HC Deb 19 October 1831 vol 8 cc910-23
Mr. Hume

presented a Petition from the Council of the Birmingham Political Union respecting the late rejection of the Reform Bill. He said that this petition had been sent to his hon. and learned friend the member for Kerry, and he presented it on behalf of that hon. and learned Gentleman. He took that opportunity of expressing his opinion in favour of Political Unions. Much had been said upon the impropriety of suffering large bodies of men to assemble together for the avowed purpose of effecting a common object; but he was firmly persuaded that bodies of persons so united were highly useful, because they induced the people to seek by order, reason, and steadiness of purpose, that which might otherwise be sought by riot, violence, and bloodshed. If there had been a Political Union in Derby, or in Nottingham, the riots which had disgraced those places never would have taken place. In that respect, the conduct of the Political Union at Birmingham deserved the approbation of that House. In that town, though the feeling was as strong as in any other part of the empire, not the slightest tumult had occurred. The petitioners thought, that if this measure was not carried now—legally and by the existing authorities—a larger measure would ultimately be carried by popular force. They expressed their hope that that House would address his Majesty, entreating him to create 100 new Peers, with a view to carry the measure. They remarked, that the House of Peers had rejected the Bill, and that the House of Commons had pledged themselves to support the measure, in consequence of which the two Houses were in opposition to each other; and that it was not possible that that state of things should continue for any length of time without the country being plunged into utter and irretrievable ruin. With the feeling of regret expressed by the Petitioners he most fully concurred, but he at once admitted that he did not agree with that part of the prayer which desired that House to address his Majesty to create an additional number of Peers; and he did so, because he thought that such a measure at this moment would be quite unnecessary; for he had little doubt that their Lordships would see the feeling of the country was so strongly declared in favour of the measure, that they would not hesitate to adopt it. The petitioners also expressed their hope that the Parliament would speedily be dissolved, and a new one chosen on the principle of the late Bill.

Mr. Hunt

said, it was rather odd that the hon. member for Middlesex, in presenting a Petition, should denounce the prayer of it. He could bear testimony to the respectability of many members of the Birmingham Union, and he found it necessary to say this, because the remarks he had before made regarding that Union had been grossly misrepresented. He had been charged with desiring to have it put down. All that he had done, which had given rise to such scandalous misrepresentation, was, to contrast the conduct of the present Government, when the members of the Birmingham Political Union had held up their hands against the payment of taxes, with that of the Government of the day when a similar proceeding took place at Manchester. In that instance the people were cut down by the Yeomanry. At Birmingham the Union received the approbation of Government. He believed, however, the members of the Birmingham Union were not fairly treated in this petition of their council, because he knew they desired the Vote by Ballot and Annual Parliaments. He wished to recommend a resolution passed by his constituents to the consideration of the House: it was to this effect, "We rely on your Majesty's known firmness; we implore your Majesty not to create any more Peers, but take such constitutional measures as will secure the passing of the Reform Bill, which can alone restore this country to prosperity and happiness." A similar address had been agreed to at Manchester.

Mr. Hume

said, the hon. member for Preston had misunderstood him; he did not mean to say that he disapproved of the prayer of the Petition, but that he thought it unnecessary. He now begged to move that the Petition be printed. He was ready to allow that it contained several very strong expressions but not any that made it objectionable, so far as printing it was concerned.

Sir Richard Vyvyan

said, there were two objections to the petition, which he thought would prevent its being received by the House. The first was, the manner in which the majority of the House of Lords was spoken of; and the next, the way in which the House of Commons was spoken of as pledged to a certain course, which put them in opposition to the House of Lords, and from which course it was obviously meant to be imputed they could not depart without violating their faith to the people. The petitioners stated, that they saw and felt that great and important interests were endangered by the obstinacy of one or two hundred individuals, who, by their conduct, had justly incurred the indignation of the country. Again, in another part of the petition, it was said, that from the folly and obstinacy of a numerical majority of the upper House of Parliament, a measure had been lost on which depended the happiness and prosperity of the country. He put it to the House, whether these were proper expressions for a Petition addressed to any branch of the Legislature. He wished, also, to remark on what had been said by the hon. member for Middlesex with respect to Political Unions. That hon. Member had asserted, that the only way in which the public peace could be effectually maintained was by these Political Unions. He would tell that hon. Member, that that was the way by which the public peace was overthrown. He would say, God defend this country from Political clubs. He would tell the hon. Member what sort, of a Parliament had been within a short time back constituted at Naples under the government of these Political clubs. He was there himself at the time, and he could speak positively as to the fact. There was a legislative body in existence, every member of which was threatened by Carbonari Clubs if he did not speak and act in a certain way. He repeated, that he hoped he should never see the time when this country would be governed by Political Unions.

Sir Francis Burdett

said, that after the observations just made by the hon. Baronet, he could not abstain from saying a few words on the subject. He was not aware that these Political Unions were either illegal, or unconstitutional, or improper. He said this, because he was himself a member of a Political Union, and he did not think that he was laying himself open to any censure on that account. He thought that, instead of being improper, they were both justifiable and necessary: that it was absolutely necessary for the people of England to show their determination to obtain a remedy for that scandalous state of corruption which existed in the system of the election of Members of that House; and which, until within these few late years, no man had ever ventured to have the face to say was defensible in any point whatever. Who, he would ask, had been the occasion of these Political Unions? They had arisen out of the perpetual denials of that House to give the people their due share in what was called the representation of the people. That was the cause of these evils, if evils they were; and evils, in one respect, he admitted them to be; but they were attributable entirely to such persons as the hon. Baronet, and those who supported him. The present Ministry had brought in this Bill to prevent the necessity of the people taking steps of such a nature, and their object had been most unhappily defeated. But as the people were disappointed in their just expectations, were they to be kept from expressing their dissatisfaction? If the language they used was thought too strong, he could not but say that he thought it, under all the circumstances, very excusable; and that those who by their conduct had occasioned that language to be used, were the last who ought to find fault with it. Ever since he had known his countrymen, he believed it had always been considered their right freely to express their opinions on the whole or any branch of the Legislature. Yet now the doctrine was put forward in that House, that strong language from the people was not to be there endured. He said, on the contrary, that such a doctrine was not to be endured. The attempt to stifle the free expression of just complaints would promote all the evils which they affected to dread. Hon. Gentlemen complained of Political clubs indeed: why, had not these very Gentlemen established clubs of all kinds? They governed Ireland for years by Orange clubs. How long, too, was it thought an honour to belong to Brunswick clubs? and when the people at length insisted on a measure of Reform, and the Ministry had the honesty to bring a measure of Reform before the public, whether it met the wishes of every one man in the country he would not venture to say; and there was no man in his senses who would expect, as the hon. member for Preston seemed to do, that it should meet the wishes of all; it was at least a measure in which the interests of all men were consulted; in which men of property were conciliated, because the value of their property was for the first time considered in the system of Representation, and in which all men saw a probability of enjoying the elective franchise, and of exercising it freely and honestly; such a measure, though it might not satisfy every one man in the country, would at least satisfy all men of moderation, and all such men were united in its support—but when an honest Administration, for the first time in the history of Government, had come forward with a remedial measure of that sort, and demanded support from the people of England, it was most provoking—so provoking that it was difficult to keep language within the limits of the rules of that House, difficult to keep it within the bounds of decency and propriety, it was, he repeated, most provoking, the king having nobly set himself at the head of the Reformers, and a whole people supporting the Reform, that a few persons should be found directly opposed to it, and that, when it was rejected, those persons should expect that all the world would bow and bend to their will, and consent quietly, at their good pleasure, to give up all hope of what every honest man was convinced was necessary for the prosperity and happiness of the country. He defied the Government to go on without adopting such a measure. Suppose the Ministers had been silly enough to shrink from their duty to a most brave and generous Sovereign—to shrink from their duty to the public—suppose they had done this, then, even then, he would ask, if they threw up the reins of government, who would venture to take the conduct of the Government except upon the basis of this measure of Reform? It came then to this, that the opposition to this measure was a factious opposition—an opposition for the purpose of turning out the Administration. He was the more convinced of this when he saw those Gentlemen who began with opposing all attempts at Reform admit, at last, that Reform was necessary, while they threw in the way of every species of Reform all sorts of obstacle, and tried to veil their real opposition to Reform under an affected opposition to this particular measure. Why, even the Duke of Wellington himself now admitted that some Reform was necessary. A short time since it was not so with the noble Duke, and the world gave him credit at least for manliness and courage when he made the declaration. But even he had been compelled to recede from the point of absolute refusal of Reform. He found himself in a false position, and had receded from the point which he appeared at first to have taken up with the same desperate resolution with which he had taken up his position at Waterloo—a position from which he said he would not move, and which the valour of our brave countrymen, on whose rights they were now deciding, had enabled him to maintain. On that occasion his resolution was nobly justified by the courage of the men whom he then commanded; but on the present he was forced to abandon his ground. It was true he had not now the same steady troops as on that occasion; his present followers fell off from the advanced posts to which he had ordered them, but which they found to be positions that were quite untenable, and he himself was at last obliged to give up his position and effect his retreat. But what was the cause of all this? It was the strong necessity which neither he nor any other man could resist. It was clear that there was no hope for the amelioration of grievances of which the people had often complained,—but the complaints about which had hitherto been disregarded—but the adoption of this measure of Reform—and its adoption could only be secured by the people giving their full support to those Ministers who had so well deserved it by proposing such a measure for parliamentary adoption. Let them, then, give their confidence to the Ministry—let them show that they were convinced, as he was, that the Ministers would not abandon the duty they owed to their Sovereign and to the people. At the same time he was certain that whatever steps were adopted by persons out of the House, they were adopted, not with a view to dictate to the Ministry, but to shew the Ministry that they ought not to shrink from completing the great work they had begun, and to prove to them and to their opponents that there was nothing likely to throw the country into confusion but the rejection of this measure. Every one, however, was convinced that the measure could not be finally rejected; but every one was also convinced, that to enable the Ministers to carry it, the people must zealously give them their support. The people were well inclined to do so, for they felt how much they were indebted to the present Ministers, and that their interests required them to give Ministers their support; for they knew that the country would never be settled till this measure was adopted; and they did not despair, for, knowing the general feeling of the people, they knew that the measure could not long be resisted. And who were those who resisted it? One set of its opponents was a parcel of intriguing gentlemen at the west end of the town; and there were intriguing ladies, too, "mighty gossips in this our commonwealth," whose interference in such matters was a thing, he must say, hitherto unknown. He regretted that interference, because he thought that when ladies once got out of the domestic circle, and got into the political, they lost much of the influence they would otherwise properly possess; and he was tempted to pass upon them a similar judgment to that which Mrs. Peachum, in The Beggar's Opera, passed upon them. Mrs. Peachum said, "Women are bitter bad judges in cases of murder;" and so, he said, "Women are bitter bad judges in cases of politics." For himself he could only say, that, considering things as they now stood, he could almost wish the Kings in past times had made use of their prerogative, and had discontinued to send Writs to decayed boroughs, and had, at the same time, sent Writs to boroughs that had grown great and flourishing. If that prerogative had been used, that House would not have been in the situation in which it was now, but there would have been, as it were, a daily Reform, suppressing the elective franchise of inconsiderable boroughs, and transferring it to new and populous and flourishing towns. The King, no doubt, possessed the right of withholding these Writs, and of issuing them; and had that course been adopted from the beginning, there would have been a Reform of Parliament which would not have required the interference of the House of Peers. Indeed, he was almost prepared to say, that as Reform essentially concerned the privileges of that House, and the control over the public purse (a control of which, on other occasions, they were so jealous that they would not permit the other House to make the smallest alteration in their money bills—not even in a relaxation of the public burthens), it was a matter with which the other House ought not to interfere. He was sorry that the House of Lords should thus have brought themselves into a situation far from estimable, in the eyes of the country, doing themselves no good, and forcing upon the minds of the people an inquiry as to the limits of their privileges. He wished to see the Constitution preserved; he believed it was an excellent Constitution in practice; but, when it had been corrupted, it should be purified; and, therefore, he wished to see a fair and free and full representation of the people, for that was part of the Constitution; and he, therefore, did regret most deeply, that the Peers should have opposed themselves to a demand which was made by the whole people of England—namely, that a measure should be passed to secure to them their constitutional right.—the right of controlling the public purse. What did all the rant about Jacobinism and revolution mean—what did it come to but this—that those who ranted thus wished still to exclude the people from the right he had referred to—the right which they now sought with so much anxiety? In what was passing out of doors he saw nothing to alarm men, except they went on exasperating the public by delay and refusal, till the public would no longer be satisfied with this just, rational, and effective measure, but would be determined to have more than their warmest friends now called on the opposite party to grant. They must all recollect the play of Henry IV., when Hotspur, Owen Glendower, and others, were engaged in portioning out England. In that scene, Glendower had taken the Trent for the limit of his portion; and Hotspur, thinking it would trench too much upon his portion, said— I'll have the current in this place damm'd up; It shall not wind with such a deep indent, To rob me of so rich a bottom here. Glendower, of course, objected, and words ran high between them; Hotspur was told he should not anger Owen Glendower, for Glendower was a friend; on which Hotspur, with true English feeling exclaimed— ——I'll give thrice so much land To any well-deserving friend, But in the way of bargain, mark ye me, I'll cavil on the ninth part of a hair. So said the people of England at this moment. They would recede much if they were satisfied that they should get what they wanted, and what they had a right to ask, namely, a practical control over the public expenditure; but if that were refused them—if friendliness was dropped, and the matter became one of bargain, they would "cavil about the ninth part of a hair." In his opinion, his Majesty's Ministers deserved the confidence of the country; and he was anxious to impress that on the country, for they had given an earnest of their honest intentions, and confidence in them would enable them to follow out what they had thus begun, while a different course would but impede them in carrying into execution the plan of Reform they had laid before the country. He knew it might be said that the people were properly jealous of bestowing their unlimited confidence; but if it was unwise to give the Government their confidence lest they might be betrayed, was it not equally unwise to withhold their confidence when they had good grounds for yielding it? In the conduct of all matters confidence was necessary. In this instance it had been given, and it should not now be withdrawn. What greater claim to confidence could be put forward by any Ministry than was put forward by the present in this one measure? What they proposed was a voluntary act of theirs—they had embarked themselves in the same boat, in the same vessel, with the liberties of their country, and they had identified their interests with those of the people. They were in the same situation as the Roman army which went out to conquer their neighbours, the Samnites. The Roman Consul, who had determined not to retreat, placed his army in such a position, that it was impossible for the army to escape from a victorious enemy, and they had, therefore, no alternative but to conquer. The Roman Consul, in his speech to his soldiers, told them, that the contest would be desperate—that they would have to combat an enemy equally numerous, equally well disciplined, equally provided with arms, and equally full of courage with themselves; but he added, that they had one advantage—quod maxima et ultima erant necessitate superiori. That was the situation of the Ministers—by necessity alone they would be compelled to be victorious; they were to fall or stand by this measure; and they were sure of victory, for they were sure of the public support, and with that support they could not fail. He trusted that they would not be pressed in any way to promise a particular line of conduct. He trusted that his Majesty and his Majesty's Ministers would be enabled to relieve the country from those difficulties in which for a century past it had been involved, and that they would succeed in procuring for the country that representation, without which it was in vain to hope for good government—without which a good Government could not go on, and which alone would be able to secure the public tranquillity and happiness.

Mr. Goulburn

was surprised at the course which the hon. Baronet had taken on this occasion. He would not, however, follow him in his very excursive speech. It was a speech which would almost make the House believe it had been intended for another occasion, but that, by some accident or other, the hon. Baronet had missed the opportunity of delivering it, and was therefore anxious, as he seemed to think it so good an oration, that the House should not separate without having had the benefit of hearing it. He would not presume to inquire whether the hon. Baronet was smarting under the witicisms of that sex he had so ungallantly alluded to, but he would confine himself simply to the question before the House, and he would contend that there would be an end to the freedom of debate, if the conduct of Members in either House were to be attacked as that of the majority of the House of Lords had been in the petition before them. Would the House, he asked, give its sanction, by causing it to be printed, to such language as this—"that the interests of the country were sacrificed or endangered by the selfish obstinacy of 200 individuals?" And that no doubt might apply to whom it alluded, this paragraph followed, "by the folly and obstinacy of a numerical majority in the House of Lords." Was this language which the House would sanction as applying to the majority of the other House of Parliament? He would put it to the noble Lord at the head of the Government in that House, whether he would consent to the printing of a petition containing such an attack on the other House of Parliament?

Lord Althorp

did not think that the wording of petitions from the people in times of great excitement ought to be too strictly looked at. If the hon. Baronet opposite meant to ask him, did he approve of the language of the petition? He was perfectly ready to say he did not. It was language such as he hoped he never approached to himself, and such as he was sure could be of no sort of use in the discussion of political questions. But if the hon. Baronet asked him, did he think that the petition ought to be received in the ordinary manner in which petitions upon important subjects were received, and should be permitted to be printed? That, he would answer, was altogether a question of expediency. The expressions to which the hon. Baronet objected related to the particular conduct of noble individuals in the other House of Parliament; and he had known the House to receive and to print petitions animadverting, in very strong terms, not only on individuals in either House of Parliament, but upon the conduct of the whole Legislature. He, therefore, did not think that the House would do wisely in negativing the Motion of his hon. friend. But in giving that opinion, he hoped he should not be supposed to agree in or to sanction the language of the petitioners.

Mr. Kennedy

said, he must enter his protest against the doctrine of appealing to Ministers as members of the Government on questions like the present. They ought to give their opinions only as individual Members of the House in matters which were not connected with the policy of their Government. As to the question before them, he must say, that if hon. Gentlemen opposite knew the state of feeling in the country, they would rather feel pleasure than regret that it vented itself in this harmless way. If petitions of this kind were rejected on account of strong language, depend on it the people would press round the throne and give expression to opinions much stronger. In fact, the petitions which had been presented by the people, proved the complete tranquillity of the country; and that it was, he believed, at which hon. Gentlemen opposite were so much disappointed. The country was, however, he was happy to say, perfectly tranquil. He could speak more particularly of that part of the kingdom with which he was more immediately connected (Scotland); but he would not say that that tranquillity would be permanent, it the measure of Reform were unnecessarily delayed—ultimately refused it could not be—but he could not look without serious apprehension at the consequences of any unnecessary delay.

Mr. George Bankes

said, he must repel with indignation the imputation of the hon. Member who last addressed the House, that Members at that (the Opposition) side were, disappointed at the tranquil state of the country, They had never expected that the country would be otherwise than tranquil, and therefore the tranquillity which now prevailed was not matter of surprise, still less of disappointment, to them. They objected to such language as this petition contained, because they expected that bodies who wished to be considered deliberative assemblies would use more caution than men who met only for one occasion. The hon. Baronet had adverted to the Orange and Brunswick clubs, which he assumed were founded on the principles of the Members on the Opposition side of the House; but, what would the hon. Baronet say, if petitions were presented from any of those clubs, complaining of the selfish obstinacy of Lord Grey and his colleagues, in sacrificing or endangering the interests of the country, by persisting in a violent change of the Constitution? Would the hon. Baronet think that the House ought to sanction language of that kind by ordering the petition to be printed? He had no desire to reject the petitions of any portion of the people, but he did desire that the petitions should be worded in respectful language. The question now before the House was, not whether the petition should be rejected, for no one had any such wish, but whether the House would so far sanction the language which the noble Lord (Althorp) had declared he disapproved, as to direct it to be printed. There were many parts of the hon. Baronet's speech which he regretted, but he concurred with him in that where he put forth the prerogatives of the Crown so prominently. He was glad, also, to hear him speak of the Sovereign as the father of his people; but it did sometimes happen, that the fondest fathers mistook the passions of their children, and indulged those passions to the prejudice of their real interests.

Mr. James Johnstons

congratulated the House on the state of tranquillity which prevailed in that part of the empire (Scotland) to which he belonged. He did not think that the hon. Baronet, opposite did right in sneering at the Political Unions. He begged to remind the hon. Baronet that peace had been preserved in those places where Political Unions were established, and that riots and conflagrations had taken place in those parts of the country where there existed no Political Unions—Nottingham and Derby, for instance. 150 years ago, the people were little better than serfs, and were treated nearly the same as slaves were now treated in the West Indies, but the spread of intelligence had given them a moral strength which entitled them to a large increase of influence in the Constitution. He thought that the sooner the House met after the prorogation the better; and he believed that if the present Ministers were to leave office the whole country would be on fire.

Mr. Hunt

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down, had made use of stronger expressions than was contained in any petition, but he merely wished to remark, in reply to the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) opposite, who had said no person out, of Bedlam could expect the people to be wholly unanimous in favour of Reform, that he (Mr. Hunt) believed they were nearly unanimous, but it was for a more extensive measure of Reform than the late Bill. The hon. Baronet had also been pleased to insinuate, that those who would not receive the franchise under the Bill, would still receive some benefit from its being extended; why this sounded very like virtual representation. He must declare that the Ministers were not entitled to his confidence, although he hoped he should not be called a Tory for this opinion. He hoped the petition would be printed, as he considered the people of Birmingham had as much right to petition for a large creation of Peers, as the people of Preston had to petition against such a creation.

Sir Richard Vyvyan

, in explanation, stated, that he would rather see riots in some parts of the country, than have the peace kept by means of unions, which were only instruments in the hands of demagogues.

Petition to be printed.