§ Sir T. Baringsaid, that he rose to present to the House a Petition from the Freeholders of the County of Southampton, in favour of the plan of Reform which had been recently introduced into Parliament by his Majesty's Ministers. He had endeavoured to present it to the House before the second reading of the Bill, but had always been prevented by the number of names which had been placed on the Speaker's list previously to his own. The petition was signed by the High Sheriff on behalf of one of the most numerous, the most respectable, and the most intelligent meetings that he had ever seen in that or. in any other county. There were upwards of 5,000 freeholders, present at the meeting, and the petition had been carried without any hands being held up against it, save those of the two hon. Members for the County. He had stated to those two hon. Members his intention of presenting this petition on an early day, and he should be sorry if they were not at that moment in their places. The hon. Member read the petition, and concluded by saying, that in every sentiment which it contained, he most cordially concurred.
§ Sir R. Vyvyansaid, that if he had heard aright the prayer of this petition, one of its statements was, that the petitioners were anxious for a Reform of Parliament, because the House had regularly refused to institute an inquiry into the cause of the distress of the people. He, therefore, wished the petitioners to recollect that many of the Ministers who now advo- 1146 cated the new plan of Reform were the very men who had denied the existence of distress in the last Session of Parliament, and who had voted against the motion for going into a Committee to inquire into the causes of it. Those who now deprecated the plan of Reform proposed by Ministers were the men who had most strenuously insisted upon the propriety of inquiring into the causes of the distress of the country, in order that they might be remedied as speedily and efficaciously as possible. Let the people, then, judge between those who were their real and those who were only their professing friends. Let them judge between those who had acted, and were still continuing to act, on their own deliberate conviction of what was due to the public safety, and those who were tamely, and he would even add, basely yielding to the ill-advised clamour which was now raised throughout the country. He was glad to find from the statement of the hon. Baronet, that there were still men in that House, who had the courage to stand up in the face of thousands at county meetings, and to tell them, even at the risk of losing their seats at the next election, that they deemed this new plan of Reform most injurious to the Constitution of the country, and that they were determined to oppose it. He was nearly in the same predicament with his two hon. friends, the members for the county of Southampton; and as a person who would never have thought of standing for the county of Cornwall under other circumstances was now canvassing it on account of the vote which he had recently given, he would only say, that had he to give that vote over again twenty times, he certainly would give it as he had already given it,— for he never would submit to the degradation of letting his opinions truckle to the base cry which was now set up by the country. He wished that the country would give itself time to ponder on this new plan of Reform. He wished that the country would give itself time to consider whether this plan contained in itself such moral and political excellence as to be the only one which it ought to adopt. He was sorry that his hon. friends, the members for the county of Southampton, were not then in the House. He knew that he had but little right to interpose upon this occasion, as the petition did not come from his county; but it was impossible for him to remain silent when he heard the peti- 1147 tioners alluding to the distress of the country as one of the reasons for calling for a Reform in Parliament, when they were very likely to abuse those very Members of Parliament who had voted for a Committee to inquire into the causes of it.
§ Mr. Spring Ricecould not allow the observations of the hon. member for Cornwall to pass without a reply. The hon. Member had said, that the denial of the existence of distress in the country, and the refusal of the House of Commons to inquire into the sources of it, was the cause of the clamour of the people for Reform; and had then proceeded to assert, that the members of the present Government were among those who had strenuously opposed themselves to all inquiry. Now he thought that he could show in a few words which of the parties into which the House was now divided was most worthy of the confidence of the people of England They would find among the members of the present Government, those who had voted for inquiry,—among the members of the late Government, those who had voted against it. Let the people look at the List of Cabinet Ministers at that moment in the House of Commons, and then, if they were to decide who most deserved their confidence by the division on that question, they would find that those who were the friends of Reform had voted for inquiry, and that those who were the enemies of Reform had voted against it. His noble friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—
§ Sir R. Vyvyan—"Had voted against the motion for inquiry."
§ Sir R. Vyvyan.—No, no.
§ Mr. Ricecontended that his noble friend had voted for it. The hon. Gentleman was not regular in the interruption which he was giving him. He (Mr. Rice) was speaking, he admitted, from recollection only; but within the next twenty-four hours he would either re assert this statement if correct, or retract it if incorrect. He asserted, that on the amendment to the address moved by the hon. member for Kent, his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had affirmed the existence of distress, and had voted for inquiry; and he recollected the fact well, for he had gone out of the House along with his noble friend. An appeal since that time had been made to the country, and the 1148 answer which the country had made to it by the petitions which were already laid upon their Table, entitled him to say that the country had given a verdict in favour of the present Administration, and not in favour of the hon. member for Cornwall, and his friends. On the occasion to which the hon. Member alluded, those who supported the Address had affirmed the existence of partial distress, and those who supported the Amendment had affirmed the existence of general distress. In the first party were the members of the late Administration; in the latter the members of the present. He was quite certain, that if the hon. Baronet would only take the trouble of looking through the division, he would find that those who were friendly to Reform in Parliament had voted in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kent.
§ Sir R. Vyvyansaid, that he did not mean to deny, that on the amendment to the address moved by the hon. member for Kent, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had affirmed the existence of general distress in the country, and had voted for inquiry; but he contended, and he believed that he was correct in contending, that on a subsequent occasion, when a motion was brought forward by Mr. Davenport, for an inquiry into the causes of the distress of the nation, the noble member for Northamptonshire, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, had voted against the appointment of any Committee of inquiry. The petition from the county of Southampton stated, that one of their reasons for calling for a Reform in Parliament was, that the House of Commons would not look into the distress of the country. He said, that upon that score the present ministers were as culpable as any of their predecessors. He thought that they had always been opposed to inquiry into the causes of our distress, and into the operation of those principles of free trade which had operated so injuriously on the country by making one class of society the prey of another, and by luring the different interests of it to attack each other.
§ Sir T. Baringwas sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet's declamation, but there was no such statement as the hon. Baronet imagined in the petition. The chief grievance of which the petitioners complained was the want of a full, fair, and sufficient Representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament.
§ Mr. W. Duncombecontended that his hon. friend was perfectly correct in stating that the distress of the country was one of the grievances which the petitioners thought would be most effectually cured by a Reform in Parliament. He recollected perfectly well, that when a motion was brought forward by Mr. Davenport, for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the causes of the general distress, the noble member for Northamptonshire opposed it, on the ground that it would lead to an useless inquiry into the state of the currency. Now this, he contended, was a paltry ground for opposing that motion. He denied, whatever might have been the views of some, that there were many Gentlemen who supported Mr. Davenport's motion in order to obtain an alteration of the currency.
Sir James Grahamdid not rise to prolong this discussion, but he must protest against such language being used with regard to his noble friend (Lord Althorp) in his noble friend's absence. He thought it would be difficult for any hon. member —even for the hon. member for York—to point out any part of his noble friend's conduct to which the epithet paltry, could be justly applied. The hon. Member said, that since he had voted for Mr. Davenport's motion, he had had an opportunity of facing his constituents; but so also had his noble friend, who had voted against the motion; and if they should all have a similar opportunity again, at no distant period, the respective constituents of the hon. member for York and of his noble friend would have an opportunity of showing to the conduct of which of them—if to the conduct of either—they considered the epithets which the hon. Member had used were most applicable.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellwas quite sure that the epithets complained of by the hon. Baronet must have been intended to apply to the reasoning, and not to the conduct of the noble Lord. He was as sure of this as he was of the fact that most of those who had voted in favour of Reform had voted against Mr. Davenport's motion. Now no man, he contended, could read this petition from Hampshire, without seeing that the petitioners, in effect, asserted that the House had not attended to the distress which prevailed among the agricultural labourers last year; and, moreover, that the petitioners imputed that as a fault to the House. And, although he should be 1150 sorry to say anything disrespectful of the noble Lord,—although he never would say anything of the noble Lord in his absence, which he would not say in his presence,—yet he must beg leave to say, now, since the subject had been broached, that in his opinion the failure of Mr. Davenport's motion was mainly attributable to the speech which the noble Lord made against that motion. An hon. Member opposite had said, that the meeting in Hampshire was a most respectable one, which was true,—and that only two hands were held up against the petition,—which was equally true: but whose hands were those? Why, they were the hands of the two illustrious members for the county, who had had the manliness to come forward and act according to their judgment, and to tell their constituents plainly that they would so act. God forbid that the time should ever arrive in which county Members would come into that House as mere machines, acting entirely as their constituents directed them, and not as men exercising their own judgment and their own intellect. This was the true character of a county Member: and whenever the character of the Representatives was inverted he believed that Representation would be at an end, and that with that the people would be ruined. He was sorry that neither of the members for Hampshire was present now, for he highly applauded their conduct, and had read with the greatest pleasure the speeches which they made at the meeting. He wished that all county Members would follow their example. His hon. friend near him, the member for Cornwall, had kept up the character of a Member of that House by differing from his constituents. He would only add that he was glad of having had this opportunity of offering his testimony of admiration of the conduct of the two independent members for Hampshire.
§ Mr. W. Duncombethought, that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) was the only Member in that House who was of opinion that he had imputed unworthy or paltry conduct to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All he had said was, that the excuse which the noble Lord had made for opposing Mr. Davenport's motion was a paltry excuse,—and so it was, in his opinion.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that he had understood the hon. Member to have said that his noble friend had opposed Mr. 1151 Davenport's motion on the ground that it would lead to an inquiry into the currency with the view of affecting an alteration in it, and that, in his opinion, such a ground of opposition to the motion was paltry, pitiful, and insignificant. He thought that he had distinctly heard those words from the hon. Member. However, he was glad to hear that he was mistaken; but if he had not been, he felt assured that the hon. member for York would have been the only Member of that House who would have thought his noble friend's conduct on that occasion or on any other occasion, could be properly characterized by such epithets.
§ Mr. W. Duncombethought that the hon. Baronet was decidedly out of order, in imputing to him what he had already declared that he had not said.
§ Mr. Attwoodhad understood the hon. member for York to have used the expressions as he had. said he had used them, and not as the hon. Baronet had thought proper to apply them. With this understanding, he begged leave to say that he was ready to use the same expressions to the same extent as the hon. member had used them. He was confident that the people were only praying for Reform as the means of relieving their distresses, which they thought would disappear before a reformed Parliament. Upon this delusion was founded the popularity of the present Ministry; and that popularity, therefore was as ill-deserved as he foretold it would be short-lived.
Mr. Alderman Woodprotested against the question of the currency being debated upon the presentation of a petition for Reform. This was the way that many hon. Members, who had been down at eight o'clock in the morning, to place their names on the list, had been prevented from presenting their petitions. If however, hon. Members thought by this means to put a stop to the presentation of reform petitions, they were as much mistaken as they were in supposing that they could set the people against Reform by telling them that many who voted for the Bill had voted against a motion brought forward by one Mr. Davenport. He must say, that he thought the attack which had been made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his absence, and upon a petition with which he had nothing to do, was a very unfair attack.
§ Sir W. Heathcotewas sorry he had not 1152 been aware that this petition was to be presented,—for, if he had been, he certainly should have been in his place sooner. He certainly was opposed to the prayer of the petition, and in saying this he begged to declare his regret at finding himself compelled to differ from so respectable a portion of his constituents, as those undoubtedly were who composed the meeting. But, after the best and the most deliberate consideration which he had been able to give to the measure of Reform, he must say that he became day after day the more confirmed in the belief that it was a measure founded upon the most impolitic grounds, and that if it passed into a law, it would be productive of the most injurious effects. It was true that the meeting at which this measure was agreed to was of a very different opinion: but he had reason to know, from communications which he had since received, that this opinion of his was by no means universally opposed to that of the wealth and respectability of the county. He conscientiously believed, that the feeling in favour of Reform among the people was founded, to a great extent, upon distress, and upon the refusal of the House in the last Session to inquire into the causes of that distress.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that if there was strong language in the petition, it might be accounted for by circumstances peculiar to the county, and which, very naturally, excited a strong feeling in the people. The Isle of Wight—in which he resided—sent six Members to Parliament, and those members were often not even seen by their constituents. Now, with this fact before them, and when two of these Members thought proper to insult their constituents, the House, and the country, by saying that no Reform was necessary, and that no Reform was asked for by the people,—and this had been said by the two hon. members for Newport,—it was not to be wondered at that the inhabitants of the county of Southampton used very strong language in their petitions.
§ The Speakersaid, the hon. Member had allowed language to escape him,—unintentionally, no doubt,—which he was sure the hon. member would be anxious to explain. First the hon. Member had said that the language of the petition might be accounted for by what the two hon. members for Newport had said. Now the hon. 1153 Member must be aware that what was said in that House could not justify any thing in a petition. Next, the hon. Member had said, that observations of two hon. members of that House had been insulting to their constituents, to the House, and to the country. He was quite sure, that the hon. member would himself see the propriety of explaining, and be himself anxious to explain, this language, which had no doubt fallen from the hon. Member in the heat of debate.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that he really did not see what he had to explain. It must have been quite obvious, he thought, to everybody that he had not meant any thing personal to the two hon. members for Newport; that he had merely spoken of them as public men acting in their public capacity, and of the effect which it was natural that the language of those hon. Members should produce in the minds of men circumstanced as the inhabitants of Hampshire were. He said, too, that he thought that that language might justify the petitioners in expressing themselves strongly, and he must say that he still thought so; for although it was irregular to allude in a petition to any thing that was said in that House yet it was quite impossible to prevent language used in that House having the effect which the same language used out of doors would have.
§ Petition to be printed.