PETITIONS FOR REFORM. (Hansard, 15 March 1831)

§ Mr. Ormsby Gore
presented two Petitions from Carnarvon and Oswestry, in Wales, in favour of Lord John Russell's plan for Reforming the Representation in the House of Commons. Though he was of opinion that there existed a necessity for introducing some alteration in the present election of the House, he was not prepared to go the length which the Bill of the noble Lord went, for parts of it would, if it were carried into effect, go a great way towards rendering the Constitution of the country insecure, and consequently, these parts were dangerous in the extreme. The disposition that now prevailed in Wales favourable to Reform, was entirely caused by the healing measure, as it was called, of 1829, which was passed in opposition to the opinions of every man in that part of the country, and was there considered as violating the Constitution established in 1688.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
had been requested to support the prayer of these petitions, which he could not conscientiously do, because he thought the measure would not produce the beneficial effects the petitioners anticipated.

Mr. Bonham Carter
presented a Petition in favour of the Reform Bill, from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Portsmouth, who expressed themselves greatly in favour of the Reform Bill before the House. He also had another Petition to present on the same subject, from the inhabitants of Farlington and Widley. To both of these petitions 449 he was happy to give his most cordial support, particularly to that from his constituents, the Corporation of Portsmouth, which had done itself great honour by petitioning in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member also presented a Petition from the Ship-owners and Merchants of Portsmouth, against the contemplated alterations in the Timber Duties.—Petition to be printed.

Mr. Hothouse
presented a Petition, signed by 1,160 of his constituents, Householders and Inhabitants of the Parish of St. George's, Westminster, in favour of the Reform Bill brought in by his Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Member said, he had great pleasure in being able to state, that his anticipations with regard to the popularity of the measure introduced by his Majesty's Ministers had been more than realised amongst his own constituents; and he thought he might safely add, that the measure was most pleasing and satisfactory to all classes of reformers. The hon. Member also presented a similar Petition, agreed to at a meeting consisting of upwards of 800 persons, parishioners of St. Margaret's, Westminster, and observed, that the petition came from the parish in which the House of Commons was situated, and the inhabitants of which, from their proximity to the House, may be supposed to be best acquainted with the necessity which existed for reforming it. Amongst the names appended to that petition was that of Jeremy Bentham, and he understood the petition was signed by a great number of the most respectable inhabitants of this populous parish.

Sir F. Burdett
said, that the unanimity which prevailed amongst the Reformers on the subject of the measure introduced by Government, was the best proof that those persons were not actuated by the wild and visionary schemes which the enemies of all Reform ascribed to them. All they wanted was a fair and just control over their Representatives in that House. The fact of the unanimity he had alluded to was sufficient also to falsify the aspersion thrown on Reformers, that they could never be got to agree with each other on any measure. If there was anything wanting to show that the proposed plan was effectual as a measure of Reform, it was found in the fact, that it was sanctioned by the integrity and wisdom of Jeremy Bentham. He found the name of that illustrious man attached to the petition, which was at once 450 a guarantee of the soundness of the mea-sure, and of the uprightness of those who proposed it.

Mr. Edward Ellice
presented a Petition from the working classes of Coventry, in favour of the proposed plan of Reform, which he conceived was highly creditable to them. Some allusion having been made as to the effect of the proposed measure on the weavers and operatives of Coventry and Preston, as soon as the report of what had been said on that subject arrived in Coventry, a hand-bill was distributed, stating the fact, and, within five or six hours, the petition he held in his hand was signed by them. He understood that no freeman in the City of Coventry refused to sign his name to the petition—so anxious were they that the privileges they exercised in voting-for Representatives should be extended to others. He was bound, however, to state, that he had also another Petition to present, signed by Masters and Apprentices in Coventry, praying that their rights might be protected. With that exception, he believed there was no feeling against against any part of the Bill, throughout the city of Coventry.

§ Mr. Fyler
bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners. The manly and temperate way in which the petitioners came forward to give up their own privileges for the public good, proved that those very men ought to have the right; and if justice did not demand it, those men, he thought, ought not to be deprived of their privileges. He was a moderate Reformer, and could not think the democratic influence would acquire too much sway as long as one-fourth of the county Members in that House were, as at present, the sons and brothers of Peers. He was apprehensive that, if the proposed measure passed in its present form, the landed interest would have more power than it now had.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, he had been asked to support the petition, which he did most cordially. The Reformers of Coventry were in favour of the Ballot, and had sent him a petition to present on the subject; but it was his duty to state, that when the plan proposed by Government was made known to them, they appeared to consider it as an effectual measure of Reform, and had intrusted their petition to one of their own Members, asking him to support it.

Mr. Ellice
wished to say nothing as to the 451 merits of the petition transmitted to the hon. member for Preston; but there we e not one-third of the signatures to that petition which were to be found to the petition now presented.

§ Sir Robert Peel
said, that he could not misunderstand the delicate reference made to him by the hon. member for Coventry. He had referred, not to the town of Coventry, but to the class to be found in that town and other manufacturing towns. He said, it was not wise to deprive those men of the elective franchise who at present exercise it in Coventry and Preston; and it did not appear that the petitions now presented gave a positive contradiction to that opinion. Those who possessed the right of voting at present, were secured in the enjoyment of that right during their lives, and were not unfavourable to the Bill; but those who had only an inchoate right petitioned against the measure. Their language was, in effect, "in your Reform measure protect us." As reference had been made to what fell from him, he thought himself called upon to make this observation, without having any intention of exciting unnecessary discussion.

Mr. Ellice
said, the petitioners were strongly in favour of the Bill; they only objected to that part which went to disfranchise them.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, that when he was in Coventry, the whole town was with him in the market-place; and, when he asked their opinion on the Ballot, the whole multitude held up their hands for it.

§ Mr. Fyler
denied that the whole city of Coventry assembled in the market-place when the hon. member for Preston visited it. There were not above forty or fifty persons present, and those not the most respectable.