§ Lord Althorp moved, that the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill be read.
§ Mr. Briscoewished to take that opportunity to ask the noble Lord, whether the statement which had appeared in the public Journals, that his Majesty's Government had sent out directions to the governor of Berbice, and to the other colonies under the control of the Crown, that an immediate liberation of the slaves should take place, was well founded?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that though he had heard nothing before of the circumstance, he would venture at once to say, that there was not the slightest degree of truth in such a statement.
Sir Francis Blakecomplained that his constituency in Berwick-upon-Tweed would be considerably reduced by this Bill. He begged to give notice, therefore, that he should move, that three adjoining places should be added to Berwick, in order to makeup for the diminution which would be thus effected in its constituency. That opulent and ancient borough should be compensated for the loss of the constituency of which this Bill would deprive it, not only by the addition of all its own 10l. householders, but also by adding to its constituency the 10l. householders of the three adjoining places, the annexation of which to it it was his intention to move hereafter.
§ The House resolved itself into a Committee.
Mr. Frankland Lewis, before the Committee proceeded with schedule F, begged leave to propose, as an amendment, "That the part of the parish of Presteigne which is situated in the county of Hereford, should not be included in the Bill." This change would be gratifying to the individuals affected by it, and would make the clause apply exclusively to Wales, which he considered desirable.
§ Lord Althorphad no particular objection to the amendment; but he could not see why that part of the parish which was in Herefordshire, should not be included.
Mr. Frankland Lewisreplied, that there was no portion of the town across the border, but only a small suburb, containing a rural population, and by including the English inhabitants in the clause, an injustice would be done to them. They had no sympathy nor connexion with Wales; and were not willing to surrender their English privileges, by becoming voters in the Welsh boroughs. Until very recently, the administration of justice had been very different in the two countries, and the habits and manners of the people were not assimilated. The system of contributory boroughs was also exclusively confined to Wales, and it would be unwise to extend it to any portion of the inhabitants of Herefordshire.
§ Lord Althorpexpressed his concurrence in the amendment, as the population of Presteigne, included in Hereford, was rural.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that in the counties of Pembroke and Denbigh a great part of the rural population would be subtracted from the county constituencies. Wrexham, for instance, had but a small town population, but a large rural population was contained within the limits of the parish; it would, therefore, be extremely desirable if some arrangement could be made to exclude the rural population from sharing in the borough elections. That would prevent the reduction of the county constituencies, which were by no means large at present.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The questions "that Amlwch, Holyhead, and Llangetri, sharing in elections with Beaumaris, should stand part of schedule F;"
§ And the questions "that Aberystwith, Lampeter, and Adpar, sharing with Cardigan, Lanelly sharing with Caermarthen, Pwllheli, Newin, Conway, Bangor, and Criccieth, sharing with Caernarvon, should stand part of schedule F," agreed to.
§ On the question "that Ruthen, Holt, and Wrexham, sharing with Denbigh, should stand part of schedule F,"
Mr. C. W. Wynnobjected to including the whole parish of Wrexham, which contained above 11,000 inhabitants. A great proportion of the population of this parish was rural, and he should be sorry to see so large a number subtracted from the county constituency. He would therefore suggest that only the town population should be included, and the remainder 1133 of the parish belong to the county constituency.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthought the whole parish of Wrexham ought to be included. It was true, that a great part of the population did not reside in the town, but they were employed in the coal and iron mines, and therefore could not be considered rural.
Sir Watkins W. Wynnstated, that the parish contained 11,087 inhabitants, whilst the town population did not exceed 4,795. He suggested as an amendment, that only the townships of Wrexham Regis and Wrexham Abbot, should be included, which would leave the rural population untouched.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, by including the rural population in these boroughs, they would prevent the freeholders from exercising their elective franchise for the county, which might be a great hardship upon some individuals.
Mr. C. W. Wynnbegged to be permitted to remark, in reference to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, that although a considerable part of the population was employed, as he had stated, in the coal and iron mines, yet they would not yield a large portion of 10l. houses, and there was also, as he had before remarked, a considerable rural population independent of these.
§ Lord Althorpbelieved, that his right hon. friend had accurately stated, that the townships of Wrexham Regis and Wrexham Abbot included the population of the town, and he therefore had no objection to the amendment proposed.
Mr. Goulburn, after the noble Lord's consent to the amendment, wished to know what was intended in all similar cases in which places in Wales were to share in returning Representatives. When the name was mentioned, was it the whole borough, or only the town that was meant? If this was left ambiguous, to be settled hereafter by Commissioners, he confessed he had a great objection to it, as he was jealous that any unnecessary power should be left in the hands of the Commissioners; and he was particularly anxious that they should not be invested with power to do what Parliament itself might do satisfactorily. It was surely competent for the House to decide whether they meant to unite the whole population of the contributory boroughs, or only that part included in the towns.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, it certainly was intended to add the population of the towns only, and not a rural population; but difficulties frequently occurred, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, in determining the limits of towns.
§ The clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ On the question "that Rhyddlan, Overton, Carivis, Caergonly, St. Asaph, Holywell, and Mold, sharing with Flint, should stand part of schedule F.
§ Sir Edward Lloydbegged to state, that the parish of Mold had a population of nearly 7,000, a large proportion of which was rural.
Mr. Goulburninquired whether it was the parish, the hundred, or the town of Mold, the first of which contained 6,000 the second 10,000, and the third but 1,000 inhabitants, that was proposed to be included?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, it was the town; and proposed that the words "town of" should stand before Mold.
Mr. John Stanleysuggested, that in every instance the word "town" should be inserted; and it might afterwards remain for the Commissioners to say what was or was not within the limits of the town.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenprotested against its being assumed that Commissioners were already appointed. He considered that proposition the most objectionable part of the Bill, and should give it his decided opposition.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, his hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) did not assume that the clause appointing Parliamentary Commissioners was agreed to. He merely suggested that the word "town" should be used, as it would be sufficient to show that the rural population was not meant to be included. He begged to move, that the words "parish of" be inserted before Holywell, which would put an end to all doubt to that case.
§ The clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ The next question was, "that Llandaff, Cowbridge, Merthyr Tydvil, Aberdare, Llantrissent, sharing with Cardiff, Glamorgan, stand part of schedule F."
Colonel Woodsaid, it then became his duty to bring under the consideration of the Committee the case of Merthyr Tydvil. This large and flourishing town was situated in Glamorganshire, and it was separated by a mountain brook from a small hamlet called Coed-Cumnor. The hamlet had a population of 2,000 souls, and he 1135 hoped the Committee would consent to step over the brook, and uniting the hamlet and the town together, remove the latter from schedule F, and give to them, exclusive of all participation, the right of returning a Member to Parliament. As he had already stated, Merthyr Tydvil was in the county of Glamorgan, and therefore it might have been expected, if that place had a just or reasonable claim to be allowed the privilege of returning a Member to that House, its pretensions would have been urged by the hon. Member for the county in which it was situated, who had, however, declined to undertake that office. He, therefore, had undertaken to bring the case forward, but not until that hon. Member had declined, and he made the Committee acquainted with this circumstance, lest he should be charged with unnecessary interference, and with intruding into the office of another. He must also state, lest it should be at once concluded that Merthyr Tydvil had no just claims to the distinction it applied for, that, as he understood the matter, the hon. member for Glamorganshire had not objected to bring the case forward, on the ground that a member for Merthyr was unnecessary, but on the ground that an understanding had been come to by the supporters of the Bill, that they would not propose any amendment in it whatever. This certainly showed good generalship on the part of the noble Lord, and the noble Lord's forces were well drilled; but he could hardly suppose, that every amendment was to be rejected merely because it was an amendment, and without reference to its justice and its merits. If he was correct in this supposition, he could assure independent Members, that Merthyr Tydvil would be found to present a case on which they might shew their independence, for it was well worthy of their support. Merthyr Tydvil was entitled to a Representative upon the principles of the Bill, and by acceding to the alteration he should propose in the schedule, hon. Members would neither infringe upon those principles, nor throw any impediment in the way of the progress of the Bill. He would not make any comparison between Merthyr and other places; to do so might be considered invidious and unfair; but he would let the case stand on its own merits, and leave the Committee to deal with it. By the census of 1821—not 1831—there were in Merthyr Tydvil and 1136 the adjacent hamlet of Coed-Cumnor 19,025 souls. That was the amount of population in 1821 in this great commercial place; and he begged of the Committee to remember in how many instances it had already granted to new places a Member where the population was considerably less. In no less than twelve of the new places to which the right of returning a Member had been given, was the population less in amount than that of Merthyr. Macclesfield had a population only of 17,746, Warrington a population of 16,698; South Shields a population of 16,303; Kidderminster a population of 15,396; Rochdale a population of 13,902; Cheltenham a population of 13,500; Huddersfield a population of 12,434; Frome, Walsall, and Gateshead, had each a population under 12,000, and Kendal had a population of 8,984. Nor was that all; for, on looking at the counties in which those places were situated, he found, that they were much more numerously represented, in proportion to their population, than Glamorganshire was. He therefore hoped he should hear nothing about an undue number of Representatives being asked for on account of Glamorganshire. Then with respect to 10l. houses. There were at present in Merthyr alone, 680 10l. houses. Perhaps he should be told, that under the Bill, as it at present stood, the county of Glamorgan would receive two additional Members, one for the county and one for Swansea. But the Committee must see, that from the annexation of Merthyr Tydvil to Cardiff, the former town would have no share in the county Representation. Therefore, with respect to the county Representation, no argument could be raised against Merthyr. He then came to Swansea. Would Merthyr be represented through Swansea? He had no hesitation in saying, that it would not. The two places were completely separated and distinct in every respect. Merthyr Tydvil was situated at the head of a valley, and between it and Swansea there was a high range of mountains. Over those mountains there was a mountain road—not a very good one—but as to any commercial communication or connexion between the two places, there was no such thing. The Member given to Swansea, therefore, must be considered as a purely local one, as far as the particular interests of Merthyr were concerned. He had thus disposed of three of the Members to be 1137 returned by the whole of the county, and he then came to the fourth, Cardiff, which, with certain contributory boroughs, was to return a Member. The other night, a Member had been given to Devonport, and the reason assigned for not uniting that town to Plymouth was, that the population of Devonport would swamp the population of Plymouth, and thereby place that ancient and respectable town under the influence of Devonport. That was the argument used the other night by the Government, and he entreated that it might now be borne in mind. In Plymouth and Devonport there was a community of interests, but in Cardiff and Merthyr there was no such thing; on the contrary, there was a clashing of interests. There was no bond of union whatever between the two places, and they were twenty-five miles distant from each other. Then as far as the four Members already proposed to be given to Glamorganshire went, he thought they furnished no argument against the claims of Merthyr Tydvil. Merthyr was differently circumstanced from every other place in Wales, and was not fitted for a contributory borough. It was, strictly speaking, a commercial town, and had a manufacturing population; while the other towns, the contributory towns, had for the most part a rural population. Indeed, so peculiarly circumstanced was Merthyr, that it would be better for it not to have anything to do with returning a Member, unless it was allowed to return one exclusively. Cardiff and the other places named in the Bill would act as so many ties upon Merthyr, without being able to subdue its strength. They would irritate it without destroying its influence. If united with those places it would have a decided preponderance, and the consequence would be, annoyance and discontent to all the parties concerned. Then had Merthyr Tydvil experienced any inconveniences from not having a direct Representative? It certainly had; and he would state an occurrence in support of that assertion. One instance was as good as a hundred. About two or three years ago, some parties in Cardiff came to Parliament for a Bill for a new canal from Merthyr to Cardiff. The new canal was to run mostly parallel with the old one, but it was to have several advantages, as a better sea-mouth, and some other things; but in these advantages the parties from Cardiff 1138 refused to allow the old canal in any way to participate. The hon. member for Cardiff very naturally and very properly advocated the interests of his constituents. The hon. member for the county was in the Chair of the Committee to which the motion was referred, and that hon. Member was therefore neutral, and consequently, the interests of Merthyr were left without any necessarily active protector. The Committee was a large one, and on a division there were twenty-two in favour of Cardiff, and four only in favour of Merthyr. The four, however, laboured for a fortnight, and at length succeeded in effecting a compromise by which all parties were satisfied. If, however, those four Members had happened to have been at the time occupied with business relating to their own counties, they would not have been able to have attended to the just interests of Merthyr, which, consequently, would have been sacrificed. That case was a strong proof, that Merthyr did require a Representative for the protection of its interests. He had brought the claims of Merthyr Tydvil forward, not with a view of injuring the Bill, but with a desire to render it as perfect as possible. There was only one other point to which he wished to allude. He hoped he should not be told, that if the Committee gave a Member to Merthyr Tydvil, by doing so it would derange the just proportion of Members established between the agricultural and the manufacturing interests. He was quite sure those great interests were, in truth, identified, and if he wanted to offer the strongest proof possible that that was the case, he should refer to the fact, that if Merthyr languished, the agricultural interests for forty miles round it was in the same condition; while, if Merthyr flourished, and had full employment, the agricultural interest for the same distance exhibited prosperity and joy. Let not, then, any invidious comparison be raised, but let both the great interests concerned shake hands, and, by giving a Member to Merthyr Tydvil, offer a practical proof of their cordiality towards each other, and of their desire to see each other prosperous. The plan he proposed to pursue was this:—He meant to move, in the first instance, that Merthyr Tydvil should be left out of schedule F; and, if that amendment were adopted, as he hoped it would be, he should at the proper time move as an amendment upon, the 1139 seventh clause, that words be added to it giving Merthyr Tydvil and the hamlet of Coed Cumnor the right of sending one Member to Parliament. The hon. Member moved as an amendment that the words "Merthyr Tydvil" be omitted.
§ Lord Patrick James Stuartsaid, that as the Representative of Cardiff he felt it his duty to trouble the Committee with a few observations. The population of Cardiff, in 1821, was between 3,000 and 4,000, and it now amounted to nearly 6,000. This was a clear proof, that it was a prosperous and important place. With Cowbridge, Llandaff and Llantrissent, the proposed tributary places, there would be a population of 10,000 souls. In the town of Cardiff alone there were 360 10l. houses. There would surely, then, be an ample constituency without Merthyr Tydvil being added. With so large a population, and a thriving port, exporting iron and coal, and now likely to increase very considerably from the coal duties being abolished, which also created a monopoly in favour of a neighbouring town, he regretted to see Cardiff was to be swamped by Merthyr Tydvil, and regretted that the latter should not receive a Member of its own. A considerable addition had been made to the number of Representatives returned by the county of Stafford, and he did not see upon what ground this addition was made, that would not equally apply to the Cardiff district. His noble friend had altered the whole arrangement of the boroughs, but in doing so he had crushed the town of Cardiff, by putting on it the town of Merthyr Tydvil, with a population of 25,000 souls. Due consideration had not been given to Wales. He approved of measures which took from Wales the character of a distinct country, and he therefore saw with great pleasure the measure carried, which put an end to the separate jurisdiction of the Welsh Judges, but it was not just to deal with it in one manner at one moment, and in another manner at another. He supported the amendment.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, there appeared to him to be two points in the discussion, first, as regarded Merthyr Tydvil, and second, as regarded Cardiff; he would begin with the latter. Cardiff was already connected with several other boroughs, such as Swansea, Teath, &c, which had a considerable population, and would not, therefore, be swamped by Merthyr Tydvil. 1140 Cardiff, he conceived, would not be injured by having its constituency enlarged. With regard to the latter part of the question, he agreed with his hon. friend opposite, that Merthyr Tydvil was an important town, and that it ought not to be left wholly to virtual Representation. It was for that reason that he (Lord Althorp) was desirous of annexing it to Cardiff, with which its interests were closely connected, and with which it had a direct commercial communication. But as it was said, that that Representation was not sufficient, he would reply, that on the showing of the hon. Gentleman opposite himself, the interests of the agricultural districts forty miles around were interwoven with those of Merthyr Tydvil, and that, therefore, the members for Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire would be neglecting the interests of their own constituents if they neglected those of that town. It had been urged by his hon. friend, that the interests of all being the same, an attempt to make the Bill a balance of interests ought to be avoided. He concurred with him in thinking that these interests were identified, that they depended upon each other; but he feared the respective persons engaged, either in manufactures or agriculture, were not of the same opinion, and therefore, it was necessary to keep up a balance in the Representation. He therefore was of opinion, on the whole, that by giving, as they proposed to do, two additional Members to Glamorganshire, they had given it a sufficient Representation as compared with the rest of Wales; and as he believed the interests of Merthyr Tydvil were identified with the county, he could not consent to increase the number of Members by adding one for it, as proposed by the hon. Member.
Colonel Woodsaid, that in this district the manufacturing and agricultural inest, were so well balanced and united, that he should like to see the experiment made of giving Members to a place in which the interests of both classes were identified. With respect to the influence which Merthyr Tydvil was likely to have in the election of county Members, if the motion of the hon. Member succeeded, and he hoped it would, that the freeholders of every borough should have the right of voting in that borough, Merthyr Tydvil would have no voice whatever in county elections.
Mr. Jephsonsaid, that although desirous 1141 of supporting the general principles of the Bill, he felt bound to vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. Talbotwas also of the same opinion, for he considered the case made out for Merthyr Tydvil so strong, that he should certainly vote in its favour.
§ Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that if the noble Lord, the framer of the Bill, had any regard to his own principle of population, he would not refuse a Member to a place containing nearly 17,000 inhabitants, at the same time that he left two Representatives to other places, on the ground that they had 4,000 inhabitants. The place had petitioned against the proposed course, as partial and unjust, and he thought it had made out a case which entitled it to a Representative. He could not but feel, that nothing was more unfair than to annex to Cardiff Merthyr Tydvil, a town which lay at the distance of twenty-five miles from it, and which would completely sluice it, while Gateshead, though so near Newcastle, was not annexed to that place. He hoped the Government would pay some attention to the petitions which had been presented upon this subject, especially when it was recollected, that the population of Merthyr Tydvil amounted, in 1821, to 17,000, and was now no less than 28,000, while Gateshead had, in 1821, a population of 11,667, and at the last census 14,931 only. Considering all these circumstances, and that Cardiff had also made out a strong case, the prayers of both places ought to be attended to.
§ Mr. Crokerwas particularly at a loss to understand the course pursued by the Ministers, and he requested the hon. Gentleman who had refused to add the manufacturing town of Wednesbury, with 6,000 inhabitants to Walsall, to assign some reason for joining Merthyr Tydvil to Cardiff, which were twenty-five miles apart.
Mr. W. A. Williamssaid, that he should be most unwilling to delay the progress of the Bill, but as a representation for the county of Monmouth in which a large portion of the mining district of South Wales, was situated, he felt it a duty to support the Motion. He considered the mining districts of South Wales not fairly Represented, as compared with the same interests in Staffordshire. He fully agreed in the propriety of the amendment to give to Merthyr Tydvil a separate Representative, to which, from its population, and 1142 manufacturing importance, it was fully entitled. It contained 700 10l. houses. It would have been better to have left the Glamorganshire boroughs, alone, and supported the mining interests by a separate Member for Merthyr and Aberdare.
Mr. John Stanleysaid, he did not think that Glamorganshire, taking its population into consideration, had any reason whatever to complain of not receiving its proper share in the distribution of Members. In obtaining four, it had one in proportion to every 25,000 inhabitants, while Carmarthen had only one to 45,000; Denbigh one to 38,000; Montgomery, one to 30,000; Carnarvon, one to 29,000; Cardigan, one to 28,000; Flint, one to 27,000; and Merioneth, one to 34,000. In short, there were only four counties in Wales which had more Members in proportion to their population. Again, in the great manufacturing northern English counties, Lancashire had one to 47,000; Derbyshire, one to 35,000; Cheshire, one to 33,000; and Yorkshire, one to 38,000; and even the favoured county of Stafford had one only to 22,000. In regard, then, to the population of Glamorganshire, it had an ample share of Representation, and had Merthyr Tydvil been situated in any other part of the empire, he should have been most ready to concede its claims. But Government having in no case departed from the ancient practice of Wales, as established by Henry 8th, he saw no reason to deviate from it in this instance alone. There were several towns in Scotland, as large, or larger, than Tydvil, which continued to form a portion of the district of boroughs in which they were originally placed, and he had heard no complaint from them. If they did complain, it would be prudent to listen, for if this was granted, no objection could be reasonably made to their demands. As far as regarded the distance at which the contributory places were from each other, the argument was in favour of the proposed arrangement, for Merthyr Tydvil and Cardiff were more closely connected, and nearer to each other by five miles, than were Cardiff and Swansea, which had been hitherto joined. He believed they were about twenty-five miles apart, and that was rather less than the average distance, at which the contributory boroughs were placed from each other in Wales. In considering this case as a hardship upon Cardiff, which would, it 1143 was said, be swamped by the superior population of Merthyr, he must reply, that the borough with which it was heretofore associated, had a larger proportion of voters, under the proposed regulations, than Merthyr would have for Cardiff; the other places had 18,765 inhabitants, and Merthyr Tydvil but 17,704: so that the town of Cardiff would lose nothing in this respect by the change, while, geographically speaking, it was much more intimately connected with Merthyr, by excellent roads, canals, and continual intercourse, than with the other towns. Swansea was at a greater distance, and separated from it, both by the nature of the country, and by division of interests. If, however, the hon. Members connected with Glamorganshire preferred the present arrangement, and wished to have Cardiff, Swansea, and the other places to continue united, and give Merthyr a separate Member, he apprehended the House would have no objection to the arrangement; but he would maintain there were no just grounds for giving a fifth Member to Glamorganshire, which was the object those Gentlemen had in view. As he understood that the proposed distribution would be more agreeable to the wishes and interests of the country at large, than an arrangement which would give one Member to Merthyr, and leave Cardiff joined to Swansea, this was an additional reason in favour of the measure. For his part, therefore, he should support the arrangement made by the Bill.
§ Sir George Murraydissented from the observation of the noble Lord opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that Glamorganshire was well off for Representatives as compared with the other counties of the principality. He confessed he saw no reason why one rule, or principle, of Representation, should be applied to Wales, and another to England, or why the Representation of Ireland or Scotland should be placed upon a different footing from that of the other parts of the United Kingdom. He conceived, that when they were altering the Constitution, every part of the United Kingdom had a just claim to a full and equal share in the Representation.
Mr. Alderman Woodwould vote for Merthyr Tydvil being left out of the present schedule, for the purpose, at another stage of the Bill, of proposing that independent Representation be conferred upon 1144 it. A great manufacturing place so populous should not be left without a Representative of its own.
§ Mr. Stephensonsaid, he was called upon in consequence of hon. Gentlemen illustrating their opposition to the details of the Bill by references to the county of Durham; but he wished to enlarge their view by comparing Glamorganshire with it, and he therefore proposed to prove, these two counties would receive nearly an equal share of Representation from the proposed measure. The population of Durham, in 1821, exceeded 200,000: so that each present Member represented about 50,000 constituents; such also was the case with Glamorganshire, with its two Members, and 100,000 inhabitants. By the proposed Reform, six Members would be added to Durham, and two to Glamorgan, thereby giving to the former, one to every 20,000, and to the latter one for about 25,000 constituents.
§ Sir George Murraysaid, he was the only Member who possessed 140,000 constituents.
Lord Miltonobserved, the hon. Baronet had not said by how many of the 140,000 he was elected. The voters for all that mass of population did not exceed, he believed, 100.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, the hon. member for Durham had answered the arguments of the hon. gentleman who preceded him, by proving that Glamorganshire was to have one member to 25,000 inhabitants, while Durham was to have one for every 20,000; and this he called enlarging their views, and proving, that equal benefits had been dealt to each, while it was clear, from his own statement, that Durham was to receive greater advantages than Glamorganshire.
Mr. Stanley, in reply to the hon. gentleman, must state, that in the south of England, taking the line drawn by the right hon. member for Tamworth, the proportion of Members was as one to 20,000 inhabitants, while in the north the proportion was one to 25,000.
Colonel Woodsaid, the proportion of Members to inhabitants in Wales, was one to 30,000, and this argument of the right hon. gentleman was in favour of his motion.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, the arrangements by which the members for Scotland were returned, were made by Lord Somers. He apprehended that great man was 1145 somewhat better qualified to draw up the scheme of a constitution than those who were now about to alter his work.
§ Sir George Murraywished to call the attention of the noble member for Northamptonshire (Lord Milton) to the fact that the Bill went to alter the constituency, and not to increase the number of Members.
Mr. Stanleysaid, the right hon. Baronet had surely forgotten, that those who voted for General Gascoyne's motion, refused to increase the number of members for Scotland.
§ Sir George Murray—General Gascoyne's motion was to the effect, that the English Members should not be diminished. The addition of five new Members which the Bill gave was not equal to what Scotland deserved.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, that as far as he knew the sentiments of the people of Glamorgan, they would be glad to receive the boon intended for them without the change which had been made. The people of Glamorgan had never felt the inconvenience of the present system. They said, "Why not leave us as we are?" They had rather Cardiff and Swansea should remain together than that they should be associated in a new manner and with new interests. If Merthyr Tydvil was left without a representative, it would be a disgrace to the Bill, but it should be a separate borough, united to Aberdare.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that as to joining Merthyr Tydvil and Aberdare, he owned there was some reason in the proposal, and he should be prepared to consider it in a future stage, and if there was no objection, to adopt it; but he could not agree to it at present, without consideration.
§ Mr. Crokerhoped, that as the noble Lord had reserved to himself the power of amending the Bill in this point, he would not be angry if they should vote in favour of the question, which the noble Lord might now negative, but which he would ultimately support.
§ The Committee divided on the original question; Ayes, 164; Noes, 123—Majority 41.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adam, Admiral C. | Bentinck, Lord G. |
| Adeane, H. J. | Berkeley, Captain |
| Althorp, Viscount | Blackney, W. |
| Baillie, J. E. | Blake, Sir F. |
| Baring, Sir T. | Blamire, W. |
| Benett, J. | Blunt, Sir C. |
| Bodkin, J. J. | King, E. B. |
| Bouverie, Hon. D. P. | Knight, H. G. |
| Bouverie, Hon. P. P. | Knox, Hon. Col. |
| Boyle, Hon. J. | Langston, J. H. |
| Brayen, T. | Lamb, Hon. G. |
| Brougham, W. | Lambert, H. |
| Brown, J. D. | Leader, N. P. |
| Browne, D. | Lefevre, C. S. |
| Brownlow, C. | Lennard, T. B. |
| Bulwer, E. L. | Lennox, Lord J. G. |
| Burke, Sir J. | Littleton, E. J. |
| Burrell, Sir C. | Lloyd, Sir E. P. |
| Burton, H. | Loch, J. |
| Byng, G. S. | Maberly, Col. |
| Callaghan, D. | Macnamara, W. |
| Carter, J. B. | Mackenzie, Sir P. |
| Cavendish, C. C. | Mangles, J. |
| Cavendish, Lord G. | Marjoribanks, S. |
| Chapman, M. L. | Martin, J. |
| Cockerell, Sir C. | Mayhew, W. |
| Crampton, P. C. | Maule, Hon. W. R. |
| Clive, E. B. | Milbank, M. |
| Cradock, Col. | Mildmay, P. St. J. |
| Curteis, H. B. | Milton, Viscount |
| Dawson, A. | Moreton, Hon. H. |
| Denman, Sir T. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Duncombe, T. S. | Morrison, J. |
| Dundas, C. | Mostyn, E. M. L. |
| Dundas, Hon. Sir R. L. | Musgrave, Sir R. |
| Dundas, Hon. J. C. | Noel, Sir G. |
| East, J. Buller | Norton, C. F. |
| Ebrington, Viscount | O'Connell, D. |
| Ellice, E. | O'Grady, Hon. S. |
| Ellis, W. | Ord, W. |
| Evans, W. B. | Osborne, Lord F. G. |
| Evans, W. | Offley, F. C. |
| Ewart, W. | Oxmantown, Lord |
| Fergusson, Sir R. | Paget, T. |
| Fitzroy, Lord J. | Palmer, Gen. |
| Gisborne, T. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Gordon, R. | Palmerston, Viscount |
| Grant, Right Hon. R. | Payne, Sir P. |
| Grant, Right Hon. C. | Pendarves, E. W. |
| Gurney, R. H. | Penlease, J. S. |
| Handley, W. F. | Pepys, C. C. |
| Harcourt, G. V. | Petit, L. H. |
| Harvey, D. W. | Philips, G. R. |
| Hawkins, J. H. | Philipps, Sir R. |
| Heathcote, Sir G. | Phillips, C. M. |
| Heathcote, G. J. | Portman, E. B. |
| Heron, Sir R. | Power, R. |
| Heywood, B. | Poyntz, W. S. |
| Hill, Lord G. A. | Price, Sir R. |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Ramsbottom, J. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. |
| Hodgson, J. | Rickford, W. |
| Horne, Sir W. | Rider, T. |
| Hort, Sir W. | Robinson, Sir G. |
| Host, Sir J. | Rooper, J. B. |
| Hoskins, K. | Ross, H. |
| Howard, J. | Rumbold, C. C. |
| Howard, P. H. | Russell, W. |
| Hughes, J. | Russell, C. |
| James, W. | Russell, J. |
| Jerningham, Hn. H. V. | Stanhope, Hon. Capt. |
| Johnston, A. | Stanhope, Capt. |
| Johnston, J. J. H. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Stanley, Rt. Hon. E. | Waithman, Ald. |
| Staunton, Sir G. | Walker, C. A. |
| Stephenson, H. F. | Warburton, H. |
| Stewart, P. M. | Watson, Hon. R. |
| Stewart, E. | Westenra, Hon. H. |
| Strutt, E. | Weyland, Major |
| Stuart, Lord D. C. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Tennyson, C. | Williams, Sir. J. H. |
| Tomes, J. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Villiers, T. H. | Wood, J. |
| Vincent, Sir F. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Venables, Ald. | Wrottesley, Sir J. |
| Vernon, Hon. G. J. | Wyse, T. |
| Vernon, G. H. |
§ The question that "Llanidloes, Welsh Pool, Machynleth, Llanfyhing, and Newtown, sharing with Montgomery, stand part of schedule F," agreed to.
§ On the question that "Narbeth, St. David's, Fishguard sharing with Haverfordwest, stand part of schedule F."
Mr. Goulburnbegged to inquire why the present changes contained in the motion were to take place. In the first edition of the Bill, Carmarthen and St. David's were united; in the second edition there was another alteration, but now they had Milford Haven added to Pembroke. It had been supposed that the changes had some connexion with local influence, and election transactions in that quarter. If these boroughs possessed a large population, that was as well known at first as now. He was unwilling to believe partial motives had been the cause of the alterations, but there were circumstances which had given rise to such an opinion. The noble Lord was undoubtedly aware that gentlemen who were the rival candidates at the late election, possessed large property in the towns of Pembroke and Milford. It must also be observed that the effect of throwing Milford with a population of 2,500 into the district of Pembroke, would be to bring the same interests into collision, and that until the late contest, the present intended junction was not thought of. He merely stated the observations that he had heard made, and he hoped the noble Lord would be enabled to give a satisfactory explanation.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the grounds for making the proposed changes were, local situation, and to equalize the constituencies. The extent of population in the various places was of course known when the draft of the first Bill was prepared. The objection of the right hon. Member was, that these alterations had been 1148 supposed to be made from causes flowing from the late elections. To that assertion he opposed a plain denial. It probably would have been better, had they more fully considered these local peculiarities, before the first Bill had been introduced, but he declared they had not acted from any partial motives whatever.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ On the question that "Tenby, Wiston, and Milford Haven, sharing with Pembroke, stand part of schedule F,"
Sir John Owensaid, that Pembroke, Tenby and Wiston, were previously united, and as the number of 10l. houses in Tenby and Pembroke, alone exceeded 500, there was no occasion to go elsewhere for a constituency. He knew that an opinion had prevailed in Pembroke, that the exchange had been produced by events at the recent election.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the number of 10l. houses in Tenby and Pembroke, was itself a sufficient reply to the insinuation, that the charge had been made on the grounds asserted, as any influence that could be brought from Milford could not possibly out-vote these. Besides, as all the present burgesses were to retain their votes, Milford could have very little influence.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that Milford Haven was merely the harbour of Milford; he therefore begged to suggest, whether the town of Milford should not rather be inserted than Milford Haven, for, as the clause at present stood, a place where no house could by possibility exist, had the rights of a borough, while the real town was excluded.
§ The amendment, that the word "Haven" be omitted, and that the words "town of," stand before Milford in the clause, agreed to.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that it appeared the noble Lord fully understood, that Milford was the property of one individual, and it now appeared the clause had been altered since the person in question tried his strength at a contested election: it had, therefore, an awkward appearance, that the present clause was not in the first, and second editions of the Bill. Without meaning to cast any imputations, this was rather an unlucky illustration of the assertions of impartiality, made by the noble Lord, who he regretted to observe, paid no attention to his remarks, but appeared otherwise employed. He might not be listened to by Gentlemen 1149 who were dragged down to vote according to the will of Ministers, to clamour down those who opposed them, and who attended in their places to perform their duty to their country and their constituents; but that was not the way in which a great question like this should be discussed. The noble Lord, however, seemed to feel the appeal that had been made in regard to the supremacy of a particular interest at Milford, but asserted in reply, it would be of no importance, because the rights of the burgesses in the other towns would continue; but every one knew this right was a mere delusion, and, from the provisions with which it was clogged, was rather nominal than real.
§ Lord Althorpregretted the hon. and learned Gentleman had been interrupted, and that he thought he had reason to complain of not being attended to, but it was impossible to continue listening to objections and arguments which had been repeatedly replied to. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he said the present change had been made at an unlucky time, but he had already explained the circumstances that caused it. He had no objection to repeat them; they were, that Ministers wished to give a more equal number of constituents to the two districts.
Mr. Alderman Waithmandid not know whom the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to hit by his remarks as to Members being dragged down to vote. The only persons whom he knew to be dragged down to that House, were the borough nominees, who were bound hand and foot to the patrons who gave them their seats. It was evident, the members for rotten boroughs generally voted in regiments.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had so often indulged in similar insinuations to those which he had uttered that evening, that neither the country nor the House cared any thing for them. The objections which the hon. and learned Member made to the Bill, though they became him well enough, were disregarded by every man of common sense in the country. He would therefore recommend hon. Gentlemen with whom he was connected, not to notice such remarks.
§ Sir Edward Sugdeninsisted that it was most disgraceful, when hon. Members rose to perform their duty, that they should be met by clamour and unpleasant noises. 1150 Such conduct ought not to be tolerated. The hon. member for Westbury had cheered so unpleasantly whilst the noble Lord was speaking, that he could not refrain from noticing it. If such practices were sanctioned, some allowance ought also to be made for the warmth of expression which they elicited on his side of the House.
Mr. Hanmerwas the person the hon. Member alluded to, and he had certainly cheered the noble Lord, probably in a marked manner. His reason for giving the cheers was, that he was disgusted with hearing the hon. and learned Member so repeatedly insinuating improper motives for the conduct of the Ministerial side of the House. If the hon. and learned Member would abstain from such remarks, he would command attention from the House.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that notwithstanding what had fallen from several of the preceding speakers, he should think it his duty to persist in calling for explanation on the different clauses of this Bill, whenever he deemed that they stood in need of explanation. Hitherto, Ministers had never declined to give such explanation as was in their power. He asked for explanation, not with a view of offending the supporters of the Bill, but because he really considered it to stand in need of explanation.
§ Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that it was intolerable to hear such insinuations as were nightly made against Gentlemen on his side of the House, because they ventured to point out the imperfections and absurdities of the Bill. It was impossible that a great measure of this kind should be at once drawn out perfect, and it was the duty of the hon. Gentlemen with whom he acted, to make its imperfections as prominent as possible. They must be permitted to hold their own opinions, and to be attacked for declaring them, was neither fair nor parliamentary.
§ Question agreed to.
§ On the question, "that Knighton, Ryador, Kevinleece, Knucklas, and Presteigne, sharing with Radnor, stand part of the Bill,"
Mr. Frankland Lewisproposed, as an amendment, that the words "town of," be inserted before the word Presteigne.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Althorpthen proposed, "that the towns of Newport, and Usk, sharing with Monmouth, stand part of the schedule."
Mr. Williamssaid, the cause was, these united boroughs were constituted by the same Act of Parliament, but did not vote in the same way, but now they would.
§ Mr. Crokerthought it would be better not to press the clause at present. It might be added hereafter.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Clause six, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ The seventh clause "that the towns of Swansea, Lougher, Neath, Aberaven, and Ken Fig should, for the purposes of this Act, be taken as one borough; that such borough should, after the end of this Parliament, return Member to serve in Parliament—that the Portreeve of Swansea should be the returning officer of the borough—and that no person by reason of any vote accruing in any of the said five towns should have any vote in the election of a Member for the borough of Cardiff," was read, and the question put, that the blank be filled up with the word one.
§ Lord Patrick James Stuartunderstood it had been remarked, that the inhabitants of some of these places were against the present measure, but he knew well, that no persons could be more devoted to the cause of Reform, than the inhabitants of Ken Fig. When he further declared, that Swansea had not more than 100 electors, the propriety of the union would be obvious.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, his objections were founded on local knowledge. The constituency created by the clause, considered by itself, was undoubtedly proper, but it was unfortunately composed of two parties, who were anxious to oppose each other.
§ Question agreed to, and clause adopted.
§ On the eighth clause, which contains a description of the returning officers for the newly-created boroughs being put,
Mr. C. W. Wynnbegged to ask, whether the noble Lord did not intend to make some alteration in the clause? By this clause it was enacted, that in those boroughs for which there was at present no returning officer, the Sheriff for the time being of the county, should nominate and appoint the returning officer. Now the clause did not state, whether the appointment by the Sheriff was to be compulsory on the party appointed. If it was to be compulsory, was the noble 1152 Lord prepared to make any compensation to the returning officer for the onerous duties which were imposed upon him by this Act? He was incapacitated by the present law from being a candidate for the borough of which he was returning officer, during the time of his holding that office, and now by this Bill he was to be incapacitated from being returned as a member for that borough for one year, from the expiration of his office. He was likewise exposed to heavy costs if he misconducted himself in that office. Would any man in his senses expose himself to such risks without compensation, unless the appointment of the Sheriff was made compulsory?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the clause was explicit, that where there was no returning officer in a borough, there the Sheriff of the county should have the appointment of that officer, and it would be compulsory on him to make the appointment. He had no alteration to make in this part of the clause.
Mr. C. W. Wynnasked, was, then, the Sheriff to have the power of disqualifying any person he pleased from becoming a candidate for the borough? If so, it was a very dangerous power to vest in any Sheriff. He certainly thought that by this clause, the Sheriff would have that power.
Lord Miltonsaid, the Bill could not intend that the returning officer should be compelled to act without his consent.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that the returning officer ought to have been named in the schedule of that clause which created the borough, and so strong were his objections to the clause as it stood, that when they came to that part of it, he should move, that such offices be named in the column opposite the name of the borough to be created. He saw strong objections to leaving the appointment to the Sheriff, and thus giving him the power to disqualify any candidate for two years. Would not any hon. Gentleman feel it a great hardship, if after he had been selected by a particular body of electors, as a proper candidate, he should be named as returning officer? With the present Constitution, he was convinced, that it would be quite impossible to make the Bill work at all.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the duty of the Sheriff to make the appointment would be compulsory. The Sheriff would not have the power to disqualify any person 1153 whom he might select from the chance of representing the borough, for his appointment must rest upon some person not a burgess, and not residing within the borough. Besides, the objection to the Sheriffs having this power, would apply equally to the law as it now stood regarding Sheriffs themselves, for the Crown had at present the power of incapacitating Gentlemen from being Representatives of their counties, by naming them Sheriffs. He admitted, however, this disqualification only extended to the year of his Shrievalty, but in the case of these newly-created boroughs, where local and personal connexions, might give a returning officer an influence beyond his year of office, he thought it right the disqualification should extend to two years.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the matter was hardly worth contending for. By the clause, the Sheriff was bound to find a returning officer; but there was nothing to compel the party appointed to accept the office. If the Sheriff, therefore, could not procure the services of a proper person, he was bound to serve himself; but it was never found, that the Sheriff experienced any difficulty, even in the case of the disgraceful office of hangman, which he was bound to execute himself, if he could find no substitute. As the acceptance of the office must be voluntary, there could be no cause for complaint.
Colonel Daviessaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation would only add to the difficulty. He said the Sheriff would be bound to execute the office himself, if he could find no substitute. But in Cornwall, for instance, there were eight boroughs. Could the Sheriff, therefore, divide himself into so many portions, and be in eight places at once. Again, the Sheriff, by appointing a hangman, created no disqualification, but here a disqualification would continue for two years. Moreover, the Sheriff would have the power of having whom he pleased, and might appoint some connexion of one of the candidates, which might lead to an undue influence.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the eight boroughs had each their respective returning officers. He had stated, the Sheriff found no difficulty in procuring an executioner, and he would, therefore, feel no difficulty in obtaining a substitute as returning officer, and the person accepting the office voluntarily, would have no cause for complaint 1154 plaint, that he was disqualified from becoming a candidate thereby.
Colonel Daviessaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not got rid of the difficulty. The Sheriff could not get a returning officer, unless he gave compensation, as there were penalties in the Bill against the returning officer, if he did not perform his duty correctly.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, the only person likely to undertake the office willingly, was some violent partisan, who might wish to assist his friends; and that was a strong ground of objection to the clause as it now stood. He asked, why the disqualification should attach to a returning officer, under this clause for two years, when to a Mayor or Sheriff it extended to only one year?
The Attorney Generalsaid, this clause had been under consideration for the purpose of getting rid of some of the difficulty attending part of it; but the Bill had progressed with such unexpected rapidity within these two days, that time had not been allowed to make the alteration. He would not object to the postponement of this clause for the present, to put it into a more perfect form.
§ Mr. George Bankesasked, could they (the Opposition) be now accused of delay, when the Attorney General himself admitted, that the Bill proceeded so rapidly, that Ministers had not time to correct an omission of their own in it. When the noble Lord talked of the power which the Crown possessed of disqualifying parties, by appointing them as Sheriffs, did he recollect, that one of the great charges against the unfortunate Charles 1st was, his appointment of popular persons as Sheriffs, in order to disqualify them from being candidates, among whom was Sir Edward Coke? He admitted, that this power of the Crown was not likely to be so exercised now; but the disqualification of returning officers, under this clause, extending to two years, ought to make the House more cautious in adopting it. He would suggest, that the Chairman should now report progress, and ask leave to sit, again, for the purpose of reconsidering the clause.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he spoke of the rapid progress only as compared with the unnecessary delay and waste of time which had heretofore impeded it.
Sir Robert Peelseconded the suggestion, that the clause be postponed: it certainly required reconsideration; for the Sheriff, 1155 who had the power to appoint a returning officer, had no power to amend his appointment, or to re-appoint, except in case of the death of the person before appointed: thus, the place might be left without a returning officer, in case the person appointed was ill, or otherwise prevented from performing the duty assigned to him. The officer to be appointed under the Bill, by the Sheriff, was to be disqualified from being a candidate for two years. Would not the same principle apply to the returning officers named in the Bill?
§ Mr. Mackinnonsaid, they were told by the noble Lord, that the returning officer to be named was not necessarily to be a resident in the borough. So strong were his objections to this part of the clause, that he should move, if it were not postponed, that the following words be omitted from sec. 8 (page 2, line 40):—"That for those boroughs, for which no persons are mentioned in such column as returning officers, the Sheriff for the time being of the county in which such boroughs are respectively situate, shall, by writing under his hand, nominate and appoint, for each of such boroughs, a fit person to be the returning officer for each of such boroughs respectively."
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he would not consent to the Sheriff having the power of naming the returning officer for a borough.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenasked, ought the Sheriff of Middlesex to have the power of naming the returning officer for all the great districts to be enfranchised round the metropolis at the Middlesex side?
Mr. Bonham Cartersaid, that no more impartial person could be selected than the Sheriff, for he could not, by law, be a candidate for any borough in his county.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that he had pointed out the defect in this clause upon a former Debate. The returning officer had no inducement to discharge the duty. Would any man expose himself to the responsibility of that office for nothing?
§ Sir James Scarlettthought, that the Sheriff was the last person that should have the power to nominate returning officers, as he himself was appointed by the Crown, and the Crown might thus, at the eve of a general election, have the power of appointing all the returning officers. Did the noble Lord know how the Boroughreeve and Constable of Manchester were appointed?
§ Sir George Clerkcould not avoid observing, that whilst the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill, had been blaming others for unnecessary discussion, it did so happen, that one clause, which was to alter the Constitution, was found to be so defective that it could not stand part of the Bill. His hope was, that his Majesty's Ministers, when they brought forward the clause again, would tell them, whether the nomination of returning officer was to be compulsory.
Mr. Wilksrecommended the printing of the amended clause, in order that the populous districts near the metropolis might see clearly who was to nominate the returning officer. The hon. Member thought, the power of nomination ought to be vested in the Magistrates at Sessions.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, that in all former instances of enfranchisement, the returning officer had been appointed, but here they had large districts enfranchised, and no person named; but the appointment was to be left to the Sheriff, who was himself an officer appointed by the Crown: who was to attend to the police arrangements even, during an election, had not been determined.
§ Lord Althorpconsented to postpone the clause, which was then postponed.
The Chairman then read the ninth Clause, "That, in all future Parliaments, there shall be six knights of the shire instead of four to serve for the county of York; that is to say, two knights for each of the three Ridings of the said county, to be elected in the same manner, and by the same classes and descriptions of voters, and in respect of the same several rights of voting, as if each of the three Ridings were a separate county."
§ Mr. Wrangham, being connected with the county of York, hoped he might undertake a task, in the presence of, and during the silence of, the noble Lord, and the hon. Members who represented Yorkshire, which was more properly their business. His hope was, that he might be allowed to name the county of Durham, without being suspected of having any sinister intention of alluding to the influence of any one. The population represented in Yorkshire, under this Bill, was in the proportion of one to 50,000. In Durham the proportion was one to 25,000 or 20,000. It had been said, this arose from the principle of giving Members to large unrepresented towns, and he was not about 1157 to dispute the propriety of that principle; but he contended, that, as the county of York contained a population of 1,500,000, it furnished a strong reason for giving that county more knights of the shire, according to the principle of giving Members to places inadequately represented. On a former occasion it was proposed, that two additional Members be given to the West Riding, one to the North, and one to the East Riding. The proposal he should make would be an amendment on that, and would give to Yorkshire, for each of the three Ridings, two additional Members. It would then stand, for the West Riding four Members; to each of the other two Ridings he should give three Members, and thereby increase the knights of the shire of the county of York from the number of six to ten. It would, no doubt, be said, that, in Lancashire, the proportion of Members was less than in Yorkshire. To this objection he should say, give it also additional Representatives; and he should be happy to support, any hon. Gentleman, connected with that county, who should make such a motion. He begged further to be allowed to remark, that he was one of those who thought the Representation of England should not be diminished, and that of Scotland and Ireland increased in proportion. He saw no reason for such an increase of Members for those parts of the empire as had been proposed. And as it had already been stated, the noble Lord had a large bank of Members in reserve, he trusted there would be no difficulty in granting the additional ones he required. He should therefore conclude, by moving as an amendment, that the blank be filled up with the word "ten" instead of "six."
§ Lord Morpethbegged to assure the hon. member for Sudbury, the he should never be backward to advocate the interests of his constituents, whenever, in the exercise of his discretion, he thought these were not sufficiently attended to; but, after all, he did not think the hon. Gentleman had made out a strong case. Had any populous place in Yorkshire made such a claim as, in his opinion, would entitle it to Representation, he should have been the first to advocate the cause. He did not conceive, that the Bill proceeded upon the principles of geographical space or numerical population. It kept untouched the boundaries of counties, and did not divide England into electoral divisions. It was curious 1158 enough, that a petition had been presented from the county of Lancaster, complaining that too large a share of the Representation would be apportioned to Yorkshire, which was the very place that the hon. member for Sudbury had fixed upon as having too little. He could not think the efficacy of the Representation of any particular county depended upon a long list of Representatives, but that the Members should represent populous and wealthy districts and places. Yorkshire contained many large, opulent, and commercial towns, and he rejoiced that to these Members had been given; and that, while Boroughbridge and Aldborough had been extinguished, Leeds, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Wakefield, and Bradford, had received Representation, and two additional Members were besides given to the county. On this subject, he must remark, that the hon. Member had made a mistake, and taken the word "ten" for the word "eight," which he thought he must have meant to use. From former associations that were dear to him, he might regret the county was to be divided; but he submitted to that with good grace, and, indeed, was ready to advocate it, when he considered the paramount necessity of Reform, and that this division grew out of that measure. He certainly should support the original Motion.
Lord Stanleywas not aware of any petition having proceeded from the county of Lancaster, complaining of an undue share of Representation being allotted to Yorkshire. Though the people of Lancashire would, of course, be anxious to obtain as many Representatives as possible, they were not desirous of having favour shewn them at the expense of the country in general.
§ Mr. Sadlersaid, if there were any intelligible principles of property or population in the present Bill, they were certainly violated in the case of Yorkshire. He could not understand upon what principle it was, certainly not those of property and population, that the great county of York was to have only six Members, while four were given to the county of Durham, and two to the comparatively insignificant county of Rutland. They had been told by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Morpeth), that the efficiency of Representation did not consist in a large array of Members; and by this, he had entirely destroyed the only ground that had been 1159 taken for this great and sweeping change. Durham would be represented in the proportion of one county Member to a population of from 52,000 to 54,000, while in the West Riding, the proportion would be only one to a population of 400,000. Why not give a Representative to the large and increasing town of Barnsley, with a population of 12,000, and which was the great mart of the linen manufacture in Yorkshire? By the census of 1831, the rural population of the West Riding could not be less than 800,000. In 1821 the population of the West Riding was 600,000, and it could not be less now than 800,000. However perfect the Bill might be in theory, it was impossible it could, with such anomalies, continue long without alteration. It carried in its very constitution a principle of change. It would not satisfy the people of Yorkshire, who were not very easily overreached in any transaction. They would soon find, that they had not received their due share in the Representation. The House was not engaged in any trivial proceeding; they were about to alter the Constitution of the country; and, therefore, they were bound to act on fair and equitable principles.
§ Sir George Murraysaid, he was glad to hear from the noble Lord (Morpeth), that one principle of this Bill was, not to disturb the ancient boundaries of counties. He hoped this principle would be followed with respect to Scotland also, and that the great county which he had the honour of representing would not be mutilated. He trusted there was no man, of whatever party, in that country who would not hear of such an attempt with indignation, and he was, therefore, delighted to have such excellent authority as that of the noble Lord, the member for Yorkshire, for saying, that such a course would be inconsistent with the principles on which the Bill proceeded. He could enter into the noble Lord's feelings when he regretted he might be returned for some division of Yorkshire, instead of the whole county, he therefore trusted, that the noble Lord would perceive, that he had much greater cause for regret, inasmuch as the county he had the honour to represent was to be mutilated, for the purpose of enlarging two small counties in the vicinity, which were nomination counties, and required this addition to give them a shew of independence.
§ Mr. John Woodwas surprised, that the 1160 member for Aldborough had entirely forgotten, or at least did not mention, that there were seven Members given to the great manufacturing towns in the West Riding; Leeds was to have two; Sheffield two; Bradford one; Halifax one; Huddersfield one; and Wakefield one; so that the proportion of Representatives was one to 32,580, while in Lancashire it was only one to 47,857. He trusted he had, by this simple statement, removed the hon. Member's cause for complaint.
§ Mr. Sadlersaid, he did not consider himself at liberty to allude to the newly created boroughs when the subject under consideration was the county Representation. He spoke merely of the rural population, and mentioned the town of Barnsley only incidentally. He begged to tell the hon. member for Preston, that he considered himself perfectly justified in the statements he had made. It was impossible to defend the proposed distribution of Members on any good grounds, for the immense rural population of the West Riding were to be represented by only two Members.
Sir John Johnstonesaid, there was a contradiction in the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom said, the north was over-Membered, in comparison to the south; while others proposed, that more Members should be given to the county of York. He understood the principle of the Bill to be a just balance between the manufacturing and agricultural Representation. The people of the West Riding were more a manufacturing than a rural population. By the seven Members given to the manufacturing towns in this district, he was convinced, these interests would consider themselves adequately provided for by this Bill. He should therefore vote against the amendment proposed.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, if the proposition of the member for Sudbury were pushed to a division, he should vote against it. He thought Yorkshire was pretty well provided for already. It was divided into Ridings, which were to return each two separate Members; and if this proposition, of giving Yorkshire ten Members instead of six, were acceded to, they would give, the manufacturing interest an undue preponderance, it being plain, from the number of towns, that this interest would be likely to outweigh that of the rural population.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the data upon which the hon. member for Aldborough argued, seemed uncertain even to himself, for one time he stated the population at 800,000, and another time at 600,000. The Members for the manufacturing towns would greatly assist the county Members for the West Riding, because they would consider it their duty to attend as well to the agricultural as to the manufacturing interest. The other two Ridings would gain one Member each.
§ Mr. Sadlerexplained. When he spoke of a population of 600,000, he alluded to the census of 1821, and to that of 1831 when he mentioned 800,000.
Mr. Stuart Wortley, as a Yorkshireman, must, he said, dissent from the member for Sudbury. He did not think the county was worse off by not having a larger share of Representation, and was quite satisfied with the share it had obtained. On the whole it had received greater advantages than any other county, The manufacturing towns were to be represented. The county would still retain its three divisions, and while other counties would be distracted in consequence of the new division, he trusted their elections in Yorkshire would be carried on with the tranquillity which heretofore distinguished them. If a division took place, he should certainly vote in favour of the clause as it at present stood.
§ Mr. Wranghamdisclaimed imputing any neglect of duty to the members for Yorkshire, as seemed to be insinuated by the noble Lord (Althorp).
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamthought it would have been a preferable arrangement for the whole county to elect the Members, be they six or four, than to divide the county, and give two Members for each of the three divisions. By this means the joint interests of agriculture and manufactures would be better represented. So convinced was he of this fact, that he should prefer four Members for the whole county, to six if it was divided into districts. But if the noble Lord had fully determined that Yorkshire was to have six Members, he would most earnestly recommend him to take care they represented the agricultural portion of the community.
§ The question "that the blank in the clause be filled up with the word six," was agreed to without a division.
1162§ On the question being put "that clause nine, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
Mr. Stuart Wortleywished to know what arrangement was to be made as to the returning officer for the three Ridings, as no provision was made by the Bill.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the Sheriff would be the returning officer.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamcould not see how one Sheriff could act for the three Ridings as returning officer. Ministers might just as well expect one Sheriff to act for three counties.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The 10th clause—"And be it enacted, that in all future Parliaments there shall be four Knights of the Shire instead of two to serve for the county of Lincoln—that is to say, two for the parts of Lindsay in the said county, and two for the parts of Kesteven and Holland in the same county; and that such four Knights shall be chosen in the same manner, and by the same classes and descriptions of voters, and in respect of the same several rights of voting, as if the said parts of Lindsay were a separate county, and the said parts of Kesteven and Holland, together were also a separate county"—was next put.
§ Colonel Sibthorpcontended, that taking into account the wealth and population of the county of Lincoln, it did not get its fair proportion of Representatives, compared with Durham, which was to receive ten new Members, while its population was considerably less than that of Lincoln. He thought he could not be accused of casting unfair imputations, when he said, he could discover no other motives than partiality for such proceedings. Lincolnshire had great reason to complain of this discrepancy. It was well known, that the agricultural interest predominated there, and those interests were not sufficiently protected by the selection of places to have the right of franchise. The manufacturing interests would obtain the complete ascendancy. This Bill would otherwise lead to great inconvenience, by altering and breaking up the ancient boundaries of the county. He should take a future opportunity of endeavouring to show, that it must ultimately have the effect of annihilating the agricultural interest of the country. He would recommend the Attorney General to take home the Bill and burn it, and bring in an entirely new one, intelligible in its details, and founded on just principles.
Mr. Wilksexpressed a wish, that this tenth clause should be postponed until that relating to the boundaries of counties generally was disposed of. It would be much better that the boundaries of counties should be settled by the Legislature than by Commissioners.
§ Lord Althorpthought, they might as well discuss the question of the division of counties on the present clause as on the following. As to the objection, that the discussion would be interrupted by the proposed enactments of the ensuing clause, he would remark, that there were extraneous matters in that which would prevent the objection from holding. He saw no good reason for the postponement. The three divisions of the county of Lincoln, Lindsey, Kesteven, and Holland were legal divisions already well known. If there was any strong objection to the clause, he was ready to postpone it.
Sir Robert Heronsaid, that the hon. member for the city of Lincoln had asserted this measure would annihilate the agricultural interests of the county of Lincoln; it was very strange, if such were the fact, that, with the exception of a petition from Gainsborough, praying that there might be one Representative for that place, the feeling in the county of Lincoln was unanimous in favour of the arrangement proposed to be effected by this clause. He had just returned from Lincoln, and could take upon himself to say, that the feeling of the inhabitants of that county was decidedly in favour of the Bill.
§ Colonel Sibthorpfelt most anxious that the clause should be postponed. There were many points on which he wished to make observations, and he thought he should be able to prove, that the manner in which it was proposed to divide the county would have the effect of converting it into something like a nomination bough.
Lord Miltonmust also join in recommending the postponement of the clause. The interests of the county of Lincoln, although perhaps not so generally understood, were nearly equal in importance to those of Yorkshire.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that he objected to the proposed division of the county of Lincoln, not on any narrow local grounds, but because it would have the effect of subjecting one of the divisions to the influence of nomination as completely as if it were a nomination 1164 borough He must, at the same time, deny the assertion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Heron). A portion of the people of Lincoln were undoubtedly in favour of the measure, but they were by no means unanimous. He must again urge, that they would make an unfair decision if they determined this clause without going into the one following.
Sir Robert Heronhad just returned from Lincolnshire, and could take upon himself to say, the people were all but unanimous in favour of the measure.
Mr. Wilksassured the hon. Baronet, that the most respectable people of the county were fully convinced that the effect of this clause would be, to convert Lincolnshire into a close county, and that certain interests would necessarily return the Members.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the fact stated by the hon. Member who had just spoken, ought to induce the House not to determine on the division of counties, until they should ascertain the manner in which the division was to be effected.
Mr. Hughes Hughesrequested the noble Lord to postpone the clause, otherwise he should be obliged to take the sense of the Committee on it, because it involved the principle of the general division of counties. As he had given notice of his intention to move, that the division of counties should not stand part of the Bill, it might be supposed, on this clause being read, he should have immediately submitted his Amendment, but upon inquiry into the situation of Lincoln, he found, that although, like York, it had but one Lord-lieutenant and one High Sheriff, yet there were three commissions of the peace, the Magistrates acting only in the districts in which they were appointed. He had further ascertained, that one exact moiety of the county rate was borne by the part called Lindsey, and the other moiety by the parts of Kesteven and Holland, in the proportion of two-thirds and one-third. This county, from these circumstances, appeared therefore to be already divided, and the unconstitutional part of the Bill not bearing so strongly on this clause, he was unwilling to bring forward the argument on the general question in the weakest part of the case.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he would consent to postpone the clause.
Mr. Humesaid, that the noble Lord ought to be prepared to state to-morrow 1165 in what manner the division of counties was to be effected. He was informed, that the result of the proposed division would be, to convert the Southern counties into so many nomination boroughs. He was anxious to throw as few difficulties as possible in the way of the Bill; but he could not, as a Reformer, be at once the agent for destroying and creating nomination influence.
§ Mr. Sadlerwas perfectly convinced, whatever might be the general effect of the clause, that there was no ground whatever for saying, it would convert Lincolnshire into a nomination county.
Sir William Ingilbydeclared himself of the same opinion, and begged to deny the assertion distinctly. Property would have an influence in Lincolnshire, as in every other place, but this measure would not give an undue influence to any particular person.
§ Mr. Heathcotethought it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose, that such a county as Lincoln could be subjected to the power of any individual. Could any person really believe, that a large independent and populous county, containing 300,000 inhabitants, divided into two districts nearly equal, would necessarily become a nomination county from the influence of any one large proprietor. He had been very much surprised at hearing such assertions made, and he begged leave to assure the House, there was in general throughout the county, a feeling of great satisfaction at the proposed measure.
§ Mr. Sadlermust be permitted to remark, that the Bill was said to be founded upon the necessity of doing away with nomination places: and certainly if they went on to create a new system of nomination, the measure could be of no service.
§ Mr. Heathcotecould assure hon. Gentlemen, there was no fear of such a result in Lincolnshire; the county was one of the largest in England, and naturally divided. The hon. Gentlemen had, in his opinion, wholly failed in making out their case.
Mr. Wilkscould only assert, that assertion must be met by assertion. He still retained his opinion; at this late hour he would not exhaust the Committee further.
§ Clause postponed. The House resumed: Committee to sit again the the next day.