EVESHAM. (Hansard, 18 February 1831)

The Marquis of Chandos
said, that after the decision of the House at night, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House with any observations preparatory to his Motion. He should now move for leave to bring in a Bill to exclude the Borough of Evesham from the exercise of the Elective Franchise, and to enable the Town of Birmingham to send two Representatives to Parliament in lieu thereof. It was his intention to bring in the Bill, and have it read a first time that night, and then to move that it be read a second time on Monday, 666 the 28th instant, on which day it was his intention to examine witnesses at the bar on the subject.

The Marquis of Chandos
moved, that a Copy of the Bill should be served on the Returning Officer of Evesham, and on the High Bailiff of Birmingham; that a list of the persons entitled to vote for the Borough of Evesham, and their place of residence, and a Copy of the Poll-book of the said Borough, be laid before the House; and that the Speaker do issue his warrant to summon Edward Protheroe, Esq. late member for the Borough of Evesham, and a number of other persons whose name were specified in the Motion, to attend the House on Monday sen'night, to give evidence upon the Bill.

Mr. Hume
hoped, that whoever undertook this subject, would take care that the country should not be burthened by any unnecessary expense. It appeared to him that loads of documents were about to be produced, which would be expensive. The noble Lord would excuse him, but he could not believe that he and the supporters of the Bill were truly sincere. When everyone but themselves was anxious to postpone any particular proceeding until the general measure of his Majesty's Ministers came before the House, he did not expect that such a proposition would have been persevered in. No doubt the evidence in support of the measure would require a week or ten days to go through with it. Now it was probable the discussion of the general question of Reform, which was to come on on the 1st of March, would occupy a week, and during that time all the witnesses in the Evesham Bill must be kept uselessly in town. He really submitted to the noble Marquis the expediency of postponing the measure.

The Marquis of Chandos
was as much alive to the question of expense as the hon. member for Middlesex. The step which he was taking was, however, founded on the best reasons. He could assure the hon. Member that he was perfectly sincere; and he could not agree to any delay.

§ Mr. O'Connell
observed, that however correct the noble Lord's object, and sincere his intentions, it was his opinion that this particular question ought not to supersede the general question of Reform. If no such great general question were about to be brought forward, then indeed it would be desirable to enter into this 667 particular case; but as the great question was to come on, it might be very practicable to retain Evesham among the represented places purged by Reform. To him it appeared very desirable to retain the same places, if the popular principle could be infused into them, and they could be cleared of that oligarchical influence which had hitherto been so pernicious.

§ Mr. Kennedy
expressed his surprise that a notice of Motion should at that hour (a little after four o'clock) have taken precedence of nineteen Orders of the Day. This was a most unusual proceeding. Not only had the noble Lord obtained leave to bring in the Bill, but he had actually brought it in—a proceeding which, at that early hour, was most extraordinary. The noble Lord's zeal with respect to the borough of Evesham formed a striking contrast to his opinions on the subject of general Reform.

§ Mr. Littleton
was perfectly satisfied of the sincerity of the noble Lord; but he thought that the noble Lord had better adopt the advice of the hon. member for Middlesex. When there was a moral certainty that the whole of the week in question would be occupied with the discussion of the great question of Reform, why should the witnesses on the Evesham Bill be summoned for a single day, to be kept for so long an interval at an immense expense? He repeated his conviction of the noble Lord's sincerity, yet suggested to him, whether it would not be much better to postpone the matter.

§ Sir George Clerk
was surprised at the present objection to his noble friend's proceeding, considering that last night his Majesty's Ministers acquiesced in it. It seemed to him to be an exaggeration to suppose that the discussion of the great question of Parliamentary Reform would be so long protracted. It might occupy two or three days; but it must be recollected, that any proceeding on the proposed Bill of the noble member for Tavistock must be Postponed for a considerable 668 time, in order that the House and the country might have ample opportunity for deliberating upon the subject. The Evesham question, therefore, would in no way interfere with the general question of Reform.

§ Mr. J. Wood
thought the Bill introduced by the noble Marquis a work of supererogation. It seemed to him to be of no importance whether it was agreed to or not; for, if the general measure of Reform which was about to be introduced meant anything, it meant that the elective franchise should be given to the large town. As an individual he should have opposed this Bill in limine. He had n t the least doubt of the sincerity of the noble Lord; all that he objected to was, the time at which the witnesses were to be summoned to attend. Why not examine witnesses in the Committee, instead of on the second reading? He would recommend that they be summoned for Tuesday, the 8th of March, rather than for Monday, the 28th of February.

§ Mr. G. Bankes
said, the reason why his noble friend proposed to examine witnesses on the second reading was, that at present there was nothing before the House to prove the preamble, or to give any sanction to the measure. It was necessary to have evidence before the Bill could be proceeded with; for it was not, as in the case of East Retford, and other cases, in which there was the Report of a Committee above-stairs. He contended that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not state that the general Reform which he intended to propose would include that of Evesham, and consequently the hon. member for Preston (Mr. Wood) was not justified in arriving at any definite conclusion, respecting this particular case, from what the noble Lord had said; and considered, that as Evesham was not one of those places which had a remarkably small constituency, he was, on the contrary, entitled to assume that it would not be included in the noble Lord's General Reform. in conclusion, he submitted, that as, until the borough was proved to be guilty, the writ ought not to be suppressed, it was necessary to proceed immediately with the inquiry.

§ Lord Morpeth
said, that without being great soothsayers, men might undertake to declare that the giving representations to Birmingham would be included in the noble Lord's plan of Reform. As to the 669 Reform proposed by the noble Marquis respecting Evesham, he did not think anybody out of doors would attach any credit to it.

Mr. Sturges Bourne
was of opinion, that after what had passed last night, the noble Marquis was justified in pressing his Motion.

§ Mr. Hunt
observed, that the East Ret-ford case, and others of a like nature, were calculated to do that which men out of doors were forbidden to do by law; namely, to bring the House of Commons into contempt. He thought this case was one of those which was calculated to bring the House of Commons into contempt. He was of opinion that it would be an act of the greatest injustice to disfranchise Eves-ham, even if the noble Marquis had proved all that he professed to be able to prove, when it was known to every hon. Member, that almost all the other boroughs were equally corrupt. He certainly would support any hon. Member who should move, that no evidence be taken till after the 1st of March.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that if it were for the convenience of the House that the noble Marquis's Motion should be acceded to, the Ministers decidedly had no right to throw any obstacles in his way. He objected to the allusions to the views of his Majesty's Government, made by hon. Members, for he did not think the question of the 1st of March should be brought before them in the present discussion. He submitted to the noble Marquis, whether it would be desirable to commence an examination of witnesses which there was no chance of his being able to bring to a close within any brief period? Besides, the great expenses which attended such inquiries (as was amply testified by the cases of Carriekfergus and East Retford) ought to weigh with the noble Marquis, and induce him to wait until the general question was brought forward.

§ Mr. Briscoe
thought, that the noble Marquis ought, in obedience to the dictates of good sense and the forms of the House, to postpone his Motion until after the 1st of March.

§ General Gascoyne
said, the question was, not only if Birmingham was to get Representatives, but if Evesham was to be disfranchised? The noble Marquis was entitled to press for his Motion, and the time of bringing it forward was entirely a matter for his own consideration.

Mr. Stanley
was of opinion, that a good reason why the noble Marquis should postpone his Motion until after the 1st of March was, that he would then know whether it was necessary or no. There was no conflict between the noble Marquis's plan of Reform and that to be brought forward by Ministers; and he thought it would be much better if he would consent to postpone his motion for one week.

§ Sir C. Wetherell
said, that they had been told that if the Reform Bill were lost, Parliament would be at once dissolved. Thus it was, Ministers told the noble Marquis—Wait for the Reform Bill, and then bring in your motion for disfranchising Evesham; while they, at the same time, gave them to understand, that if this Reform Bill were lost, the noble Marquis would have no Parliament wherein [No, no!] to bring forward his Motion. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland cried "No, no;" but, with all possible respect for that Gentleman, his character, and his talents, he must say, that he considered the First Lord of the Admiralty was more likely to know the sentiments of the Cabinet on this subject. For the right hon. Secretary's services elsewhere, he, as an humble individual, begged to tender him his most sincere thanks. He had acted with a degree of firmness, vigour, and ability, which entitled him to the warmest gratitude of the country. No man, after his services elsewhere, was more worthy to be a member of the Cabinet; but, as at present he was not a member of the Cabinet, he must allow him (Sir Charles Wetherell) to prefer the authority of the First Lord of the Admiralty respecting the intentions of the Administration; and that right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) -he was sorry he was not in the House— had declared, in as ample terms as parliamentary forms would allow, that if the Reform Bill were lost, a dissolution of Parliament would immediately ensue. He ' might call upon many hon. Members to support him in this statement with the evidence of their sense, hearing, and understandings. A whimsical thing it was, in the discussion, that the hon. members for Middlesex, Preston, and Yorkshire, who were not de facto members of the Cabinet, did yet take upon them to declare, that the vortex of Reform which was to begin to revolve on the 1st of March would include the case of Evesham. Now, although these non-members of the Ca- 671 binet would fain appear perfectly certain that the measure of the noble Lord would embrace certain objects, yet the fact, in his opinion, was, that no man out of the Cabinet could pretend to know what that would be. [Sir J. Graham entered the House.] Sir C. Wetherell expressed his joy at seeing him in his place, and repeated what he had said during his absence. In continuation, he observed, that were he certain the unknown plan of Reform (unknown, at least, except to certain over-learned persons) would embrace the case of Evesham, which was a peculiar one, it would be a reason for his agreeing to the postponement; but in the absence of this conviction, he would support the noble Marquis, and thought that no argument addressed to the parsimony of the House should be suffered to sway on a great constitutional question.

Sir J. Graham
said, he took shame to himself for not having been in his seat sooner. As he had been absent, however, at the commencement of the discussion, he hoped he might be excused from arguing the question: since his arrival, he had heard something about those very frequent and fruitful topics—Economy and Reform, but would not touch upon them. He thought, however, he might venture to reply to the appeal made to him by the hon. and learned Member (Sir C. Wetherell); for, as that hon. Member was in the habit of heaping word upon word, and matter upon matter, and principle upon principle, although he had not heard the beginning of his speech, yet, having heard the end, he might calculate he heard it all. The hon. and learned Member declared, that he (Sir A. Graham) said, in terms as plain as the discretion of Parliament would admit, that if the Reform Bill should fail, Parliament would of necessity be immediately dissolved. Now, the fact was, that he, in terms as guarded as words could be, only glanced at the probability of such an event. If the contemplated measure of Reform should fail, it was probable (and in no higher degree of assertion had he put it before) that Parliament would be dissolved. This was what he had formerly stated, and this he did then repeat. The Government was pledged to bring forward a measure of real, efficient, and substantial Reform; and, for one, he could declare, that measure would not have had his support, if it were of the same illusory character as the measure then 672 under discussion. But he could assure the House his noble friend's measure would neither be idle nor worthless; but, on the contrary, searching and decisive; in short, it would not be of the Evesham character. In considering this question, he had never been induced to overlook the fact, that he was accountable to his constituents, and never would he support any plan of Parliamentary Reform which he could not vindicate on the hustings in the face of his constituents; and he begged to remind and give warning to hon. Members, that in like manner whenever they might give their concurrence and support to any measure of Reform, they would owe an account to their constituents of that support and that concurrence.

Colonel Davies
said, he certainly had interpreted the right hon. Baronet's assertion in a stronger sense than the right hon. Baronet that night gave it, and thought he was justified in so doing. He agreed in the propriety of postponing the examination of witnesses, although he was as anxious as the noble Marquis to have Evesham disfranchised, for he lived near it, and knew it to be as rotten a place as any in the Kingdom; and he assured the noble Marquis, that if the plan of the noble Lord did not extend to the disfranchisement of Evesham, he would vote for his proposition to disfranchise that borough.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, this was one of the most important measures that was ever brought before the House. This was the skirmish before the general battle of the 1st of March. It appeared to him that it was a manœuvre. If it were not, he could only say, were a plan to embarrass the measure of Reform intended, it could not be more ingeniously contrived. If the Motion was carried to bring on that question on the 28th of February, the measure of Reform was lost for ever; he therefore exhorted every man to look well to his vote.

§ The Speaker
The latter observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was made apparently in ignorance that the question respecting the time for the second reading of the Bill was already decided. The House had then to decide, whether witnesses should be examined on the 28th of February, or a week later.

§ Mr. John Campbell
observed, he was not in the House at the commencement of the discussion.

§ Colonel Trench
said, that nothing but 673 the hon. and learned Member's absence from the House could excuse his attributing to a nobleman, of the high honour and spotless reputation of the noble Marquis, motives which, in the course of that evening, he had repeatedly disclaimed. In allusion to what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, respecting Evesham, he wished to ask him, if he was of opinion that one convicted rogue should be suffered to escape because he could not lay his hands upon the whole gang?

§ Lord Althorp
thought it was unwise of the noble Marquis to desire to go into the examination of witnesses, which could not be concluded before the Reform question. As the House, however, had decided that the Bill was to be read a second time on the 28th of February, it might seem strange that the noble Lord should not summon his witnesses on the same day; but as the examination could not be concluded before the Reform question, and as the Reform question should not give way, he submitted to him if it would not be well to postpone his motion until the 7th of March. For himself, he would, in the first instance, support the amendment of the hon. member for Preston, and, to get rid of a difficulty, he would move (he could not do it that evening, but he would as speedily as possible) to have the order for reading the Bill a second time discharged, and deferred to the 8th of March. It was an extraordinary proceeding—one never before heard of—to press such a question on the eve of a measure which must agitate the whole country.

§ Mr. Ross
supported the noble Marquis's motion. He had heard no specific argument against proceeding with the examination except the expense, and that would not be great, for his noble friend did not propose to examine many witnesses.

§ Sir George Warrender
said, he was afraid he should not be able to support the motion of the noble Lord below, if, as he understood, it was one of an extensive nature; but at the same time he must say, that he thought it was most inconvenient to bring forward motions like the present at such a moment, and under such peculiar circumstances. If the case were fully made out against the borough of Evesham, he should certainly vote in favour of the transfer of the franchise to some large town.

§ Lord Palmerston
defended his noble 674 friend from the misrepresentations that had been uttered concerning him. He should oppose the motion for an examination into the circumstances of this case before the general discussion came on, because he did not think that the House could conveniently entertain that examination. It was said, that there would be only six witnesses on one side: that might be true, but who was there that would venture to say that there would be no more on the other side? There might probably be six for each one of the first six, and then it would be absolutely impossible to finish the examination before the general discussion of the question came on.

§ Mr. W. Duncombe
said, that the threat about appealing to the country if Ministers were defeated, was quite unnecessary, and ought not to have been employed. He would, however, suggest to his noble friend, the propriety of postponing the proposed examination to a later day.