§ Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Mr. Stuart Worthyinquired whether the Scotch Reform Bill, now before the House, might be relied upon as the Bill to be read a second time next week, or whether any alterations were contemplated which would render it desirable that the Bill should be reprinted before it came under discussion?
The Lord Advocatesaid, that according to the forms of the House, the only bill which could be read a second time was that which had been read a first time. The alterations made as to the general qualification of voters in the English Bill would be transferred to the Scotch Bill, and some other alterations might be made, calculated to obviate objections.
§ The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report read.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, he should move, that the names of certain places included in 59 schedules A and B should be omitted, in order to record his sentiments on the subject; but, after the decisions the House had already come to, he should not think it necessary to enter into any argument on the subject. He had found what he thought unanswerable arguments wholly unavailing; he had seen the majority voting on the same evening propositions absolutely contradictory, and therefore he had no hope that any good could be done by repeating arguments which had never been answered, and multiplying divisions, of which every body could foresee the result. The places on which he should ask the question to be put were only those on which, as he considered, the principle of the Bill had been deviated from.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman intended merely to record his sentiments on the insertion of particular boroughs, and did not enter into the grounds on which his opinion rested, he hoped that he (Lord J. Russell) might be excused if he declined stating again the reasons on which he thought these boroughs ought to be retained in schedules A and B.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, he had not found the noble Lord so ready to answer his arguments, when he had used any, that he should expect an answer now, when no arguments were used. The right hon. Gentleman then moved seriatim, "That the boroughs of Fowey, Minehead, New Romney, Plympton, St. Germain's, Wareham, and Woodstock, should be omitted from schedule A; and the boroughs of Chippenham, Clitheroe, and Cockermouth omitted from schedule B."
§ These motions were severally negatived.
§ Mr. Pigottwas anxious to take the last opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the claims of the three county towns of Guildford, Dorchester, and Huntingdon, which the Bill partially disfranchised, by placing in schedule B. He thought it would be found, that, in all the three cases, if the population of the suburbs was added, these towns might be said to have more than 4,000 inhabitants, and upwards of 300 10l. houses. The counties in which these towns were situated were also hardly dealt with. Surrey was mulcted of seven Members, Dorset shire of nine, and Huntingdon had only three left. No less than sixteen towns, which retain the right to return two Members, have fewer 10l. houses than Dorchester; 60 and the other places he had mentioned had not a much less proportion in their favour. Again, if they looked at the assessed taxes, a number of towns, which were to be fully represented, contributed a smaller amount than the three towns he had enumerated. These towns were places of considerable business, both public and private. He begged, therefore, to move, "That the towns of Dorchester, Guildford, and Huntingdon, being county towns, be taken out of schedule B, and continue to return two Members to Parliament."
§ Mr. Crokerseconded the Motion which he himself should have made, if his hon. friend had not anticipated him, but having so frequently and recently troubled the House on this topic, he would reserve what he had to say until a future occasion.
Mr. Denisonsaid, that though he had supported the Bill in every stage, and advocated its principles, he was of opinion that the three towns which were the subject of the Motion, and which were wealthy and respectable, ought to be allowed to continue to return two Members. With respect to a remark made by the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Motion, where in he said, Surrey had been mulcted of seven Members, the accuracy of this he must beg leave to dispute. The noble persons who held borough property might be mulcted, but most certainly the county had nothing to do in electing the Members who were to be taken away.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that having voted for the town he represented (Bridport) losing one of its Members, he hoped Ministers would not accede to the proposition to give two Members to the towns which were the subject of the Motion.
§ Sir George Warrenderthought it inconsistent with the principle of the Bill that towns having 500 electors, and which were not nomination boroughs, should be disfranchised. He entered his protest, for the last time, against disfranchising these ancient and respectable towns.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if Guildford, Dorchester, and Huntingdon were taken out of schedule B, because they were county towns, Appleby and Ilchester must be omitted from schedule A on the same principle. Under all the circumstances, it was impossible for his Majesty's Ministers to accede to the proposition.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, there was no part of the Bill the injustice of which was more strongly felt than that which went to disfranchise 61 the county towns. He was well acquainted with Guildford, and knew it to be a thriving and flourishing place, in which the whole of the county business was transacted. If the whole population of continuous houses which formed the town were taken in, it would amount to upwards of 4,000, and the town contributed more to the assessed taxes than thirty-two towns which were to hold their full franchise. It was an arbitrary violation of the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, he had yet heard no reason why, in some cases, districts were added to boroughs to make up the requisite amount of population; whilst, in other cases, the population of the suburbs was severed from the towns, to bring the population under the amount.
Lord John Russellsaid, his Majesty's Ministers would have been very glad to have allowed those county towns to retain two Representatives, if the population amounted to 4,000; but neither Guildford, Dorchester, nor Huntingdon, had 4,000.
Mr. Denisonthought Guildford had not been fairly dealt with. By the population returns of 1821, it contained a population of 4,112. Under those circumstances, he felt disposed to divide the House on the question, that Guildford should be omitted from schedule B.
Mr. Herriessaid, that as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Denison) were at issue on a question of fact, as far as it related to Guildford, it was better not to divide the House at present, but to allow the fact to be ascertained before the third reading.
Lord John Russellcould not indulge in the hope that any new information could be produced on this subject. The account to which the hon. member for Surrey had referred, included the population of a small hamlet adjoining Guildford.
§ Motion negatived.
§ Mr. Crokerthen moved, that Helston, Grimsby, Lymington, and Sudbury, should be omitted from schedule B.—Negatived without a division.
Mr. Peers Williams, as one of the Representatives of Great Marlow, wished to place its actual state distinctly before the House. He understood the principle of the Bill to be, to disfranchise decayed and decaying boroughs; Great Marlow could not be classed under either head; it was in a state of progressive improvement; the 62 population, according to the census of 1831, nearly doubled that of 1821. If it was compared with the neighbouring borough of Wycombe, which was to return two Members, it would be found very little inferior in numbers or respectability. In 1831 its population was 4,237. Let them look, too, at the constituency. The Marlow franchise was scot and lot, and the number of its voters was 444; in Wycombe, the franchise was vested in the Mayor and Burgesses, and their numbers were only 170. There were only two points to consider in this case; either that the Government were ignorant of the actual circumstances of the borough, or that they were acting partially in favour of Wycombe; he begged, therefore, to move, that Great Marlow be removed from schedule B, and be allowed, as at present, to return two Members.
§ Sir George Warrendersaid, that many towns which did not possess so many electors, or 10l. houses, as Great Grimsby, were, by this Bill, to continue to return two Representatives. The measure had been called final, but he assured the noble Lord, and the House, if he should happen to be a Member of the next, or a Reformed Parliament, he would endeavour to re-open the whole question, for it was most unjust, in his mind, that boroughs, which did not contain so great a population, or pay so large an amount of taxation, as some which were to be disfranchised, should still retain their privileges to return two Representatives.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellfully agreed with his hon. friend, that this question would be re-opened in a Reformed Parliament. As to himself, he must say, that he did not expect to have a seat in the Reformed Parliament, even if one could be chosen under this Bill, which he very much doubted, for he would never condescend to offer delusive promises on the hustings, to become a delegate, instead of being, what he now considered himself, an independent representative of the people.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he must again mention the name of Calne. He knew that place well, and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that it was a wretched and contemptible place, when compared with Dorchester, Guildford, or Huntingdon, and yet it was to retain its two Members, while the other towns were to be deprived of one: this was one beautiful proof of the consistency of the Bill.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, at a more convenient opportunity he should be prepared to enter into details, by which he hoped fully to prove, not that the noble Lords and the Ministers had acted partially, but that the Bill which they had introduced was flagrantly partial.
Lord John Russellwas ready to admit, that, if population was the only ground of the Bill, with respect to certain towns which were to lose part of their Members, while others were to retain theirs, there would be found some inconsistency; but they were prepared to justify it upon higher principle. If, however, the hon. Gentleman meant to charge them with having selected particular places, with party views or private affections, he would meet such an imputation as one reflecting on their personal characters, which he should be prepared to repel with indignation.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, he would name such places as Calne, Horsham, Westbury, and Morpeth, which he thought had been partially exempted, and he would leave the, House and the public to judge between the Ministers and him.
§ Motion negatived.
§ Lord Althorp moved, that the town of Ashton-under-Lyne be placed in schedule C. The reason for proposing this had already been explained by his noble friend—viz., that Government had agreed to take under their consideration the proposition, whether more Members ought to be given to Wales; and, on deliberation, they had agreed to give it two additional county Members. In order to act as a balance, therefore, to these county Members, Ministers had proposed to give two Members for populous places in Lancashire—namely, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Stroud. He should move, therefore, that Ashton-under-Lyne be placed in schedule C.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellwished to know on what principle these places were to be selected for Representatives, while Chelsea, and many other far more important and populous places, were obliged to do without Members? He also should like to know how the pledged men on the Ministerial benches—the men who were pledged and bound neck and heels to "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," would reconcile it to their consciences to sanction a measure which, as the present clause in itself showed, differed in every 64 letter from that to which they were sworn? How, he repeated, could they, after having pledged themselves to a specific Bill, explain it to their constituents that they had, nevertheless, agreed to a measure wholly different in every feature? Pledged they were—ay, sworn to obey the mandate—jurare in verba magistri—that master being, it was true, not Ministers, but their constituents, the people [hear], Hon. Members might cry "hear," but an impartial public knew very well, that as thus pledged, they were bound to act at the bidding of their constituents, without the permission of the faintest exercise of the deliberative and judicial functions of any constitutional Member of Parliament.
§ Lord Althorp, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, had simply to state, that the reason why Chelsea had not been inserted in schedules C or D was, that it was not deemed expedient to add to the metropolitan Representation more than had been under the Bill; and that it was thought right, that the constituency of Chelsea should belong to the county of Middlesex at large. The two places to which he then proposed to bestow the right of franchise, were large and populous manufacturing towns, which, otherwise, would not be as efficiently represented as the framers of the Bill contemplated. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman's taunt of the supporters of the Bill not possessing the freedom of their own judgment on its provisions, it was, perhaps, enough to remind the House of the fact, that whereas many of those very pledged supporters of the Bill divided, on more than one occasion, against Ministers, while the—he supposed he must say—unpledged Gentlemen opposite moved in such close party alliance, that they never, by accident, voted with Ministers in any of the numerous divisions which had taken place during the progress of the Bill.
§ Lord Ebringtonwas one of those who had pledged themselves to their constituents to support the principle of the Bill, but not therefore its every detail, and who had redeemed that pledge, because it was consonant with his own opinions and convictions. But was it, therefore, he asked, to be borne, that for thus acting consonantly with their own opinions, and in furtherance of the wishes of their constituents and the general weal, they should be taunted, as if so doing were a crime, and 65 that, too, by an hon. and learned Gentleman who had himself no constituents to pledge himself to, who was notoriously the mere nominee of a Peer, and who, as such, was as much, indeed more, fettered and tied down to a particular line of conduct, than were, as the hon. and learned Member would fain insinuate, the pledged supporters of the Bill.
Mr. Goulburndid not think the warm rebuke of the noble Lord called for by what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend. It was true that his hon. and learned friend did sit for a small corporation; but a sneer for so doing came with a very ill grace from the noble Lord, who for years was himself the nominee of a Peer, and who had not till very recently the honour of a more extended constituency.
§ Lord Ebringtonsaid, that was true, but he had never ventured to censure those who had pledged themselves on the hustings to a free electing constituency.
§ Mr. Stricklandprotested against the imputation thrown out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to Members on the Ministerial side of the House being pledged to support the Bill, and that they could not therefore possess a right of judgment upon the matter. In a former debate the hon. and learned Member had thought proper to make a similar charge against him; he had at the time replied to it, and certainly would never hear it said that he was pledged to support a particular measure whether he approved of it or not, without indignantly repelling the charge.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, if his memory was correct, the hon. member for Yorkshire had attacked him, and drew a comparison as to the greater importance of being a county Member, with a large constituency, than being a member for a borough in the county of York.
§ Lord George Lennoxsaid, he could not sit silent and hear the hon. and learned Gentleman declare Members on that side of the House to be pledged to support the Bill, without being able to exercise their own judgment in the matter; and as long as he heard those taunts thrown out, so long would he say "No, no," to the hon. and learned Member's assertions. He had sworn allegiance to the Bill—the country had sworn allegiance to it; and he would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, so far from the country viewing it as a farce, the people looked upon the opposition to it as a farce.
§ Mr. Richard Gurneydenied, that Members who had supported the principle of the Bill were blindly pledged to do so.
§ Mr. Hodgessaid, he found in the county which he had the honour of representing (Kent) that the people were universally in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Rickfordaddressed the House as follows:—I do not often trouble the House with any observations of mine, but I feel it quite impossible to refrain from replying to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will therefore tell that hon. and learned Gentleman, that I am sent to this House by a very numerous body of constituents, nearly 2,000 in number, who had too much good sense to require any pledge from me, and, relying upon my integrity, they left me to follow my own judgment. I am not bound to say "ay, ay," or "no, no," at the will of any Minister. I have at all times endeavoured to discharge my duty honestly and conscientiously, perfectly regardless from which side of the House the question emanated; and so long as my constituents think fit to repose their confidence in me, I shall steadily pursue the same independent line of conduct.
§ Mr. Trevordenied, that the country had sworn allegiance to the Bill. He had been sent into that House pledged to oppose the Bill; he gloried in having given that pledge, and he gloried still more in having redeemed it.
§ Mr. Crokerput it to the House whether this kind of desultory discussion could be at all conductive to its character.
Lord John Russellhad risen to make the same suggestion to the House, because, as they were all agreed to be very angry on the third reading of the Bill, it might be as well if they were good-humoured at present.
The Motion agreed to, and Ashton-under-Lyne added to schedule C. It was then moved that Stroud with Minchinhampton be added to the schedule.—Agreed to. Several verbal additions were made, chiefly to include towns instead of townships within the limits of new boroughs,
§ Mr. Crokersaid, the addition of Workington to Whitehaven was such a dereliction of the principle of this Bill, that he felt himself obliged to move to disjoin these two places. The town of White haven contained a population of 16,000 souls, and the town of Workington was distant 67 eight miles from it. It was therefore unnecessary to introduce contributory boroughs into the northern part of England, by adding the town of Workington to the town of Whitehaven, which already contained 16,000 inhabitants. He therefore moved that the town of Workington be struck out of the schedule.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, as it was intended to take the poll at both the towns, there could be no contributory boroughs, as supposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, if they acted on this principle in the north they ought to follow it up in the south. Had they pursued this method generally they would have had no occasion to disfranchise so many boroughs.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Bill with its Amendments, ordered to be engrossed.