PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT. (Hansard, 13 September 1831)

Lord John Russell
said, that in moving this further stage of the Reform Bill, it would, probably, be the most convenient course if he stated briefly the nature of the few amendments or additions which the Government thought it requisite to propose, either in consequence of having received more satisfactory information, or in compliance with suggestions made by hon. Members in the course of the discussions which had already taken place. There were only two points on which they had found it necessary to make any material change beyond slight verbal alterations. The one related to the distribution of parishes and townships by the Commissioners; and the other, to the period for the commencement of registration. With respect to the distribution of the voters in parishes, the House were, probably, aware, that the Bill, as originally printed, did not give the Commissioners the power of dividing parishes or townships, but rendered it necessary, that the whole of a parish should be added in those cases where it was thought right to increase the number of the constituency. That intention having been subsequently abandoned, and the Commissioners being now empowered to take in any part of a parish which may seem fit to them, for giving effect to the intentions of the Legislature, it had been considered more convenient, instead of the words "township or parish," in the twenty-fifth clause, to insert the word "town." To give an instance of the way in which the alteration would operate in two or three cases, he might mention the town of Brighthelmstone, in which the Commissioners, through the means of the alteration, would be able to include all the inhabitants of the town without also uniting with them those of the adjoining parishes. With respect to the period for the commencement of the registration, the noble Lord (Althorp), on whom the conduct of the Bill devolved, not finding him- 1389 self at liberty, notwithstanding the delay produced by the continuance of the debates, to make any alteration in the original determination of the Government, had invariably declared, that the registration of the present year was to commence on the 1st day of November. It was now, however, the opinion of the Government, that there would not be sufficient time between the passing of the Bill and the 1st of November in the present year for the Overseers to prepare the lists for the commencement of the registration, and they therefore proposed now, that the 1st day of February should be named instead of the 1st day of November, for the commencement of the registration. There was no other alteration to propose in that stage of the Bill that he at present recollected, with the exception of one or two with respect to dates. The Bill provided that all rates and taxes should be paid up to the 1st day of July, in order to ensure the payment of the necessary rates and the assessed taxes due previous to the commencement of the registration in the month of August. It was now thought, however, that it would answer as well, and be more convenient, if the 6th of April was named instead of the 1st of July, so that the whole of the taxes due on the quarter ending on the 5th of April would, in the same manner, be paid up before the commencement of the registration in August. There would be found in the Bill a proviso on the subject of taking the polls in booths, or places with respect to which a suggestion had been made by the hon. member for the county of Worcester. That hon. Member had suggested, that it would be convenient in some cases to allow the polls to be taken in houses. He (Lord John Russell) said, at the time, that he thought the proviso would admit of an interpretation to that extent; but, on consideration, they thought it now more safe to introduce a few words empowering the Sheriff, if he thought proper, to open booths for polling in houses which he might consider eligible for that purpose. He did not believe there was any other amendment or alteration to be proposed on bringing up the Report; but in compliance with a pledge given by the noble Lord (Althorp) in the course of the discussion, that the question of whether the large counties of Wales could claim any additional Representatives, should be taken into the consideration of the Govern- 1390 ment, he (Lord John Russell) had now to state, that the Government had considered that point with the utmost attention, and that they had found four of these counties distinguished from the others by an amount of population much beyond that of the others. It was intended, however, to give an additional Representative to only two of these counties; one of the four—Glamorganshire—having already obtained a second Member; and the other, Pembroke—being disentitled, for a reason which they considered satisfactory. The two counties to which he alluded were Carmarthenshire and Denbighshire. In the year 1821 the population of Carmarthenshire was upwards of 90,000, and that of Denbigh 76,000. The other county, that of Pembroke, was the next in point of population; it had 74,000; but that county had already two districts of boroughs, each returning a Member, and for that reason they did not think it necessary to add to the county Representation, as the balance was sufficiently preserved. The principle of the Bill, it had already been frequently observed, was to provide Representatives for large and populous towns; and in order to carry it into full effect, the Government had determined to confer the right of returning one Member each on two places, whose relative importance had not been sufficiently estimated at the time of the arrangement of the Schedules. One of these was the town of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the county of Lancaster, and the other Stroud and Minchin Hampton, in the county of Gloucester. He did not mean to propose these additions on bringing up the Report, but he gave notice now of his intention to do so on the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. Goulburn
begged to know on what day the noble Lord intended to move the third reading of the Bill, as it was of great importance that Members should be informed at least some days previous, in order to be ready to express their opinions on the alterations now first suggested by the noble Paymaster of the Forces, which, in his opinion, were of great importance.

§ Lord Althorp
could not look upon the alterations to be so important as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had designated them; but, however, whether they were so or not, he was ready to allow that it was necessary for the House to know on what day it was likely to move the third 1391 reading of the Bill; and, although he could not positively fix the period for that motion, owing to the uncertainty as to when the report would be disposed of, still he was in hopes that on Monday next the third reading would be moved.

§ Mr. Croker
observed, that the noble Lord refused to acknowledge the importance of the alterations now first proposed to the House; but he must beg leave to differ with the noble Lord, and to say, that nothing could be more important than the power given to Commissioners for dividing the counties into districts. He hailed the alteration as a proof of the noble Lord's accession to the opinions which he had expressed in the Committee, and he was glad to perceive, that the suggestion which he had made, with respect to the adjacent parts of a town, not lying within the parish, being added to the town as part of the borough, was adopted, as the noble Lord had illustrated, by the case of Brighton; but which the noble Lord and his majority had rejected in the cases of Guildford, Sudbury, Dorchester, and to many other towns.

Lord John Russell
said, that it was a very proper alteration as to Brighton; but there were many instances in which this alteration could not be applied.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
contended, that the alteration of the dates in the Bill was a very important one, and required time to ascertain its effects; it would be better to have the amendments introduced at once, that they might be fully understood before the third reading.

Lord John Russell
said, the reason of his not proposing the introduction of the amendments at present was, to prevent it being said he took the House by surprise.

An Hon. Member
said, the town and parish of Brighton were, by Act of Parliament, co-extensive. The proprietors of houses in the suburbs which were situated in other parishes, were anxious to retain their county franchises, and did not wish to be included in the new borough.

Mr. Goulburn
wished the noble Lord would insert in the Bill at once all the amendments and alterations which he intended to make. It had been altered over and over again at every stage, and he must say that he should like to see it in a complete shape once before he gave a final opinion upon it.

§ Mr. Croker
suggested, that the Bill should be re-committed, pro formâ, in order to have the necessary alterations 1392 made in it. It might then be reprinted in time for the third reading of the Bill.

§ Lord Althorp
thought, that such a course might be desirable, if anything more than verbal alterations were going to be made in the Bill. At present he saw no necessity for it.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
was of opinion, that the creation of four additional representative districts was something more than a verbal alteration of the Bill. Two new boroughs had sprung up since the Bill left the Committee; two counties were to receive an additional Member, and he had no guarantee that other four Members might not be added in the interval between the present stage and the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
was also of opinion, the amendments proposed should now be introduced into the Bill, and that the Bill ought to be printed as it was intended to remain. He begged to be permitted, while he was on his legs, to ask the noble Lords opposite, at what time, under the provisions of the Act, as proposed to be amended, it would be necessary that the registration should be finished?

§ Lord Althorp
stated, that the registration, commencing on the 1st day of February, would not be complete till the last day of April.

Mr. Wilks
thought it would be much better if no notice had been taken of the assessed taxes, but that the payment of poor-rates alone should constitute the necessary qualification for a vote. He requested to be informed whether, if a person was six mouths in arrear in the payment of his poor-rates, he would still be entitled to enjoy the franchise.

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that to be six months in arrear would not disfranchise a person. The alteration had been made in compliance with suggestions from the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire. He saw no force whatever in the remarks relating to the distinction made by the hon. Member between poor-rates and assessed taxes.

§ Sir George Murray
asked the noble Lord opposite, whether he intended to apply the same rule to the Scotch county Representation which he had applied to the Welsh. He particularly wished for an immediate answer to this question, because, on account of the distance of Scotland from the metropolis, it was necessary to giev the inhabitants of Scotch counties 1393 ample time to make such representations as they might think expedient on this subject, not only to his Majesty's Government, but also to that House.

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that the cases of Scotland and Wales were very different. Scotland had been united with England by a legislative Act of the two countries; at which time the number of Members was fixed, but Wales had, for several centuries before, been connected with this country, and had not received any addition of Members for that period. It was not intended to make any alteration in this part of the Scotch Reform Bill. If the Scotch counties had any representations to make upon this subject, they might make them now.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
contended, that by this last alteration, a greater share of Representation was given to Wales than was given to Scotland. As the noble Lord had thought fit to allude to the Act of Union between England and Scotland, he would beg leave to remind the noble Lord, that by that Act there were to be thirty Scotch county Members. This Bill reduced the number to twenty-eight. It must be also recollected, some of the Scotch counties contained three times the population of those of Wales. He would take that opportunity of calling the noble Lord's attention to the power of the returning officer to object to any person's vote, who could only apply to the House for a remedy. He alluded to the 42nd clause, and he hoped the noble Lord would consent to such an alteration as, in his opinion, the case called for. As the clause now stood, even if a Committee of that House decided that the complainant had a right to vote, yet there was no provision made, that his name should be inserted in the register, and thus he might be deprived of the right to vote at the next election.

§ Lord Althorp
expressed his readiness to accede to this alteration, as proposed by his hon. friend, which he considered an improvement. He was anxious to adopt any suggestions which he considered improvements, from whomsoever they proceeded.

§ Mr. Hunt
suggested, that the Bill ought to contain a clause rendering it necessary that a notice should be affixed to the church-door of every parish, informing the voters of the district and booth in Which they were to give their votes.

§ Lord Althorp
was of opinion, that the Bill, in its present shape, sufficiently marked the place and district in which each voter was to give his suffrage.

Mr. Baring
begged the noble Lord would be pleased to inform him, whether the Commissioners of divisions were to proceed to the execution of their labours under the sole guidance of the Act, or whether they were to be directed by any instructions from the Government?

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the Government would issue no instructions whatever to the Commissioners, who would be guided entirely by the Act, and by their own judgment. The whole body of Commissioners would decide on the respective duties of the aliquot parts of their number, and these respective bodies would proceed, under those decisions, to make the divisions which should be allotted to their arrangement.

§ The Speaker
said, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the course which it would be now necessary to pursue. On examining the lists, he found notices had been given of many alterations to parts of the Bill which had already passed. But the House would first have to agree to the amendments suggested by the noble Lord this evening, if they were agreed to, then each of the former notices would come on in its turn as it stood in the list. If any alterations intended to be proposed were included in the amendments which were now brought up, they could be included, and made part of any discussion to which the amendments might give rise.

§ Mr. Croker
suggested the expediency of not reading any clauses except those in which amendments were proposed.

§ The Speaker
said, if any hon. Gentleman would now state what amendments he intended to propose, it would then be seen whether such amendments were comprised in the Bill or not.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
thought it would very much meet the convenience of the House to re-commit the Bill, with the understanding that the Report should be agreed to without discussion.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that he had so much experience of the Committee, that he did not feel disposed to go into it again. The first amendment which he had to propose 1395 would be in the sixth clause. Any Gentlemen having to propose amendments to previous clauses, must take their opportunities as the clauses were read. The Amendment he had to propose in the sixth clause was merely of a verbal nature.
The question, "That these amendments be now read a second time" was put, and it was finally arranged, that the amendments should be severally proposed according to the order in which they stood in the Bill.
A number of verbal amendments were then read, seriatim, and agreed to.
On the Clerk reading the verbal amendments in the 21st, or 10l. qualification clause,

§ Mr. Trevor
said, that the increase in the number of voters which the clause, in its present state, would occasion, must, necessarily, be productive of considerable tumult and confusion at elections. It would be a near approach to Universal Suffrage. In the suburbs of the metropolis, and some other large towns, persons renting houses at a much higher rate than 10l. a-year, received parish relief. He was persuaded that 20l. was quite low enough. He would, therefore, move, "That the household franchise in and round London, and in all commercial and manufacturing towns, be raised from 10l. to 20l."

§ Lord Althorp
said, he should most certainly oppose the amendment; it went to destroy the very principle of the Bill.

§ Mr. Trevor
said, this would be too great an encroachment on the rights of non-resident freemen: he should, therefore move, that the distance be twenty, instead of seven miles.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that such a change would affect one of the principles of the Bill. He thought seven miles would include all those freemen who had a direct interest in the welfare of the place.

An Hon. Member,
on the Ministerial side, suggested, that ten miles should be a compromise between the two distances.

Mr. Hughes Hughes
thought, that as fifteen miles was to be the distance for freeholders to travel to the poll, the same dis- 1396 tance would be fair for freemen in boroughs.

Mr. Estcourt
was favourable to the greater distance.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
thought fifteen miles not too much to travel to enjoy the privilege of voting.

Lord John Russell
thought seven miles the most reasonable distance, because it was a distance which a man might travel without being entitled to claim a large sum from the candidate on account of travelling.

Mr. Goulburn
said, that the noble Lord had not kept that principle in view in other parts of the Bill; for in many of the opened boroughs, voters would have to go a distance of seventeen miles.

§ Mr. Trevor
would adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Oxford, and reduce the distance in his Amendment to fifteen miles.

§ Mr. Croker
rose amid a cry of "question" from the bar; he said he was sorry to delay the Gentlemen who had just entered the House, but consoled himself with thinking, that he should, perhaps, stand between them and a division in which, from not having heard the debate or even the question, they might possibly have made a mistake, and not have voted on the right side. His object in rising was, to observe, that he concurred in the Amendment; but considering that the subject had been already fully discussed in the Committee, and considering also the state of the House, and the state of business, and of the season, he did hope that his hon. friend would not again debate and divide on questions which had already occupied the attention of the Committee so long.

Mr. Baring
asked, how were they to understand seven miles distant? Was it to be from the place of taking the poll, or from any part of the borough?

§ Lord Althorp
said, it was intended to be seven miles from any part of the city or borough.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, the expression so often made use of by the noble Paymaster of the Forces during this evening, and adopted by his friends, that the distance (seven miles), which he presumed meant from any part of the place at which the right of voting originated, was the natural limit pointed out by the circumstances, reminded him strongly of a somewhat similar expression in fashion when the same political parties (the Whigs) were in office, and continually during the 1397 debates of that period on the subject of the income tax, for three months, namely, that the duty of ten per cent on property was the natural proportion that property ought to pay to the State. Perhaps there was equal truth and correctness in the calculation of 1831, as in that of 1806. He would therefore suggest to the noble Lord to split the difference, and then they should have a "natural limit" of ten miles.

Lord John Russell
said, they understood the clause in the same sense as the hon. and learned Gentleman, that seven miles from any part of the place where the right of voting originated, was meant.

§ Mr. Trevor
would adopt the sugggestion of his right hon. friend, the member for Aldeburgh, and not press his Amendment.

§ Mr. Croker
said, that he had very strong objections, not of a personal nature, but on public grounds, to many of the individuals named as the Commissioners, but as he had had an opportunity heretofore of making his objection in the Committee, an opportunity, however, of which, in consequence of a temporary absence, he did not avail himself; but as he had had the opportunity, he did not think that his absence when that part of the subject was discussed, would justify him now in raising a debate on this part of the clause. He rose, therefore, not to enter upon the subject now, but to protest against his silence being considered as implying an approval of the choice of the Commissioners, in some instances, and against its being understood, that he should thereby be precluded from adverting to the subject at a future stage of the Bill, when, by common consent, there was to be a general discussion of the whole measure. He hoped that, at that period, he should not be thrown back, and told, that he had let the time pass when his objections would have come more regularly on the bringing up of the report. He preferred urging his objections on the third reading, 1398 when he should take a review of the whole measure.

§ Lord Althorp
said, it would be competent to the right hon. Gentleman to make his objection at the third reading.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
objected to any Members of that House being named as Commissioners, particularly if they were taken from one side of the House, and had already supported the Bill. They would, of course, endeavour to uphold what they had supported in that House. He should therefore move, that the names of the member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), the member for Bodmyn (Mr. Davies Gilbert), and that of J. Wrottesley, Esq., be omitted from the list of Commissioners.

Lord Ingestrie
seconded the Motion. He had a high respect for the hon. member for Staffordshire, but, on principle, he could not approve of any Member as a Commissioner who was a partizan for the Bill. He thought it was highly objectionable that they should have in the list one member for Staffordshire, and the son of another.

Lord John Russell
observed, that, of the two Members selected, one had voted for the second reading of the Bill, and the other against it.

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
said, as he had promised to vote for a motion of the hon. member for Lincoln which stood for tomorrow, he did not know whether that hon. Member intended to move it that evening. He certainly concurred with him in thinking, that no Member of that House ought to be placed on the Commission. To enact that any Member of that House should be appointed by the Bill to carry such an important part of it into effect—to have the power of deciding who should or who should not have a right to vote, was a proposition so glaring and flagrant, as, in his opinion, had never before been submitted to Parliament. He did not look to the power which they were to have of making a geographical division of counties, for much of that was already effected; but his great objection was, that any Members of that House, or that any Commission should have the power of deciding, who were or who were not the persons who should have the right of voting in the places adjacent to cities or boroughs. It would scarcely be believed, that in legislating on the formation of a new Constitution, such an anomaly as this was allowed to pass. He had hitherto abstained from 1399 taking any prominent part in this Bill, because he believed that Ministers would never be able to carry it, or to make it a permanent measure. If they had wished for a sound plan of Reform, they might have one more general and simple—one embracing more of the property of the country. The plan they had proposed was full of the most glaring anomalies, but none were greater than that of naming a Commission to say who should or who should not have the right of voting. He would state his belief, that this Bill would never pass into a law: but if it should pass, it would be by resorting to measures so strong as had never before been resorted to for any political purpose; but unless the principle of vote-making, on which this Commission was founded, were extended to higher places—unless the plan of faggot-votes were adopted, the Bill would never pass. But if this were adopted, what would be the opinion of the country? When inquiry should be made, why this man and the other had been raised from what they were to what they should then have become, and to what, from the very nature of the circumstances out of which the change in their station had arisen, they could not long enjoy—the answer would be, that they were faggot-votes, that they were faggot-peers, who were made for a particular purpose, and who could not be expected to enjoy their elevation for more than a year or two. For, as he had already observed, the very circumstances out of which the change had been made with respect to them, it was not to be expected that they could long continue to enjoy their new station. He repeated his conviction, that without some faggot-votes elsewhere the Bill would never pass; and even then, if it did, it would be necessary to have another Bill, to give the people that which this Bill professed to give, but which it would never confer—a full, fair, and free Representation in Parliament.

Lord John Russell
said, the reason why the hon. Members alluded to were appointed was, that as questions would arise on the decisions of the Commissioners, it would be extremely convenient that some of them should be present who could explain the grounds on which those decisions had been made. The reason why the hon. member for Staffordshire was named, was that he was a person who could apply his mind most usefully to the object of the Commission, Another person, whom it 1400 had been proposed to omit, was Mr. Davies Gilbert, who had lately been President of the Royal Society; a man more eminent, in this country and in foreign countries, for his scientific pursuits, than for any degree of party zeal or party spirit. These were not the only Members they had proposed. Of these two, one had been in favour of the Bill, the other opposed it, though not with the violence or vehemence of others. Another, who was a decided opponent of the Bill, and who it was intended to name as a Commissioner, was the hon. member for Radnor (Mr. Frank-land Lewis), who, after considering the matter for some time, told him (Lord John Russell) that he did not like to undertake the office, as he had expressed a strong opinion regarding the Bill, and intended to oppose it at a future stage. If it was an accusation against his Majesty's Ministers that they did not put persons in the Commission who opposed the Bill—he answered that they had proposed a person who was not friendly to the Bill. There was another gentleman, not a member of that House, whom it would have been a great omission on their part if they had not proposed to take part in the commission—Mr. Sturges Bourne; but he had expressed his determination (however he might be disposed to co-operate in a public object like this) not to take any part in the Commission. Some Gentleman had said, that the Commissioners were persons generally favourable to the Bill; but although they might be persons favourable to what was termed a liberal line of policy, he did not, therefore, conclude that they would enter warmly into politics in favour of one party or another, or that they were men likely to swerve from what they honestly thought was most practicable and expedient for the country in the division of counties. If the hon. member for Launceston meant to make any charges against the Commissioners, he begged to say, that he was ready to meet those charges, and he would contend, that the great respectability and integrity of the gentlemen in the list rendered them as fit to discharge the duty as any persons who could be proposed. They were the persons whom Ministers had proposed, and the House in its deliberate judgment was to approve. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. Vyvyan), in the warmth of his declamation, had reminded him of the speech delivered by the hon. Baronet, on the last day of the last Parliament, 1401 when he seemed to be influenced by a presentiment of that rejection which he had subsequently met with from his constituents. The hon. Baronet had thought fit to attack them, as Ministers of the Crown, on these nominations, though he seemed to have forgotten what other Members, more temperate and sedate, had been aware of—that these Commissioners had not the absolute power of deciding the boundaries of counties; that their office was merely to make a report, and on the adoption of that report by both Houses of Parliament, and an Address to his Majesty, those boundaries and limits would be settled, not at the will and pleasure of the Commissioners, but by the deliberate adoption of their report, and its confirmation by his Majesty and both Houses of Parliament. Besides his charges, the hon. Baronet had ventured, to deal in prophecies and prognostications. Through these he should not attempt to follow him; but one of them he would just notice. He told the House, in his vision of futurity, that this Bill would not be passed—that it would never become law. He did not pretend to the same power of prophecy; but would risk an affirmation that this Bill would be passed, and that it would become law. "The difficulties," continued the noble Lord, "I admit, are still great, but the feeling of the country in favour of the Bill continues unabated. I trust, therefore, as well to the inherent merits of the Bill, as to its adoption by the country, that I shall see this Bill soon pass into a law; and I will not be seduced by any remarks or allusions which the hon. Baronet may make, in the summit and height of his indiscretion, to enter into discussions as to what will be the fate of the Bill in the other House of Parliament, where, when it shall have passed this House, it will go to receive that consideration which it will deserve, seeing that it will come from a House of Commons elected by the people, called, as they had been, to elect a House of Commons on that special ground. I say, coming from a House of Commons so elected, where this Bill has received a deliberate consideration, I am sure it will obtain in the other House that consideration which is due to a question of the Reform of the House of Commons, supported by such authority, and coming from such a body, backed by the feelings of the country; and I am sure, much as the Bill has been 1402 maligned here, much as the hon. Baronet and his friends have tried to vilify it, and to diminish the benefits which we say will flow from this measure, that a Bill which has obtained the approbation of the House of Commons, of the Government, and of the country, deserves to be passed into a law."

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
rose, but was interrupted by cries of "spoke," "order," "question."

§ The Speaker
said, the question was, whether the name of Edward John Littleton stand part of the clause.

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
again attempted to speak, but was called to order.

§ The Speaker
said, that it was a question, not of order, but of recollection. If the hon. Baronet had spoken after the question had been put, he had not a right to speak again. If he had spoken before it, he had a right. The hon. Member knew which was the fact

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
said, he felt it necessary to address some observations to the House, after the personal appeal which had been made to him, in rather an uncalled for way, by the noble Lord. He would not have addressed the House again upon this clause, if he had not been called upon in language which, he must repeat, was uncalled for. He had spoken in general, the noble Lord in individual, terms. If he had lost the confidence of the majority of those who had formerly returned him, at least he was entitled to speak the sentiments of the thousands who had voted for him; and although the representative of Oakhampton or of any other borough, he should always claim as great a share of independence as the noble Lord opposite, and as much patriotism as those who sat beside the noble Lord. He would, therefore, offer his opinions to the House, regardless of the noble Lord's taunts upon himself; and although he might not admit that he had been indiscreet in saying what he had said, for there was no indiscretion in alluding to the progress of the Bill; yet, when he looked at the form of this clause, and considered the influence which it would confer, and the unnecessary machinery which it contained, he confessed he had been tempted to say more than he had intended to say; but he could not allow that it was an act of indiscretion. With respect to this clause, he asked, why should any engineer be appointed? What had engineers to 1403 do with the constitution of Parliament? Any thing more absurd and childish than the appointment of an engineer for this purpose, he never heard. It was not a question of hill and dale, and a more childish arrangement could not be well imagined. As to the appeal which, the noble Lord said, had been made to the country, he knew that such appeal had been made by his Majesty's Ministers, accompanied by such a plan of alteration in the Representation of the people as had never been seen before. Under these circumstances, could there be any doubt, at the time of the appeal, what the effect would be? The moment he heard of it he was persuaded, that they would carry any bill of that kind in that manner. This might be a subject of congratulation to his Majesty's Ministers, but they would find they had raised a spirit which they could never again lay. But the noble lord said, he had indulged in prognostications; but were not the Ministers also prophets? Why did they bring this Bill forward? Because, they said, there was no alternative but reform or revolution; and if the Bill was carried, all would be peace and tranquillity. Was there no prognostication in that? Had they had any proof, in the examples of other countries which enabled them to announce such effects from it? So far as the evidence of experience went, he might cite examples to prove, that any great attempt to make a change in the supreme legislative institutions of a country was always productive of evil; and he could defy them to produce examples to refute his assertion. So much for their prognostics, and so much for his. When the Parliament was dissolved, he said that a revolution had then commenced. And why did he say so? Because his Majesty's Ministers had appealed to those who were interested in upsetting the existing state of things in the country. The noble Lord said an appeal had been made to the people. To what people had that appeal been made? To those people whom they were now pronouncing unfit to exercise the elective franchise, and whom they were depriving of rights which they had enjoyed for a long period of time; and what proof had they, that in a year or two hence they might not be told that the new Legislature had been elected by persons who were not fit to exercise the privileges of a constituent body—that this Bill was passed by a Parliament declared to be corrupt— 1404 that it must be altogether without authority or operation, because the Parliament which passed it had, by that very Act, declared its own incompetency and usurpation? How could they tell that the Bill might not be rescinded on these grounds? He knew that this was not a time to propose a plan of Reform; but those who sat in the last Parliament might recollect, that when he moved the postponement of the second reading to that day six months, he said it was his intention to propound a resolution declaring the necessity of some Reform. He assured the noble Lord, upon his honour, that it was not from his own feeling that he had not proposed the Resolution as an Amendment upon the second reading. Whatever he thought that Reform ought to be—whether it ought to consist of giving Representatives to large towns, or of any interference with those boroughs which were called rotten boroughs, because they contained but few inhabitants—he confessed he had not at that time made up his mind, because it must have been guided in a great measure by the sense of the House. But he felt that the House was now in a different position. An appeal had been made to the people. His Majesty's Ministers had set themselves at the head of a movement such as had never before been seen in this country. Those Members might be accused of abandoning their principles who, having been formerly opposed to all Reform, were now inclined to accept a modified Reform. But what was the necessity which caused this? His Majesty's Ministers, the King's servants, had submitted a plan to his Majesty's subjects, and had called upon them, by all their feelings of honesty to their King, and by every principle of loyalty to those who were set over them—and he hoped such feelings might never be abandoned or forgotten—to support their plan, extensive in its objects, but, as he contended, impossible to be efficient. The time was, therefore, past. It was no longer in the power of those at his side of the House to resist some change. They thought this Bill bad; they wished for something that might be permanent. They saw no principle of permanency in this measure. They wished to have a House of Commons which would not quail to any seditious assembly, which would maintain its own power, and which would exert itself to give stability to property, being careful only to make slight and 1405 gradual alterations. This was the apology which he made for saying, that he was now a Reformer to a greater extent than when the Bill was first brought forward. It was impossible to resist the appeal which had been made, for his Majesty's Ministers had appealed to a power which no Government in its sober senses had hitherto appealed to. He said that this Bill contained as many anomalies as the old system, which was now so much reviled, and in no instance did he find an anomaly more gross and flagrant than in this clause. Those who were rejected by the Commissioners, would naturally feel themselves unjustly treated, when others similarly circumstanced were preferred to them. There ought to be some security that those who should be returned hereafter would not overturn the institutions of the country. As to delay, it was monstrous to make such a charge, when the House had been but four months engaged upon a measure of such vast importance as this. It might be satisfactory to some, to think that the Bill would be carried by means of arguments, which he would not only call seditious, but to which he would apply a stronger term, and designate them as treasonable, if they were meant to intimidate those in another place, and compel them to pass the measure in spite of their inclinations. He believed the power was now in the hands of his Majesty's Government, accompanied by a more tremendous responsibility than any other Government had ever sustained. He feared they did not perceive the position—the tremendous position—in which they stood at the present moment. He believed they had the power, and might decide by a single dash of the pen, or a few signatures, that the Bill should pass. But that power involved so terrific a responsibility, that he thought that Government would be a bold one which, without any precedent, would force on a measure carrying with it the annihilation of that body which it affected to increase. The country was in a tremendous situation but he trusted that it would long find, as it had hitherto found, its interests carefully guarded by those who constituted one of the great bulwarks of the Constitution. Let every man who enjoyed hereditary privileges, he cared not how high might be his station, recollect that the general interests of the country should be protected—that their power was upheld from a 1406 consideration that it existed for the advantage of the country, not for themselves. Power was possessed by the few for the benefit of the many. If he had no other reason for saying what he had said, than that at this moment the French Chamber of Peers was held up in triumph to the people of that country, he thought that he was justified in pointing to that as a warning. There never had been a time when all those who had any thing to lose ought to look with more anxiety to the course of proceeding than at present. If he and others said this, believing it to be so, why should they not suppose that there were individuals in another place who would entertain similar sentiments, and would do all in their power to protect the institutions of their country? As to the admonitions with which the noble Lord had favoured him, he thanked him. As long as he was a Member of that House—whatever constituency he might represent—he would do his duty. He had the same respect for a Representative elected by two as by 20,000—because he had the same respect for a Peer, who was elected by nobody, as for those who were the Representatives of the mob. He could assure the noble Lord that he was now, like him, a Reformer, although he was not an advocate for this Bill. He would say, on behalf of those who had opposed the Duke of Wellington, that they knew well that Earl Grey's party would come in—that Earl Grey would be Prime Minister. Indeed, such was the conjecture of every rational man—they were even prepared to consider his views, or what they believed to be his views, with respect to a Reform in Parliament; but it appeared that they had been most strangely mistaken with regard to the extent of his reformation. The country had suffered in consequence of that vote by which the Ministers had gained; but the Opposition voted without any personal object; and he believed that a time would come when their motives would be duly appreciated, even by those who had done their best to turn the members of that Opposition out of Parliament. He must apologize for having so long trespassed upon the time of the House; but he should not have done justice to his friends about him, or himself, or to those who voted for him at the contest to which the noble Lord had alluded—had he not made some remarks in reply to the personalities of the noble Lord.

§ Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, the hon. Baronet had made a long and eloquent speech, touching on various subjects, and the conduct of Members, before Parliament was dissolved; but he could not help saying the hon. Baronet had attacked the clause appointing Commissioners with unnecessary severity. He was not an admirer of the Bill, but if counties were to be divided, it must be done by some one, and experience showed that the House of Commons was not the best instrument to undertake the duty. It was impossible that a fairer list could be drawn out. It had no political complexion, and two of the Commissioners, with whom he had some acquaintance, were decided opponents of the Bill.

Mr. Baring
admitted, that for the division of counties the Commission was unobjectionable, but when they came to the division of boroughs, and the regulation of the right of voting, he would say, that the power granted to these Commissioners should not be granted to any individuals whatever. Suppose the case of a borough which had nearly 300 voters, for want of a few to make up that number, these Commissioners would have the power to bring in a large body of voters from twelve to twenty-one miles. This was a power so enormous, so unprecedented in the history of the country, that he looked with jealousy upon any body of men, however respectable, who might have to exercise it. The necessity of employing them regarding boroughs, might have been obviated by the simple means of taking the 10l. householders as far as they would go, then householders of a smaller rate, and lastly, scot and lot voters, if a given number could not have been made up without them. He considered that he had done only his duty in supporting the institutions of the country, and certainly should not complain if he found himself in the same situation as such men as Sir Thomas Acland, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Palmer, and others. He was sure the country hereafter would do justice to their endeavours.

§ Mr. Hunt
thought it would be better if Members of Parliament were left out of the Commission; it would be more satisfactory to the country. The noble Lord had spoken in rather a high tone, when he said, not indeed that the Bill should pass, but something near it—that the Bill would pass. Notwithstanding this high tone, 1408 and notwithstanding the noble Lord's declaration that the feeling of the country was still as warm as ever in favour of the Bill, he was prepared to state, that the opinion of the country was not so warm as it had been—that the people were not so anxious about the Bill as they were at first. He would now ask his Majesty's Ministers, whether they had read what appeared in the leading journal of yesterday? He would ask them, whether they were of opinion that that was the sort of language and the tone to be taken by a journal professing to be under the influence of his Majesty's Ministers? The noble Lord, the other night, referring to a statement of his (Mr. Hunt's), had called it a most monstrous proposition. He would ask the noble Lord, if that language and those threats to the other House were the most likely way to effect his object? He (Mr. Hunt) could enter into the feelings of noble-minded and honourable men; and if he was a Peer of Parliament, as he was not, and never should be—if he was a Member of that noble House, and heard, day after day, threats from the Press, and the remarks in that House, even if he had given his consent to the Bill before, he would stand up and oppose it. Nothing could induce him to yield to such menaces, if the consequences were even the sacrifice of property and title. Endeavours had been made to put down him also by intimidation; but nothing that the bullies of the Press said against him should deter him from his duty. He hoped the Bill would pass. He did not care if it did not. What he rose to say was, that if this question came to a division, he should vote against Ministers. He did not care whether the Bill passed or not. He did not anticipate much good from it, whatever others might.

§ Mr. Henry Grattan
said, the hon. Baronet, the member for Oakhampton, upon the mere question whether certain Members should remain attached to the Commission, had entered into the details of the French revolution, the state of the Chambers, the Wellington Administration, and faggot votes. Something had been said about the right of young Members to express their opinions with pertinacity, but he would say, in the days of Mr. Fox and Lord Castlereagh, no young Member would have made the speech they had heard from the hon. Baronet. He contended the hon. Baronet had mistaken the 1409 clause respecting the division of counties. He would strictly avoid the parliamentary conduct of the right hon. Baronet, for he had heard the hon. Baronet, upon one night, argue in opposition to what he had contended for the night before. This was the case with respect to the Irish Reform Bill. The hon. Baronet might not respect the Treasury benches, but the people of England he must respect, although he was a Member for one of those boroughs which deprived the people of their rights.

Mr. Goulburn
said, that considering the hon. member for Meath rose for the purpose of recalling the attention of the House to the question before it, he must say, he had rarely heard a more unsuccessful attempt than had been made by that hon. Member. He would not follow the course of the hon. Member, but adhere to the particular question before the House. He entertained a high respect for the hon. Gentleman whose name it was proposed should stand part of the clause, but he had a public duty to perform, and in the conscientious discharge of that duty, he must oppose the Motion. Mr. Littleton had been a Member of that House throughout the discussions upon the Bill, and therefore, it was indelicate, injudicious, and improper, to name that hon. Gentleman as one of the Commissioners who were to decide the boundaries of the new boroughs, and to divide the counties. He certainly was astonished at the noble Lord naming his hon. friend as a Commissioner, after the manner in which his right hon. friend, the member for Radnor, had declined allowing his name to make one of the same list. The reasons given by his right hon. friend for his refusal, were at once so delicate and so proper, that he wondered they had not prevented the noble Lord from placing the name of any Member of that House upon the list of Commissioners. But, said the noble Lord, the character of Mr. Littleton is un impeached. He admitted that to be the fact; but that was no reason why the House should depart from an important principle, and in so doing, place Members in a situation in, which their characters might be brought in question, and the confidence of the public in Parliament consequently weakened. He objected particularly, to a Member of that House being appointed who was connected with the districts to be divided, and if he was rightly informed, the hon. Gentleman 1410 in question was intimately connected with some of those new boroughs to be created. Why was it, that in Election Committees the parties interested were allowed to strike out so many names? It was not because that House entertained any doubt of the efficiency of the Members appointed, or of the integrity and purity of their characters, but in order that the public should not have any ground whatever for questioning the conduct of the House. He readily admitted the high character of Mr. Littleton; but that hon. Gentleman had strong political feelings, and he had shown those feelings upon more than one, two, or three occasions with respect to the Reform Bill. But, said the noble Lord, if there be no Members of Parliament among the Commissioners, who is to defend or explain the conduct of that body to the House? That argument might do very well for the night; but surely the noble Lord must have known, that it was good for nothing more. Had not the House of Peers to address the Crown upon the Report of the Commissioners; and if the House of Commons required to have some of the Commissioners taken from among its Members, in order that the views of that body might be explained to it, might not the House of Peers make a similar demand? But he contended, that that House wanted no such assistance as that contemplated by the noble Lord. All that that House wanted, was a Report framed by such Commissioners as were entirely free from suspicion, and it had local information and knowledge sufficient within itself to enable it to properly appreciate the arrangement recommended. He, therefore, opposed the Motion; not on the ground that any imputation could be cast upon the character of Mr. Littleton, but upon the ground, that his hon. friend, being a Member of that House, and a party to the Bill, would subject his conduct to suspicion, and consequently prove injurious to the character of the House. The argument the noble Lord appeared to rely on was, that it might be necessary some Gentlemen, Members of that House, should take a part in the Commission, to explain the grounds on which certain districts were to be divided. There was to be an Address to the Crown on the Report of the Commissioners, to which the House of Lords must be a party. But he had not observed the name of any noble Peer to the Commission. The noble Lord 1411 would, therefore, appear to deny that right to the other House which he seemed to think it right should be conceded to this. In the few remarks he had made, he had purposely avoided discussing the principle of the clause, which he considered to be extremely objectionable, and had spoken with a view to render that clause as perfect as possible.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly kept his word, and strictly confined himself to the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that if Members of that House were required to assist the House in coming to a just decision, why then the House of Peers would also require some similar assistance. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not see how Peers could be appointed Commissioners, for that would be a direct interference with the privileges of that House. He certainly was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman object to the appointment of a gentleman to the office of Commissioner who had expressed a decided opinion with regard to it. He admitted, that if the name of the proposed Commissioner was that of one who had betrayed strong party feelings, it might be some ground of objection, but surely nothing of that sort applied to the present case. The clause was necessarily such as required either Commissioners or a Committee; the latter must be composed of Members of Parliament, and, therefore, the former was the more eligible. The right hon. Gentleman (the member for Radnorshire) had not declined acting as a Commissioner because he was a Member of that House. He had heard no reason advanced which ought to preclude Members of that House from being appointed Commissioners.

§ Mr. Croker
thought it would be more desirable to take the final sense of the House upon this question at another period—but still, should the sense of the House be taken that night, he should vote for the amendment. He objected to the appointment of Mr. Littleton as one of the Commissioners, not merely on the ground that that gentleman was a Member of Parliament, but that he was a Member of this particular Parliament, that he had distinguished himself by a good deal of zeal in behalf of one party in the House, that he was moreover a Member for one of the counties that were to be 1412 divided, and that he had, as Mr. Croker had been informed, an interest in one of the new boroughs. He would not, however, then go into the question. Were he inclined to do so, there were several other names he should object to. He should object to the first name on the list—that of a learned Judge, the Chief Baron of Scotland. He also found in the list the names of a defeated candidate for a borough, and of an agent for a defeated candidate. Those gentlemen might be highly-respectable characters, but the public would not believe that they were impartial, and their names ought not to appear in the list. He rose not, however, to discuss the subject, but to suggest to his hon. and gallant friend, the propriety of withdrawing his amendment.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
acceded to the suggestion of his right hon. friend, and would take the sense of the House upon the subject on the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. C. W. Wynn,
in reference to two or three of the names which had the addition of "Royal Engineers" appended to them, asked what was the reason why so many of the Commissioners were taken from the Royal Engineers?

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that as the Commissioners would have the power of surveying the boundaries of districts, it was desirable to have some engineers in the Commission. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, he would rather ask, what objection could there be to have gentlemen from the Royal Engineers in the Commission?

§ Lord Stormont
asked how it was, that a clergyman's name appeared in the list? He thought it extremely improper, and that the rev. gentleman ought not to desert 1413 his parishioners for the purpose of engaging in political duties.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the reverend gentleman could not desert his parishioners, for he had none to desert. He understood that the reverend gentleman was a very scientific man, and a highly-respectable character.

§ Mr. Croker
said, he was really much astonished at this appointment. He remembered the time when hon. Gentlemen opposite had no greater delight than hunting as they called it apolitical parson, and now they proposed, most unnecessarily, to make one. He supposed it was in vain to offer any suggestion, and, therefore, he would only say, that he wished the reverend gentleman more joy of his zeal than he could of his taste.

Mr. Pringle
said, that a clergyman without the cure of souls was an anomaly which did not exist in the northern part of the island. If the reverend gentleman, however, had no parishioners, he supposed he had some spiritual duties to perform. He, therefore, protested against such a person being called upon to perform political duties: such an appointment could only be justified by the strongest reasons of political expediency. But there was no such necessity in this case; many persons could be found equally well qualified for the office as the reverend gentleman.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, that unless the duties to be performed by the reverend gentleman were such as could not be performed by any one else, the appointment was extremely objectionable. He wondered that any clergyman could be found willing to undertake the duties of a Commissioner.

§ Mr. Trevor
also, would enter his decided protest against this appointment.

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
wished to be informed how, under this clause, would the House be able to ascertain whether the Commissioners had acted fairly, if complaints should be made by any parties against their decision.

Lord John Russell
said, that if it could be shewn that any partiality had been exercised, the House would, of course, interfere to protect the parties from the decisions of the Commissioners. In reference to the gentlemen in this commission generally, and the clergyman in particular, hon. Gentlemen were quite mistaken when they supposed, that it would be the duty of the Commissioners to attend to the political interests and principles of the proprietors in those districts which 1414 they would have to divide. The Commissioners would have a defined duty to perform in the settling of those districts, and in the performance of it they would not be swayed by any particular interests.

§ Sir George Clerk
entirely agreed with the view taken by the noble Lord, as to the duties of the Commissioners, but he contended, that the only way to have these duties satisfactorily performed, was to appoint such gentlemen as Commissioners as were entirely free from suspicion. Pains also should be taken to keep the Commissioners uninfluenced. Why, for instance, was not the principle acted upon in the case of Barristers examining the registers of votes followed out? A Barrister examining a register, was rendered incompetent to sit in that House for eighteen months after having performed that act, and why should not a Commissioner be rendered incompetent to serve in the first Parliament after he had acted in that capacity?

§ Lord Althorp
said, if so many restrictions were to be imposed upon the Commissioners, they would not get any person to undertake the duties who were competent to perform them.

Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, the Bill provided, that sixteen of the Commissioners, at least, should be present at the framing of the general report. He supposed, that the intention of the Government was, that an absolute majority should be present, but he thought that was not sufficient, and that, instead of one-half being required to be present, two-thirds, or three-fourths should be required. It also appeared to him, that as the clause stood, the object of the Government would not be attained, for a majority of sixteen Commissioners might carry the report, instead of an absolute majority of the thirty-one Commissioners.
The name of Mr. Sheepshanks was then agreed to, as were the names of all the other Commissioners.
The Chairman continued to read the 23rd Clause; on coming to that part which provides, "that the Justices of the Peace at Quarter Sessions, shall determine at what places the Courts for the Election of Knights of the Shire for the respective divisions of Counties, when divided, shall beholden,"

Mr. Estcourt
protested against this provision in the Bill, which gave to Magistrates at Quarter Sessions the power of 1415 appointing the polling places. He would propose an Amendment which would have the effect of placing this duty in the hands of the Commissioners. He hoped that Ministers would allow such an Amendment to be received.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the reason for imposing this duty on the Magistrates was, that they had the advantage of possessing local knowledge.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, this clause had been materially altered in the Committee, and the effect of it would be, to give a double vote to certain classes of freeholders. This was the case of Shoreham; the freeholders of that place would have a right to vote for the borough of New Shoreham as well as the county of Sussex.

§ Lord Althorp
said, they had that right at present, and the clause merely secured it to them for their lives.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
Suppose the case of a non-resident freeholder, would such a person have a right to vote for both county and borough.

§ Lord Althorp
If the freeholder did not reside within seven miles, he would lose his vote for the borough.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
so understood it, but what he desired to know was, whether a person living in a 10l. house, who would, of course, have a right to vote for the borough, would also have or retain, the right of voting for his freehold, because it was also situated within the districts of the borough of new Shoreham.

§ Lord Althorp
The occupancy of the house was wholly distinct, and had nothing whatever to do with the freehold, the latter was a reserved right, and entitled the possessor to a double vote for life.

Mr. Wynn
said, the House knew the gross errors to which country Overseers were liable. Under the present Act, however, 1416 in case of a misnomer, a party so situated, would lose his right to vote without remedy. This would particularly occur in the case of freeholders who were non-Residents.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
said, he agreed with his right hon. friend, both as to the carelessness and ignorance of Overseers, but there were other objections besides these to the clause. There was the expense to which large places would be liable, in making these returns, and he had no doubt they would hear many complaints of the additional rates imposed upon parishes by the operation of this Bill

§ Lord Althorp
said, all these objections had been amply discussed in the Committee, and they had come to the conclusion, that the present was the best plan that could be devised to atain the objectin view.

Mr. Wynn
said, it must be obvious, that many non-resident freeholders could have no means of correcting the returns. Suppose an ignorant Overseer mis-spelt a man's name, and nothing was more common, unless it was corrected before the registry, the person was disqualified. They had only to look at the Land-tax returns to find numerous examples of these errors. In large parishes there could be no proper control, and many names would be inserted which ought not to appear in the registries, he was satisfied there would be such frauds committed, as would make it necessary to amend the clause within a very short time.

§ Lord Althorp
said, in reply to his right hon. friend, that for wilful errors or gross neglect, the aggrieved party had his remedy in an action, and there was always the appeal to the Barrister with every facility to obtain redress. He did not apprehend so much danger from fictitious votes as his right hon. friend seemed to entertain, but even in cases of this sort there was a remedy by action, while the House had also the power to inflict imprisonment.