless of these circumstances, Ministers had determined to unite the whole (although there had been a difficulty, such was the nature of the population, to ascertain the number of 10l. houses), and thus continue to confer on them the right of returning two Members to Parliament. At the same time they refused to unite Walsall with Wedgebury for the same purpose, in both of which towns the population was concentrated. The inconsistency of this arrangement was so manifest, that he hoped the noble Lord would not persevere in it.

Mr. Littleton

had heard no complaint from Wedgebury, that it was not to be represented, and indeed there was great doubt if the inhabitants wished it, as it would take them out of the county Representation.

Lord John Russell

said, it would be time enough to consider the propriety of extending the franchise to Wedgebury when they came to Walsall.

Mr. Croker

believed, no freeholders in towns were to lose their rights on account of the franchise being given to householders. If that was to be its effect, he should like to see the county Member who would support such a principle. It would go far to change the majority. He was not surprised at the town of Wedgebury not complaining, because, from the treatment of Guildford and Dorchester, they could have very little hope of being attended to.

Mr. Littleton

begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that his constituents at Wedgebury, had no sympathy with the boroughs of Dorchester and Guildford.

Mr. Croker

observed, that Ministers had acted inconsistently in two cases, occurring even in this schedule. In the case of Westminster and Mary-la-bonne, they had insisted on giving two Representatives to each district; while, with respect to Wolverhampton, they had resolved to confound the town with the neighbouring districts, and give them common Representatives.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, that they had applied a different principle to Wolverhampton from that which had guided them in the case of Clitheroe. The question before them was, whether a whole district of towns, villages, and hamlets, should be united for the purposes of Representation. After the manner in which many of the towns in schedule B had been treated, he was struck with astonishment, notwithstanding all they had done hitherto, at finding Ministers put forward such a proposition as this. Clitheroe was disfranchised on the pretence that the town itself did not contain a sufficient population to entitle it to return two Members, although there was a considerable population in the vicinity closely identified in interest with it. In that case, the district population was wholly excluded; while, in the case before them, the town population would be as nothing to that of the surrounding districts included with it, and with which the town did not appear to have a common interest. This question ought to be adjourned until they had decided the case of Walsall.

Lord Althorp

could not agree with this proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The cases of Walsall and Wedgebury were perfectly distinct from Wolverhampton. There could be, therefore, no necessity to postpone the consideration of the latter; and he could not conceive any parallel between the cases of Clitheroe and Wolverhampton.

Mr. Croker

said, his argument was, that if you added Sedgeley to Wolverhampton, on the same principle, Wedgebury ought to be united with Walsall; therefore there was some connexion between the two cases. When they came to Walsall, he should certainly move, that Wedgebury be added to it.

The question carried.

The next question, as amended, on the motion of Lord John Russell, was—"That the words the Tower Hamlets, including the Tower Division in Ossulston Hundred, and the Liberty of the Tower, Middlesex, stand part of schedule C."

Sir Edward Sugden

said, the object of this Bill was, to take away the rights of freeholders, and to consult only the rights of the occupiers of tenements. The Government took out of counties large districts, and formed them into boroughs. By the operation of this Bill, as he understood it, all the freeholders of the very extensive metropolitan districts, enumerated and classed in this schedule, would be taken out of the constituency of the county of Middlesex. Its object was, to exclude all persons who had houses rated at 10l. a year, from voting for the county. Now, let the Committee observe how this would operate in Middlesex. The franchise being given to the districts surrounding the metropolis, the only persons who would have a vote for the county would be those who were disqualified from voting in the City, or the newly-made boroughs. Thus, the very lowest freeholders, only, in London would be admitted into the county constituency; and they would entirely overwhelm the influence of the agricultural portion of the county, which already had but too little influence in elections. He believed, that many hon. Members, who were pledged to vote for the principle of the Bill, were still at liberty to examine and deal as they thought right with its details. He called upon such Gentlemen, as independent Members of Parliament, as they desired hereafter to stand well with themselves, and with the country, to examine these matters with free and unbiassed minds, and to decide upon the merits according to the dictates of their conscience. This was the true way in which they could serve the people, and deserve the gratitude of their posterity. It was impossible, that he could have any feelings, or interest, opposed to, or apart from, those of the people—impossible on every account. His only desire was, to see the rights of all properly regarded and protected.

Lord Althorp

said, that when they came to the clause which related to cities being counties in themselves, he should show the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it had been thought desirable and proper, that the freeholders of the city of London should be placed on precisely the same footing as other freeholders. It would be found, that the distinction, with regard to the city of London, was not of importance, and that it was more a nominal distinction than any thing else. All that it was intended to do was, to place the inhabitants of all the districts of London upon the same footing.

Sir Edward Sugden

had thought this provision of the Bill an important one. But, as he had drawn the admission from the noble Lord, that it was only a little ornamental addition, his object was effected.

Lord Althorp

said, that as the Bill opened the county Representation to freeholders of cities and towns, it was thought proper to do the same by the city of London.

Sir Edward Sugden

said, the freeholders of London, were to be admitted to the elective franchise for the county for the first time. There was also this distinction between them and the freeholders of counties, of cities, and towns, generally—in the latter, there were to be found, for the most part, large districts of land and rural interests, whereas, in London, the only freeholds were in houses.

Sir Ch. Wetherell

had taken some pains to look into the Bill, with a view of ascertaining how far its provisions had been governed by the principle of making concessions to gain support. Now, the citizens of London had certainly taken a great lead in supporting Reform, although they had not yet succeeded in leading that House. He could not avoid coupling that fact with the circumstance, that this exception in favour of the city of London, was not in the first Bill, but had since been introduced. By the Bill, it appeared, that the City freeholder was to have a vote for the county in which London was situated, but the freeholders of other places were not to have votes for the counties in which those places were situated. He was very much dissatisfied with the distinction.

Mr. Frankland Lewis

assured the Committee, that he had one substantive point, of great importance, to offer to their consideration, and that he did not rise for the purpose of merely delaying the Bill. The point he alluded to was this—the city of London had never been part of the county of Middlesex, and its freeholders never had had a right to vote for the county Members. In his opinion, therefore, this privilege ought not now to be given; the constituency of Middlesex was already too unwieldy; and he was convinced, great evils would arise from too large a number of voters. It increased the probability of violence at elections. He, therefore, trusted London would be replaced on the footing of the first Bill, which, he was sure, would be an improvement. The present arrangement was the more objectionable, as it offered an anomaly to the words of the ninth clause, which declared, "that nothing therein contained should affect the right of voting in the election of Knight of the Shire, enjoyed according to the laws now in force."

Mr. Alderman Wood

said, that there were very few freeholders in London, as was proved by the great difficulty they always had to make up a Jury for the Admiralty Court. There was no such thing as a low order of freeholders in London. He did not think, that there were any worth less than from 50l. to 100l. a year; and those persons had hitherto had no votes for their freeholds. The freeholds were either in the hands of opulent persons, or of corporations. He would take this opportunity of expressing his surprise, that his worthy and learned brother Alderman near him, the member for Boroughbridge (Sir C. Wetherell), should take every occasion of bearing hard upon London Aldermen. Surely, a London Alderman was as good as a Bristol Alderman, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was only a Bristol Alderman. He did not wish to run down Bristol Aldermen, and still less did he wish to run down so distinguished a member of that body as the learned Gentleman, who was Recorder, as well as Alderman, of Bristol; but he did think, that his learned and worthy brother of Bristol might have a little more respect for the aldermanic fraternity in other corporations. He could only account for this conduct on the part of his worthy and learned brother Alderman, on the ground, that it had escaped his worthy brother's recollection, that he (Sir C. Wetherell) was an Alderman. Perhaps his worthy and learned brother would recollect this for the future, and bear in mind that, when he was sneering at Aldermen, he was cutting jokes upon himself, as well as upon others.

Lord Althorp

must suggest to the Gentlemen opposite the inconvenience of debating questions not immediately before the Committee. They were now discussing schedule G, while the question before the Committee was, whether certain words should form part of schedule C.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

admitted, that it was quite premature to allude to the freeholders of London. He would, however take the opportunity of saying, they were a very small body, as the greater portion of the property was in the hands of the various corporate bodies.

Mr. Croker

assured the worthy Alderman, he did not object to the freeholders of London having a vote.

Question agreed to.

The next question was, "that Finsbury, including the parishes and districts of the Finsbury division, in Ossulston Hundred, Middlesex, the parishes and districts of St. Andrew, Holborn, St. George the Martyr, Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents, Ely Place, Liberty of the Rolls, St. Giles, in the Fields, and St. George's, Bloomsbury, Middlesex ditto, do stand part of schedule C."

Mr. J. Weyland

said, he had no hope, after what had transpired, that any material alteration would be allowed to be effected in any part of the Bill with the consent of its framers. In considering the present question, therefore, he had a right to consider, that the Members proposed to be given to the metropolitan districts were to be returned upon the constituency at present proposed by the Bill; and they must make up their minds, that hereafter, the 10l. householders of the various cities and towns in England were to return a majority to that House. To such a constituency he had very strong objections; and he contended, that it would be extremely dangerous to all the great interests of the country. The right of voting in the metropolitan districts, especially, ought not to be given to all 10l. householders. He was prepared to prove, from the returns made to that House, that the Representatives elected by such a constituency would be, in fact, elected by the holders of houses of from 10l. annual value, to 20l. annual value. Nor would this be the case in the metropolitan districts only, but it would be the case also in all places where 10l. householders were admitted to the constituency, in the manner proposed by the Bill. This was the fact; and if the great interests of the country were left at the mercy, as by the Bill in its present state they would be, of the political wisdom, and sagacity, and prejudices of the 10l. householders, there could be little doubt as to what would be their fate. He had no wish to speak harshly or disrespectfully of that class of the community. They were hard-working and hard-worked, at present, he thought, too hard-worked, people. He felt this to be the case; and he should be extremely glad to see them relieved. But they were a money-making race: they looked to their own personal and little interests only, and it would be worse than absurd to expect them to take a deep or profound view upon any great question of internal or external policy. Give to that class the power of controlling a considerable number of Members of that House, and it was perfectly certain, that their first cry would be, "a total repeal of the Corn-laws." They would want cheap bread, and they would think only of the readiest way of acquiring it at the moment; they would think nothing of the fatal consequences to the manufacturer of destroying the home market: that would be beyond the reach of their vision, and the total repeal of the Corn-laws would be their cry. In this statement, he was supported by the conduct of the class referred to. He held in his hand a document which proved the justice of his assertion. The document he adverted to was a petition from the working classes of the metropolis, for the abolition of every restriction on the importation of corn. It was a document in the possession of the House, having been presented and read on July 11th; and he would beg leave to quote it, The hon. Member read as follows:— Your Petitioners pray, that the House will instantly abolish every restriction on the importation of corn. The petitioners submit to the House, that as the landed interest were not compelled, during the war, to sell their corn at a cheap price, neither ought the petitioners, when peace arrived, to have been compelled to buy it at a high price. If landlords were improvident during the war, and mortgaged their estates, the fault was theirs: if money-lenders anticipated no change in the value of land, the petitioners were not blameable for that; and how any former House of Commons could be so destitute of every principle of justice, as to make the petitioners suffer for the improvidence of the one or the folly of the other, and pass laws to starve the poor, can only be believed, because the petitioners hear the cry of famine from one end of the kingdom to the other—because they read almost daily of men and women drowning themselves, poisoning themselves, and cutting their throats, in consequence of want—because they see them dying of hunger in the streets and in the fields, and behold infants perishing at the famished mothers' breasts. The poor have asked the House for bread; the cries of the poor for food have been answered by the bullets of the yeomanry, and murder has been considered a fit accompaniment to the detestable and iniquitous Corn-laws. The petitioners pray the House to relieve them from this curse of their existence, to take this mill-stone off their necks, and to join with them in execrating the authors of a law which has brought nakedness upon their children, and famine into their dwellings—join with them in holding up to eternal hatred the oppressors who have bound them in chains—emancipate them from this thraldom. The working classes not only petitioned for Reform and a repeal of the Corn-laws, but they expected, through these measures, to have cheap bread, no taxes to pay,no Debt to provide for; to be rescued, as the petitioners termed it, from the iron hoof of the Aristocracy: and if they found themselves disappointed—if they found that the present Bill did not work all the changes they required, they would naturally exclaim, the Reform did not go far enough. They would bind the Members they returned down by pledges. The system of pledges would not be forgotten; and thus bound down, and by such constituents, what could the Representatives of the 10l. householders do for the protection of the agricultural, or of any of the great interests of the country? The class of persons he had alluded to had been taught to view the present Bill in this light—that should it not be found to be sufficient for their purposes, a larger and more sweeping measure would easily be obtained, this Bill once being passed. They had, indeed, been informed, by very high authority, that a little bit of Reform at a time would not do—they must have a large slice. One would have thought that, whatever a Reforming people might say, a Reforming Government would not have aggravated the effect of its views upon the people, by the empiricism of proverbs. He could not approve of this system of governing by proverbs. The ancient government of France was said to be an absolute government, tempered by songs and pasquinades—the men of wit and talent satirized the ministers, and made them ashamed of themselves by force of ridicule, whenever they committed an enormity. That was done by the governed; but that a Reforming Government should bring themselves to inform the people that "bit-by-bit" Reform was a mere delusion, when every body knew, that no Reform that is not gradual was ever otherwise than ruinous, surpassed his comprehension. Gradual Reform was good, but call it "bit-by-bit," and the good thing became ridiculous in the eyes of the people. It had cost him some reflection to discover any prototype of this government by proverbs, which appeared to be so great a solecism. At length, however, it struck him that it could be found in an author by whom much amusement had been afforded to the world, and who described an island, not indeed so large as Great Britain, which was for seven days under a reforming government, assisted by proverbs. He meant the island of Barataria, where Sancho was eminently successful in this way. He turned to the history, and found a passage likely to be so eminently useful to a Reforming Parliament and a Reforming Government, that he would venture to read it to the House. The worthy governor Sancho began,as usual, with a most oracular proverb:—"When Providence sends daylight, it's daylight to all the world; and I would have you to know, that I am not quite such an owl as you take me for. I shall certainly manage to govern this island without doing wrong to any one, or taking away any right from one human creature: but I pretend also to have my own rights duly respected, and, above all, that plenty of good food shall be given to me and my grey charger. Moreover, I shall purge this island of all sorts of idlers and coxcombs (Dons, as they call themselves), who do nothing but beat the pavement with their armed heels, get tipsey, and insult the old ladies. They are drones among the bees, stealing and devouring the honey they have collected. Finally, I am resolved to protect the labourers and journeymen, to preserve the privileges of the nobility, and to inculcate a respect for religion, and honour to the Church." He viewed with alarm the formation of a constituency, in which the 10l. householders were to have an overwhelming interest. He wished not to say any thing ungracious of any class of men, but, unless some assurance was given that some counterbalance would be proposed by Government to check the influence of the 10l. householders, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the remaining clauses of the Bill. He was satisfied, that if a constituency of 10l. householders was to rule the country, and under this Bill as it now stood, such would be the fact, the Constitution must inevitably be destroyed. He was decidedly friendly to Reform; he wished to see every class of the community represented, and to see a fair and reasonable system of Representation adopted. This the Bill would not effect. He called upon the House to consider how very delicate was the texture of that chain which bound all the complicated interests of this country together; how easy a link might be broken, and how difficult it would be to reunite it. One false step might throw the labourers out of employment, hunger would lead to sedition, and order would only be restored by the sacrifice of large masses of the people. One false step might lead to the dissolution of all the parts of society; and when once they were separated, it would not be possible to unite them by such a clumsy hempen contrivance as this Bill. The principle professedly taken by its framers was good enough, but the construction of the Bill was hasty, and might be dangerous to the Constitution. He approved of the annihilation of nomination boroughs. Nomination ought to be done away with; but upon this point the Bill was not complete and satisfactory. Upon the point immediately under consideration, it was still less satisfactory; for, although the country required a free Representation, it did not require such a Representation as must lead to the destruction of all its great interests. If the Government had fairly and properly proposed a sound plan of Reform, many of the difficulties which the House now had to contend with never would have arisen: all parties would have united to effect a final and satisfactory settlement of the question; but, as matters stood, it was in vain to look for such a combination. This he regretted; but it was to be attributed to the conduct of the Government, who hastily and rashly framed a Bill, dangerous in its details, and then required the unqualified concurrence of the House. The Government ought not to have agitated, but to have soothed the country upon this great question. He had voted for the second reading of the Bill; but in doing so, he had not pledged himself to vote for all the details, nor could it be inferred from that vote, that he was favourable to those details. On the contrary, it had been urged by the Ministers, when they first brought forward the Reform Bill, during the last Parliament, that the details might be corrected in Committee. It was upon the principle of the Bill that he voted, when he voted for the second reading; and he now called upon the Government to make those alterations in the details which reason proved to be requisite for the safety of the Constitution.

Mr. Cumming Bruce

acquiesced in the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. Member opposed to the Bill. He only rose to enter his protest against this species of legislation. He must refer, however, to the torrent of vituperative eloquence poured out last night by the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse). It would seem as if that hon. Member derived his eloquence from all the leading articles of all the seditious publications which had gone forth for years past. He had called it a torrent, and, he thought, not improperly, for it foamed and boiled against the banks, driving at one side against the privileges of the Aristocracy, and on the other against the character of every former House of Commons. Not to wander further, however, from the subject under discussion, he begged to protest against a proposition, which would give to the metropolis half as many Members as the whole kingdom of Scotland had, and more than all the boroughs and towns in Scotland put together. When Scotland entered into the union with England, it was as a free and independent nation; but, in bringing forward this measure, the principle of reciprocity was lost sight of, and he, for one, complained that Scotland had not been consulted, nor had that respect paid to it which was due to a nation of gentlemen. He did not wish to allude to what had recently been the conduct of the Livery of London, but after what had lately taken place between that body and one of its Representatives, and when it was known, that a Committee of the Livery was sitting, to watch the proceedings of that House, he asked, could they expect that the Metropolis would return Members who would have that regard to the general interests of the nation which was to be expected from the Members of that House? The theory of the Constitution, to which he was oldfashioned enough to adhere, was, that when a Member was appointed, he represented, not a particular place, but the empire at large. Considering the Members of the House of Commons in that light, it was a matter of indifference to Scotland, hitherto, whether it had one or two Members more or less. It considered all the Members of that House its Representatives; and he admitted, that no country had benefitted more by the union than Scotland. But when a large body of Members were to be given to the metropolis of England—men who, it was to be feared, would not prefer the general interest to the local interest they represented—then the position of Scotland was greatly and disadvantageously altered. It was impossible, he conceived, that a body of Metropolitan Representatives should not act rather in accordance with the wishes of their own constituents, than with a view to the general benefit. They would be fascinated with the love of popularity; and he contended, that the House ought not to place a large portion of Members in a situation where their virtue and independence would be so much tried. Subserviency to individuals was said to be degrading, but subserviency to an excited and numerous constituency certainly was not less debasing. With all due regard to the Livery of the city of London, he conceived that the exercise of the jurisdiction they had assumed was unconstitutional, and that the judges were incompetent. If it was a mere question as to regulating the supply of turtle, or the state of the markets, he would admit their competency; but the Members of that House were called upon to exercise a discretion on subjects far beyond the grasp of mind for which the Livery of London usually obtained credit. When he saw such an increasing disposition to interfere with, and control the Members of that House, he confessed he could not view with approbation a proposition which would lead to the abstraction of so many Members from the general concerns of the empire; and, as a Scotch Member, he particularly dreaded that Scotland and its interests would not hereafter enjoy that due care which, he admitted, it had hitherto received from a British House of Commons.

Mr. Cutlar Ferguson

wished to say few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had presented himself as a Member for Scotland That hon. Member apprehended great injury to Scotland, because the metropolis of England was to have half as many Representatives as the whole kingdom of Scotland; but the hon. Member had not the same fears from having forty-four Members representing rotten boroughs in Cornwall. The boroughs in that one county returned, within one, as many Representatives as the whole of Scotland. It was true, that, at the time of the union, Scotland was treated with on a fair and equal footing; but Scotland had then received a smaller portion of Representatives than it was entitled to, because Scotland had been sold for money by that Aristocracy of which the hon. Member was the eulogist. He could not agree with the hon. member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) that any danger was to be apprehended to the landed interest from the description of active and intelligent persons who would be returned by the new boroughs, as he believed that the Representatives of the landed interest would be equally active and intelligent. The principal objection to giving the Metropolis additional Members was founded on the circumstance, that an hon. member for the City (Mr. Alderman Thompson) had been taken to task, for voting contrary to a promise he had given; and it was presumed, that, as this occurred once, it might occur every day, and with respect to all the Members for the Metropolis. If such things occurred, it was not the fault of the constituency, but of the Members. If a Member pledged himself to pursue a particular line of conduct, it was not a fault in the constituency to insist on his abiding by his pledge. This might happen as well in any other part of the kingdom as in the metropolis, and the objection was not so much to the exercise of the power on the part of the constituents as to the system of pledges. It was no objection whatever, he conceived, to giving additional Members to the metropolis. It was of the greatest possible consequence to these districts of the metropolis, that they should be formed into boroughs, for otherwise they would be deprived altogether of Representation. Such a district as that included in the parishes of Marylebone, St. Pancras, and Paddington, would be left wholly unrepresented. The number of inhabitants in this district was a reason why it should be represented; and he contended, that the larger and broader the basis of Representation was, the purer and more independent the Members would be. It was upon that ground he supported the Bill; and he asked, why was a metropolis, containing population, wealth, intelligence, and riches, not exceeded in the world, to be excluded from its fair share in the Representation? It had been well observed by Mr. Cobbett (who was no mean authority, and was well acquainted with the disposition of the people), in answer to the objection, that the people would be led away, and choose low demagogues; that, as naturally as sparks ascended, the people would prefer a superior to an equal, wherever a trust was to be reposed, and their choice was free. Every man who had seen a contested election, knew the advantage which a man of rank had over a man of no rank; and he was convinced that the metropolitan districts would send no Members to that House but persons of the highest character. Under the present system of Representation, at least one-third of the population of the metropolis was excluded; and if this part of the Bill, giving the metropolis new Members, was lost, he should say, that it would have been better not to have embarked on the question of Reform at all. The defeat of this part of the Bill would excite a degree of disgust in the minds of a great mass of the people of the country, which the House would hereafter regret having excited. He agreed with those who thought that the Members of that House ought to maintain their independence; and he was equally sure the people would say that they ought to have a House of Commons to act free from all dictation. It was essential, however, to give the vast mass of wealth and population congregated in the metropolis a sufficient Representation. The Representation proposed to be given to it was not at all equal to its wealth and population; but, as there must be a limit to every thing, it was not, surely, too much to give to the metropolis double as many Members as it had, when it was as nothing compared with its present extent—when it had no Pancras, no Marylebone, no Paddington. The fact was, that the share of Representation which this Bill proposed to give to the metropolis, was not at all proportionate to the extent of its wealth and population; and if they had given 100 new Members, instead of ten, to it, the proportion would have been juster. It appeared to him, therefore, absurd to argue that the metropolitan districts were not entitled to the extended Representation which it was proposed to give to them. He (Mr. Ferguson) had been charged with a petition from St. Pancras, setting forth its own claims, on the grounds of its riches, wealth, and population. That parish preferred having one Member to itself, instead of two Members, as proposed; and he agreed with the petitioners. Having two Members to a district gave rise to nothing but a compromise of principle. It made the minority equal to the majority. It would be far better that the country should be divided into districts, and that each district should return one Member. In that case, the sense of the public might be taken, and the opinions of the country would be known to every man.

Mr. John Smith

did not intend to depart from the question before the House, which was, whether the district of Finsbury should return two Members. Having lived in that district for twenty years, he could bear testimony to the wealth, intelligence, and patriotic feeling contained in it—qualities which he could assure the House were not confined to any district of the metropolis. The district of the Tower Hamlets too contained persons of as high character and as great eminence as any in the country. A great number of individuals of wealth, of high character, and of undoubted independence, resided in this district; and some of the most splendid, useful, and extraordinary charities of which the city of London could boast, had had their origin in this district. One very sufficient reason for giving additional Members to the metropolis was, that it would provide a safety-valve, by which the opinions of an immense part of the population would reach the House in a constitutional way. If, when remodeling the Representation, they refused to admit so important a part of the population, it would naturally excite great discontent, and therefore he considered the proposal which had been made as most judicious. The only way to insure the peace and tranquillity of the country was, to treat this million and a half, who were confined within a ring-fence kindly, and to trust to their feelings. He was confident, that the House would never regret giving those privileges to the metropolitan districts which it was about to extend to societies of not one-tenth their extent. There was no instance of such an immense population within so small a compass; and in his opinion, no part of the Bill showed deeper reflection, or a higher regard for popular feeling, than that which gave to those populous districts constitutional Representatives. One word as to the conduct of the Livery of London. He had heard with indignation the charge made against that body for calling one of its Representatives to account; for he was one of those who thought that all constituencies had such a right, and that the country would have been saved from infinite evil if that right had been exercised more frequently. All the Livery of London had done was, to call upon one of its Representatives to perform his own promise. The constitutional doctrine, which he held, was, that those who chose Members had a right to inquire, condemn, and call upon those Members to explain their conduct; and if the Members did not like this, they had their remedy to retire from the service. He gave his most cordial assent to that particular part of the Bill which gave to the metropolitan districts an increased share in the Representation.

Mr. Pringle

said, that it was quite obvious that one of the effects of the Bill would be, to localize the constituency and the Representation all over the kingdom, and in no instance would that be more especially the case than in that of those metropolitan districts, the Members for which would certainly not be Representatives for the country at large. It had been justly remarked, that they were about to give nearly half as many Members to the metropolitan districts as the whole of Scotland possessed, and it was no answer to that statement to say that Cornwall sent to that House within one of as many Members as Scotland. The Members who were sent from the boroughs in Cornwall were not the Representatives of local and particular districts, but Representatives for the country at large, and Scotland always had had its share in that close borough Representation. According to the new system, it was plain that the Representation of the metropolis would bear an undue proportion to the Representation of the country at large.

Mr. Ch. Douglas

thought, that Scotland was entitled to a much greater proportion of Representatives than she already possessed, and he hoped, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, that he should have his support hereafter for the proposition to give its due share of Representation to Scotland.

Mr. Hunt

said, that the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright anticipated, that those districts would return men of rank and wealth. It was very probable that such would be the case, but it was equally probable, that they would not return any Representatives but men of talent. The statement of the writer who had been quoted by the hon. and learned Member might be quite true, but it should be recollected, that the writer in question had written for and against every single subject that he had ever touched upon.

Mr. Cutlar Ferguson

said, that when he made use of the expression, men of rank, he accompanied it with the remark, they must be also men of talent.

Mr. Goulburn

said, that after the decision which had been come to last night, it was an understanding that they should not further debate this schedule, and that was the reason why those who acted with him on that side of the House did not go into any discussion regarding the different places embraced in it.

Lord Althorp

said, that the same reason had prevented him from taking any part in this discussion. Nothing that had been said respecting the Finsbury district of boroughs required any observations from him.

Question carried.

The next question was, "that Marylebone, including the parishes of St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, and Paddington, Middlesex, stand part of schedule C."

Mr. Cutlar Ferguson

had promised to state the case of the inhabitants of Pancras, as they had requested him, and he was determined to do so. No cry of "question" should prevent him from discharging his duty. The inhabitants of St. Pancras were of opinion, that they should not be included in Marylebone and Paddington, for, in that case, they would be overwhelmed and borne down by the more numerous constituency of those places. They wished, that their parish should be erected into a separate district, and that one Member should be given to them. To show that they were entitled to a Representative for themselves, they stated, that their parish paid in assessed taxes three times more than Manchester, four times more than Leeds, four times more than Sheffield, nine times more than Devonport, fourteen times more than Wolverhampton, and eighteen times more than Sunderland, to each of which two Members were to be given. They stated further, that there were 10,000 houses in the parish which averaged 40l. a-year each, and that the parish was the residence of a wealthy and enlightened, and most respectable population. They asserted, that if their parish should be united to Marylebone and Paddington, which did not pay more taxes than the parish of Pancras did, they would be overwhelmed by the greater population of those two places. These were the grounds on which they rested their claims for a Representative for their parish by itself.

Sir John Malcolm

concurred with his hon. friend, that it was most important, Members should be allowed a fair hearing at every stage of this discussion; and as allusions had been made in the course of the evening to the members for Cornwall being nearly equal in number to those of all Scotland, he would quote Mr. Burke in answer, who said, "But can any one assert, that in consequence of this unequal Representation, the interests of Cornwall had ever met with more attention in that House than those of Scotland." With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Thetford, on the proposed increase of Members for the metropolis, it appeared that he entertained apprehensions that this measure would give the same influence to the population of the metropolis as belonged to that of Paris, which enabled the latter, by popular tumult, to assume a large share in the actual government of that country. In this view he did not concur, and though he was opposed to disfranchisement, he was not averse from enfranchisement.

Lord Althorp

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the grounds on which the parish of Pancras claimed a Member for itself; namely, that the amount of its population was so small in proportion to that of the two districts to which it was to be united, that it would be borne down by their larger constituency. Now, looking at the extent of the parish of Pancras, and seeing the number of voters which it was likely to produce, he did not think it at all probable that they would be overwhelmed by the voters of Marylebone and Paddington. The population of Marylebone was 96,000, and that of Pancras 71,000. It was not at all likely, therefore, that the voters of Pancras would be borne down by the constituency of Marylebone, and for that reason he did not think that Pancras should have a Member for itself.

Question carried.

The Chairman then put the question, "that Lambeth, including the parishes of St. Mary, Lambeth, St. Mary, Newington, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Camberwell, Surrey, stand part of schedule C."

Agreed to.

The next question was, that schedule C stand part of the Bill.

Lord Milton

said, that he had given notice on Thursday, that he should, in the discussion of the details of schedule C, submit that the boroughs in schedule D be transferred to schedule C. He had since made up his mind to take a different course. He should suffer the clause D to be read, and he should move, by way of amendment, that the word two be inserted in the blank instead of one.

Mr. Littleton

said, that the noble Lord's Motion went to preclude his bringing forward his proposition respecting the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, but, nevertheless, he must submit to the House the very peculiar circumstances of that borough. This borough had not been included in the original Reform Bill introduced into the last Parliament; but upon a deputation having been sent, his Majesty's Ministers agreed to give the town one Member. He thought they were entitled to two; the parish was very large, and consisted of a cluster of four towns, containing, in the whole, a population of 53,000 persons. The inhabitants of this very populous district, were principally employed in the manufacture of earthenware and china, the value of the produce of which last year was 1,300,OOOl. Of this sum, only 55,000l. was paid for raw material, which was the produce of our own country, and the whole of the remainder was paid in wages. There were 120 considerable manufactories, and the district was regulated by one uniform law regarding rates, and was governed by the same local Act. The trade and population were rapidly increasing; the capital employed was immense, and the articles produced surpassed all others. From their numbers, and from the extensive and important nature of their trade—from the vast capital employed, and the interests involved, he conceived this place to be fully entitled to have two Representatives in that House. If hon. Members would examine into the subject, they would find, that the cotton manufacturers had their interests represented in Parliament by fifteen Members, the colonial interests by seven, and the silk trade by three, whilst the china manufacture was very inadequately represented. The trade of the people of Stoke-upon-Trent was not only large and extensive, but it was on the increase, and in its nature more likely to be permanent, than many which were to be better represented in that House. The population of this place, which, in 1821, was 41,000 persons, was 53,000; thus shewing an increase of thirty-five per cent. It was less than that of only three of the old boroughs—namely, Liverpool, Norwich, and Bristol; it was, however, larger than that of the towns of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, and other important places. The parish of Stoke contributed one-twentieth to the county-rates; and the poor and other rates were very large. He should therefore move, as an amendment, that the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent be inserted in schedule C.

Sir J. Wrottesley

would detain the Committee by a very few words. He had been forcibly impressed by some striking facts which were manifest, in comparing schedules C and D. Whilst schedule C contained the towns of Sunderland and Devonport, having a population of 43,000 and 44,000 inhabitants, Stoke-upon-Trent, with a population of 53,000, was included in schedule D. When the House considered this striking discrepancy, he was persuaded, that it would not reject the Motion. It had been said, the population was not condensed into a town, that it was scattered over an extensive space; but the nature of the manufacture required this to be the case. One town, however, that of Burslem, contained 18,000 inhabitants. He would only add, that Stoke was a district of continuous houses, and that it, therefore, came within the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Edmund Peel

had no hesitation in expressing his approbation of the plan of giving Representatives to populous towns and districts. The statement which had been just made by the hon. member for Staffordshire, afforded a convincing proof that the potteries had a just claim to send two Representatives into that House. When he, therefore, considered the great respectability of the people of Stoke, their commercial importance, and the ingenuity and utility of their manufacture, he was convinced, that they were deserving of a full Representation in that House. Stoke had a greater population than any place in schedule B, and a population superior to most places in schedule C. He would only further observe, that machinery could not be applied to the manufacture of this place, and therefore the trade of Stoke was likely to be permanent.

Lord Althorp

agreed, that the Staffordshire Potteries were most important to the commerce of the country. If the question were, whether the Potteries should be represented at all, he should entertain no doubt upon which side to vote; but the question was, whether the Representation of the district would be insufficient with one Member, or whether it was fair and right in the Government to give it two Representatives. He would admit, that the amount of the population was very great, but from the information which he had received, this was not a case of town Representation, but of a district unconnected, although in appearance it might resemble a large town. In omitting Stoke from schedule C, Ministers had, therefore, done what they thought justifiable after due inquiries into the case. He was convinced that, in giving it one Member, it obtained its fair share in the Representation of the country. It was difficult to determine whether one or two Representatives were more proper, but after every inquiry he had made, and after all the consideration he could give the subject, his opinion was in favour of including Stoke in the schedule of one Member.

Lord Ingestrie

was intimately connected with the district to which his hon. friend had proposed to give two Members. He admitted, that the places in that district were not connected together, yet he was obliged to support the Motion of the hon, member for Staffordshire, on the grounds that the district contained an important and peculiar branch of commerce, and there was no place in the vicinity returning Members by which these interests could be supported. When he considered, that two Representatives were given to Devonport, which would have had the advantage of being represented with Plymouth, on account of its proximity, an advantage the district of Stoke could not possess, he must give his support to the amendment of his hon. friend.

Sir R. Peel

had already expressed his entire concurrence in the principle that every place to which the franchise was given, should return two Members. He should much rather take twelve places out of schedule D, and give to each of them two Members, than give one each to twenty-four places. He thought it would conduce to the internal peace of towns, if they had two Members. It would prevent the clashing of interests, and remove many causes of dissension. If the motion of the noble Lord were to be, that all the places in the next schedule should have two Members each, that would give too great a preponderance to the manufacturing districts, which he could not agree to, but if the noble Lord's Motion was put into the shape he proposed, he (Sir R. Peel) would support it. The word "two" being inserted instead of "one" in the clause, then it would remain for the Committee to select the places which should have two Members. Of the twelve places to which he (Sir Robert Peel) would consent to give two Members, Stoke was certainly one of the first. Although he did not know why his hon. friend had chosen to take this district out of its place, and discuss it there, he should vote for the Motion. He hoped, that the vote would not be attributed to his Staffordshire partialities. He had already said, as a reason for desiring two Members, that there was less likelihood of acrimony and party feeling in election contests where there were two parties, when each had a chance of returning a Representative, than if the whole struggle was, to return one. He would add another, to be found in the long list of townships, of which he would read the names. The town of Stoke-upon-Trent contained these townships:—Longton and Lane-end, Fenton Calvert, Fenton Vivian, Penkhull and Boothen, Shelton, Hanley, Burslem, with the Vill of Rushton Grange, and the Hamlet of Sneyd, Tunstall Court, Chell, and Oldcott. The very enumeration of those names, was surely sufficient to prove the advantage of having two Members, rather than one.

Mr. Hodgson

denied, that Stoke had a population double that of other towns that had been alluded to in schedule B. The hon. Gentleman could not have examined the returns, or he would have found, that Stoke had a population of 53,000 souls, Oldham of 50,000, Salford 51,000, and Stockton 52,000. He would not wish to lay down the principle, that particular interests should be represented, independent of population, and, therefore, he thought that one Representative was sufficient, and should oppose the Motion.

Mr. George Robinson

thought the Motion would much embarrass the Committee when they came to consider schedule D. If it were carried, consistency would require, that Bradford, Wakefield and Dudley, which had manufacturing interests of equal importance, should have the same number of Members, a proposition which the House was not likely to agree to. The hon. Gentleman had made a strong case, but he could not vote for his amendment, because he was sure an equally strong one could be made for Dudley, and the other towns he had mentioned.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

said, if he could put out of view the intended motion of the noble Lord (Lord Milton), he would agree to the proposition to give two Members to Stoke-upon-Trent, but he should by no means be prepared to give the same number to the other places enumerated in schedule D.

Lord Milton

said, that there were several places in schedule D of greater importance than Stoke.

Mr. Gisborne

thought Stoke-upon-Trent was entitled to two Members, from its being the seat of a peculiar manufacture, and having a greater population than any other place in the schedule.

Mr. John Stanley

maintained, that Staffordshire was likely to receive more than the due proportion of Members by the Bill as it stood already; certainly it would receive more than either Lancashire or Yorkshire. He could see no cause for this preference, and if the present motion were carried, two Members must be given to several places in Lancashire and Yorkshire, which had now only one. Staffordshire, with a population of only 340,000 persons, had already received six new Members, and would, in all, return sixteen Members to that House, or fifteen if Tamworth were considered in Warwickshire, whilst Lancashire; with a population of 1,021,000 souls, had only fourteen new Representatives, which, added to the number it formerly possessed, would make the whole number twenty-two. Would it be said this was a fair proportion, and could a claim for another Member be justly made on behalf of Staffordshire? If it were conceded, great injustice would be done to other places, or they must receive a considerable increase of Members. The right hon. Gentleman, the member for Tamworth, had said, he should prefer twelve boroughs with two Members each, to twenty-four with one each. The people, he was persuaded, would not approve of that view, and would prefer the elective franchise being dispersed through the kingdom in smaller proportions, to having it given in large masses, and to comparatively few places.

Mr. Protheroe

would support the Motion, because Stoke-upon-Trent was of more importance than any other town mentioned in schedule D. He did not consider, that in so doing he abandoned the general principle of the Bill.

Mr. Perceval

thought, that to give Representatives to particular interests, was more advisable than to take population for their basis. Stoke-upon-Trent deserved to be amply represented, and he should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Warburton

denied, that, a Representation of particular interests was consistent with good government. In forming the corporation or government of a town, the object was, not to represent the interests of the butcher, baker, and other trades, but to select a body of competent persons, without any reference to particular interests. If two Members were to be given to Stoke, why should they not give two to Ashton-under-Lyne and to Chelsea? [A Member: "What will you do with Chelsea?"] That was not a question for him to answer. If it rested with him, he would give Chelsea two Members, though he did not expect to be one of them. He was not the former of the Bill. He believed, and he hoped, it would effect great good, and on that account he was willing to waive all minor objects, although he had many objections to make to some of its details.

Lord John Russell

said, that had the hon. Member (Mr. Perceval) attended to the explanations that had been given, he would have discovered, that the principles of the measure were of a mixed nature, population forming only a part, and wealth and prosperity being the prevailing requisites. The claim that had been made for Stoke-upon-Trent was not on account of its population, but on account of its peculiar manufacture and great trade; but he agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, that they were bound to legislate for the general interest of the country, which, in the mode of enfranchisement, was to be preferred to the particular interests of certain bodies. If the proposition of his hon. friend were acceded to, he thought it would have the effect of raising jealousies. With respect to what the right hon. Baronet had stated, he begged to say a few words as to the proposition of having twelve places returning two Members each. Such a plan being a variation from the original one—a substitution of another plan of enfranchisement—he must decline it. When that proposition was made by his noble friend (Lord Milton), he should state his reasons against it. He begged to observe, that the right hon. Baronet had signified an intention of supporting it, and from his known hostility to the Bill, his support might be viewed with suspicion.

Sir R. Peel

said, his wish was to render the Bill as perfect as possible, and that he had invariably spoken in favour of the plan of returning two Members instead of one, whenever the subject was under discussion. It was known to many hon. Members, that he intended to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, but he should support it as far as twelve boroughs out of the twenty-four went, preferring, as he did, to see twelve places with two Representatives each, to twenty-four towns with one each.

Lord John Russell

considered it essential to carry the Bill into effect, according to its original principles; and the right hon. Baronet had expressed a desire to see certain towns enfranchised differently from what it was proposed they should by the schedule.

Sir R. Peel

contended, that the principles of the Bill would not be departed from, by giving to twelve of the chief towns in schedule D two Members, instead of the twenty-four towns one Member each.

Lord Stanley

felt himself bound to vote for giving an additional Member to the Potteries, although he regretted, in doing so, that he should be opposed to his Majesty's Ministers on a particular point of the details of the Bill, which, in general, he viewed with much satisfaction.

Mr. John Wood

said, he preferred one Member being given to a place rather than two, because in that case no compromise of political principle could arise. With respect to Stoke-upon-Trent having two Members, he thought no case had been made out. If they had a Member to spare, he ought to be given to Ashtonunder-Lyne, which had a population of 34,000 souls. He considered, besides, that Staffordshire had a greater proportion of Members than Lancashire. He should, therefore, oppose the amendment.

Mr. Littleton

would merely remark, that Stoke-upon-Trent contained manufactures, the joint capital of which exceeded 1,300,OOOl. and he believed, no town in the empire had a more wealthy manufacturing population.

The Committee divided. Ayes 145; Noes 246—Majority 101.

Original Motion agreed to, and the first part of the 3rd clause as amended, was ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The next question was on the latter part of the 3rd clause as follows:—"And that each of the principal places named in the first column of schedule D be a borough, and that each of the said last mentioned boroughs shall, after the present Parliament, return (blank) Member. The question the Chairman said he had to put was, that the blank be filled up with the word "one."

Lord Milton

said, that the period was come for the motion of which he had given notice. He felt it due to himself, and to the country, to state, that he should make this Motion on grounds of great importance, but, before going further, he should also state, for his own sake, as well as the sake of others, that he was actuated in the course he should pursue by no hostility to the Bill, nor by any want of confidence in the Ministers, with whom he had been so long united in the bonds of private friendship, the best security for public confidence. It appeared, however, to him, that in their proposal of new electoral bodies, which should return only one Member, they were departing from the ancient principles of the Constitution of the country. He thought that every part of this Bill ought to be, as far as possible, grounded on ancient principles, and he also thought, that, in its general principles, it was so grounded, inasmuch as it went upon the constitutional maxim, that Representation and taxation should go together. But he also found, that the principle of the Constitution was almost universally to give, at least, two Representatives to every place, with so very few exceptions as only to prove this rule. The exceptions were but five, one of which was a Welsh borough, and, perhaps, not to be taken into the account; and the only four places in England returning one Member, were Abingdon, Banbury, Bewdley, and Higham Ferrers. It was odd, too, that every one of them owed their origin to a particular period of our history, and one which Englishmen never referred to, as remarkable either for wisdom, or any other great quality in the Government of the country—the reign of Queen Mary. The hon. member for Preston (Mr. J. Wood) was friendly to the system, because, he said, whenever there were two Members, there was always a sacrifice of public principle. That might be the case, but there were other consequences which were of importance to the peace and tranquillity of the country. These compromises led to the avoidance of contests, and, as he thought, would always lead to a more accurate Representation of the country, than when each place had but one Member. If every election were to be conducted on pure principles, without reference to private condition or private favour, then, perhaps, there could be no doubt of the propriety of acting on his noble friend's principles. But, in the first place, the minority ought to have some Representatives, and the minority out of doors should have a minority in the House. Let it not be imagined, that he arraigned the previous parts of this Bill which had been passed, but give him leave to say, that, if these boroughs which were disfranchised, gave an opportunity for the expression of the opinion of the minority of the people, it became, a fortiori, now necessary, that there should be Representatives of that minority in the House. Suppose, that, in a borough with one Member, there were 100 voters, and in a contest they were divided, were forty-nine on one side, and fifty on the other, thus one individual would engross the whole Representation of this borough; and he asked, would that be a fair Representation? Supposing, also, that every elective body in the kingdom returned but one Member, and that any particular opinion was prevalent among the people, the necessary consequence would be, that the minority would be totally excluded from the Representation. He had been, for the greater part of his life, in minorities, with his friends about him, and he hoped, that he and they would not forget the importance of minorities finding their way into the House, and on that ground also he should object to single Representation. He wished to know from his friends on the Treasury bench, whether they believed, that, with their schedule B, the arrangement they had made could possibly be final. Would Blackburn, and Bolton, and Brighthelmstone, be satisfied with one Member, while Knaresborough, and Malton, and Calne, had two? Would the large towns in Staffordshire be satisfied to see Leominster and Bridgnorth, in their neighbouring counties, with two Members? No, it was impossible they could be satisfied, if Ministers did not depart from schedule D. He was willing to give all the towns in schedule D two Members, for they were not there as an assembly of delegates; and the Members for Stoke-upon-Trent would not be in the House merely to serve the manufacture of china, but for the general interests of the empire. If he were asked why he gave Members to Manchester or Birmingham, it was not because of their weaving or their iron works, but because there were assembled in them vast masses of people. He would also wish to go where public opinion was vigorous; and, if he were ready to give Representatives to Marylebone, and the Tower Hamlets, and Greenwich, and Brighton, it was because large masses of population and wealth were assembled in those places, and not because mere local interests ought to influence their Members. Indeed, he should be averse from mere peculiar interests being represented, for he could say, from experience, that, let these parties once get what they wanted to serve their own ends, no more obsequious and more humble voters for the Government could be found. He, therefore, could not help seeing in this schedule, the introduction of a principle which was dangerous to tranquillity, and which was calculated to breed discontent throughout the country. In his belief, it would be the means of throwing down the apple of discord among all classes in the community. He felt exhausted, but he rose to perform a painful duty, in thus expressing his opinions, and did so the more boldly, because he wished to support the present Bill totis viribus. The Government said, they went on the principle of equal Representation, but he saw nothing of it. Brighton, and Bradford, were to have only one Member. He could only see in these schedules the introduction of principles mischievous in their effects, and which could only tend to create invidious comparisons. He was satisfied a priori, that the returning of one Member by these towns, could only lead to discord; but, since he came to London, he had had interviews with many persons from the towns proposed to be included in the schedule, and they had told him, that a parties had declared they had rather have no Representative than only one. He believed it, for in these towns, the parties were not like those in that House; they each had their local democracy and aristocracy, and every election would bring these parties into collision. The noble Lord moved, that the word "two" be substituted for the word "one," in the part of the clause relating to schedule D.

Sir Francis Burdett

was desirous of saying a few words, more particularly applied to the high principle upon which the noble Lord had acted. In most instances, men would be biassed with respect to their best interests, but he was so strongly impressed with a belief of the noble Lord's high integrity, that his opinion was, the noble Lord was more likely to act contrary to his interest, than in support of it. The common maxim was, that a man was always a bad and partial judge in his own cause, but he should always be willing to suffer the noble Lord to be judge, in matters of interest relating to himself. But in many instances, the noble Lord might push the principle of impartiality to an extremity which became mischievous. On the question then before the Committee, he differed from the noble Lord, and greed with the hon. member for Preston, that it was most desirable to avoid double Representation. Giving Representation to the minority of a place, was defeating the effect which the wishes of a majority should always produce. The noble Lord said, that they should be represented, otherwise, disputes and dissatisfaction must inevitably occur among the electoral bodies; but why should they neutralize the wishes of a majority? According to that argument, Representation was useless. The business of a Representative was, to collect the sense of a majority of his constituents, and act upon it. In that sense, one Member was more valuable than two. If he was to give a particular opinion, which he did not wish to do, because he had confidence in those who had honestly brought forward the measure, he should say, avoid as much as possible double Representation. The noble Lord's proposition seemed to proceed from a wish, that the present measure of Reform should be permanent and final, but that was absolutely impossible, and incompatible with the conditions to which the Divine will had unalterably subjected all human affairs. He did not wish to recommend any opinion of his own, but he would rather say, that all boroughs should have one Representative, because, in most cases, a double Representation was no Representation at all. The noble Lord said, they ought to make the measure perfect, but the noble Lord recommended that which it was impossible to effect. Perfection could not be expected; it belonged to the Divinity. The Bill, perhaps, was the best measure, under all the circumstances, the House could then devise. It might not be perfect, but the Bill would give satisfaction to the country; and, being the commencement of a better system, Parliament hereafter might improve it. He wished to impress upon Gentlemen who professed to be friendly to the Bill, that they should not persist in pressing upon his Majesty's Ministers who were honestly doing their duty, those alterations which could only endanger the success of the Bill. A right hon. Baronet had said, he had felt he could carry on no Government without Parliamentary Reform, but he had never had sufficient fortitude, or sufficient wisdom, to attempt giving a Reform to the country. The question was, undoubtedly, one of great difficulty, and he would say, that those who wished to support Reform in the Representation, ought not to throw any obstacles in the way of Ministers, who were honestly and conscientiously endeavouring to provide a remedy for the evil which had been so long the subject of general complaint. There might be some deviations from principle in the Bill, but it was impossible to avoid them even in matters of science. For example, in navigation, allowance must be made for variations of the needle. It would be an advantage to diminish the numbers of the House, which he considered excessive at present. A system of fair Representation, required no such local expedients as that mentioned by the noble Lord. Different Members might feel disposed to support different local and partial interests, but it was impossible they could succeed, without manifest injury to the public welfare. When there was a question of that, individual views must be given up. With reference to the influence of the people over their Representatives, which had of late been so frequently referred to, he wished to say, that he did not blame the hon. Alderman (Alderman Thompson) for the vote he gave in the case of Appleby; he voted, no doubt, from a conviction of what was right and just, but still his vote went to endanger the whole measure; and, therefore, his constituents, who had sent him to the House to support it, were right in asking for an explanation. In human affairs, it was impossible ever to come to useful general results, unless particular points were yielded to the general interests. The supporters of this measure were said to come to that House pledged, but were those exempt from pledges who sat by nomination? Would they not consider it dishonourable to retain their seats, if they found that they must oppose the views of their patrons? All were pledged, in some measure, to their constituents; and the popular Members, it was true, were liable to be called to account by their constituents; but the existing excitement, he had no doubt, would die away altogether after the passing of the Reform Bill, when the public generally would acquiesce in the good sense and intelligence of Parliament. He trusted even, the result of this measure hereafter would be, in a great degree, to beget so much confidence in the House of Commons, as to do away with the necessity of petitioning. The business of the House would thus be expedited, and there would no longer be occasion to fear the excitement produced by public meetings. Much had been said about giving pledges; now, if they looked to the rolls of Parliament in ancient times, they would see, that Members held themselves responsible to their constituents, and frequently refused to assent to any new matter of importance, until they had an opportunity of consulting them. On the whole, he did not believe, that double Representation would be attended with the advantages which the noble member for Northamptonshire anticipated, but, at all events, it could not be deemed of that paramount importance, which would justify the noble Lord in pressing his motion to a division.

Mr. Hunt

confessed, that he had been a disciple of the hon. Baronet for a great number of years, during which the hon. Baronet's opinions had undergone a few variations undeniably; but he could remember none so remarkable as that which the House had witnessed in his particular person that evening. The hon. Baronet, it was apparent, had shown himself the best thick-and-thin supporter of Ministers, that the most zealous amongst them could possibly have desired. In his opinion, the noble Lord's arguments were well deserving of the most serious attention, and he certainly felt himself bound to support his proposition, which, as far he could judge, was by no means calculated to destroy the measure by which Government meant to abide. The hon. Baronet, it would be remembered, had supported with all his might the Ministry of Mr. Canning, who declared himself adverse to all kinds of Reform, no matter what shape it assumed, and yet he now came forward to lend his aid in favour of this Bill, as the very best that true statesmanship could devise. The present Bill was, then, to have all the support which it was in the hon. Baronet's power to render it, although it embraced neither short Parliaments nor Universal Suffrage, which he (Mr. Hunt) and the hon. Baronet had so long advocated in common. Truly, the hon. Baronet had given up not a little for the sake of unanimity. Much had been said on the subject of pledges, but he "would rather be a dog and bay the moon," than come into that House with shackles about his arms, like the members for the City of London. He would at once resign his seat if he could not concur with his constituents; but as to their calling him to account, forsooth, he would take good care, that the first time of their doing so should also be the last. On the question of giving Members to populous places, he voted with Ministers, merely because their proposition came nearer to his own principles than any other which had hitherto been submitted; and on the other details of the Bill, he had stated his sentiments frankly and fairly, in spite of the taunts, not only of the House itself, but of the whole newspaper press in the country. It appeared to him, that Representation should go hand in hand with taxation to be constitutional. How did this Bill approach that principle? The income of 1,000,000 of voters included in the Bill might amount to about 150,000,000l., or 150l. each, while the income of the 7,000,000 excluded, at 12s. a week, would be 217,000,000l. Why, this was nearly as bad as no Representation. He would now add, that in the event of the passing of this Bill, the Table would be forthwith crowded with petitions for a further extension of the suffrage.

Mr. Strickland

said, he rose to support the amendment of the noble Lord, although not on the abstract principles which the noble Lord himself had stated as the grounds of his proposition. He would support the proposition of the noble Lord, because it was the only chance of adding a few more Members to that county with which he was more particularly connected. Long before he had a seat in that House, he was of opinion, that no measure of Reform would be final if we excluded from Representation such towns as Bradford, Huddersfield, and Wakefield, and admitted to it such towns as Northallerton and Ripon. It was said, that there had been such a change of the balance of Members from the south to the north, as would give the preponderance to the latter. Those who used that argument forgot, that Yorkshire, with all its industry, all its wealth, and its population of 1,250,000, had only gained two additional Members, whilst Staffordshire, with only 315,000, gained six, Yorkshire having thirty, and Staffordshire fifteen. According to the proportion which ought to exist between the two counties, when Staffordshire had fifteen Members, Yorkshire ought to have sixty. He contended, that it was a shallow principle, to maintain that there was any hostile difference between agriculture and commerce: for where could the wool-grower dispose of his commodity if he did not find a purchaser in the manufacturer? It was absurd, then, to suppose that these new Members would give a preponderance to the commercial interest, which would be destructive of the agricultural interest. On these general principles he should support the amendment of the noble Lord, the member for Northamptonshire.

Lord Morpeth

said, he concurred in the general principle of his noble friend (Lord Milton), that a Representation by two Members was preferable to one, and he readily admitted the anomaly that must arise from giving only one to such a place as Halifax, while many small towns had two. Many most respectable men among his constituents approved of his noble friend's plan, and he would therefore state a few reasons why he should vote against it. He believed the main object of the Bill proposed by Ministers was, to establish a balance in the Representation between the agricultural and manufacturing interests. Though these great interests might not in reality be different, yet, being generally thought so, they were obliged to take things as they found them, and legislate accordingly. Though it was possible, that if two Members each were given to the places in schedule D, the two might be selected from the landed interests of the neighbourhood, it was also possible, that they might be chosen from the manufacturing interest. If twenty-six Members were thus added, it might, by some, be taken hold of as a departure from that principle of equilibrium which was professed to be laid down. The right hon. Baronet, for instance, the member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), might then have some occasion for saying, that the north was profusely enriched with Members, while the south was ruthlessly despoiled. He thought it better, therefore, though casting a longing, lingering look behind, to vote against the amendment of his noble friend.

Sir R. Peel

said, the hon. Member who spoke last but one, denounced the shallow doctrine of preserving a balance between the agricultural and the manufacturing interests. It might be shallow in principle, but yet it was impossible to convince one of those interests, that it would be wise to commit to the other the entire control over it. Each party would always naturally desire to be protected by its own Representatives. The hon. Member talked of the interests of the wool-grower and the cloth-manufacturer being the same. This might be all true and very wise, but it was most extraordinary to hear it come from the very same hon. Gentleman who complained that Yorkshire was not sufficiently represented, and who said, that his motive for supporting the proposition of the noble Lord was, to give more Representatives to the great manufacturing towns of Yorkshire. Let the hon. Gentleman apply his own principle. If the interests of the woolgrower and of the cloth-manufacturer were the same, why not trust the agriculturist with the care of the cloth-manufacture; and still further, if the principle was good for anything, why not commit to the wisdom and management of Staffordshire, the interests of Yorkshire? He should prefer not being called upon to vote at all upon the question. If he was, however, so called upon—if the noble Lord pressed the question to a division—he would support the amendment, because it affirmed an abstract proposition of which he approved—he meant the principle of double Representation. At the same time he owned, that if he thought the noble Lord likely to carry his amendment, he should be afraid to vote with him, because he should then expect that the same majority would transfer all the towns in schedule D to schedule C. In the abstract, he agreed that it would be better to have two Members for each place, and, looking at the whole as an abstract question, he was disposed to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, reserving to himself the power of saying to what number of boroughs this should be extended—that is, of saying whether twelve or twenty-four boroughs should be included in the schedule. He owned he was surprised at the argument of the hon. Baronet in favour of single Representation; taking, as he did, the principle, that the minority should not be represented at all. To that he was prepared to give his decided dissent. Would it be wise or politic to say, that where any great difference of opinion existed, on, perhaps, a most important public question, that the minority—which might be a very large minority—should be wholly excluded from all share in the Representation? In times of peace and quiet, there might be little danger of such a principle; but times of storm and difficulty might arise. Would the hon. Baronet's principle be then applicable? It reminded him of that beautiful simile of Horace— —"Cum pace delabentis Etruscum In mare; but the time might come, —"Cum fera deluvies quietos Irritat amnes. Yes, great questions would arise, with regard to peace or war, questions involving foreign and domestic policy, and in which there might be a collision between these two interests. Would it, then, be wise to adopt a system which should give either to the war party or to the peace party a predominant influence? It was very fairly said, in reference to the argument of the hon. Baronet, that it went to cut up by the roots the system by which the majority was represented in that House. For instance, if there should be 501 on one side of the question, and 499 on the other, the proposition of the hon. Baronet would prevent the voice of the minority from being heard. Assuredly, for all the purposes of petition and remonstrance, this was one of the most extraordinary propositions ever yet submitted to the adoption of the British Legislature. The principle which he had heard urged over and over again was, that taxation ought to be coexistent with Representation; and therefore it was, that, in order to secure Representation to the minority, two Members were selected, for it could not be done by one. The principle of giving one Member instead of two was a novelty, and as such ought to be avoided. Gratuitous novelties tended to unsettle men's minds, and engender and foster a desire for innovation. It was because he wished to avoid, as much as possible, the introduction of novelties, and preferred two Members to one, that he should now vote for the motion of the noble Lord, whatever objection he might have to it in other respects. He wished the House to understand, that he voted for it upon that abstract principle.

Lord Althorp

admitted, that the exclusion of the minority from a share in the Representation would be unfair and unconstitutional. He admitted, as a general proposition, that two Members were better than one, but the question was in this case, would the evils that had been predicted, arise from having the one Member instead of two in the cases of those twenty-six boroughs? Let it be recollected, that the largest number of places would be represented by two instead of one, and in that way the minority in the kingdom would be represented. But could it be supposed that public opinion would ever be so united, as that it would be the same in every part of the kingdom? This was a circumstance which could not be expected, or, if it should happen, the minority in the country would be so very small, that no danger could occur from its not being represented in those places. The argument of the hon. member for Yorkshire had been so fully answered by the right hon. Baronet, that it was not necessary to go into it. He did not admit, that the balance between agriculture and commerce was destroyed. Looking at the manner in which the small boroughs had been represented, he did not think, that the power of the landed interest was lessened in any degree to create alarm; but, as had been said, if they considered the sort of agreement that had been made as to the principle of the Bill, he thought it would be considered as a breach of faith to the agriculturists, to add twenty-six to the commercial towns, and on these grounds he would oppose the motion of his noble friend.

Mr. Wason

supported the proposition of the noble Lord. The very first borough on the list in schedule D, contained 2,763 10l. houses, and he found that eighteen boroughs which were allowed to return two Members each, positively contained only 2,749 10l. houses altogether. Did hon. Gentlemen believe, that if a Bill with such anomalies passed, it would not be again discussed in succeeding Parliaments? He had no doubt it would, and thinking so, should vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, because it proposed to give two Members to each of the boroughs in schedule D.

Lord Milton

said, the number of additional Members to be returned, if his motion was carried, above the present number of the House, would not be more than eight or ten.

Lord John Russell

begged to assure his noble friend, they would be exactly four.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 102; Noes 230—Majority 128.

The House resumed; the Committee to sit again the next day.