§ Upon the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House went into a Committee upon the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
§ Upon the reading of the words in clause 2, "that each of the thirty boroughs—"
Mr. Goulburnrequested some reason would be given why the House was called upon to insert the word "thirty"? When the word "fifty-six" was objected to in the first clause of the Bill, and when it was asked, "Why pledge yourselves to fifty-six specific boroughs, when you give no opportunity of examining into the case of all the boroughs?" the only answer given was, "Because the Lords rejected one Bill with fifty-six boroughs, therefore, the Bill is to be sent back again with the same number." He, for one, strongly objected to the partial disfranchisement of thirty of the most ancient boroughs of the kingdom, until some specific information had been given to the House relating to their particular 721 cases; and time was given to examine and digest such information. But he should defer making any motion upon the subject, until he had heard from the noble Lord some explanation of the grounds upon which his Majesty's Government had determined upon the particular number of thirty as the quantum of boroughs that were to lose a moiety of their Representation.
§ Lord AlthorpThe right hon. Gentleman has stated only half the reasons which I gave for placing fifty-six boroughs in schedule A. I stated that the House of Lords having objected to the former Bill, which contained fifty-six boroughs in schedule A, the Government did not choose to place more than that number in the disfranchising clause of the present Bill. But I added, that we did not think it right to place less than fifty-six in the schedule, because that number had been approved of by this House and by the country generally. Therefore, in stating that the only ground upon which I justified the disfranchisement of fifty-six boroughs in the present Bill was, because the House of Lords had objected to that number in the last Bill, the right hon. Gentleman only stated half the reasons which I advanced as the ground upon which our determination was fixed. Having so far set myself right with respect to schedule A, I am now ready to explain why we propose to place thirty boroughs in schedule B of the present Bill, instead of forty-one, as proposed in the same schedule of the last Bill. Ministers, in reconsidering the Bill after it had been rejected by the House of Lords in the last Session, undoubtedly did wish, as far as they could do so consistently with the principle and efficiency of the Bill, to make such alterations and modifications as they thought best calculated to conciliate and to secure the approbation of those who were opposed to it. As one of the objections most strongly urged was the diminishing the number of the Members of the House, they did not think that they should affect the principle or diminish the efficiency of the measure, if they conceded that point; and therefore, in preparing the present Bill, they determined that the existing number of Members of the House should be kept up. Thus there were twenty-three Members to be disposed of; and in considering how they should be distributed, the Ministers thought that, if they threw the whole of them into schedule B, they might then be fairly and justly accused of acting partially towards 722 twenty-three of the places enumerated in that schedule, and that, in fact, they should impair the efficiency of the measure at large. It appeared to them, therefore, that the fairest manner would be to give twelve Representatives to new constituent bodies, and not to take away the remaining eleven from schedule B. That was the original ground upon which we proposed to place thirty instead of forty-one boroughs in the partially disfranchising clause of the present Bill. To diminish the number of boroughs in schedule B to less than thirty would, in the opinion of Ministers, be to diminish the general efficiency of the Bill, and therefore it was, that, in preparing the present clause, they determined to fix upon that particular number.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that the noble Lord's explanation had not, in the slightest degree, removed the grounds upon which the House had reason to complain of the course which Ministers had adopted. As regarded the first clause, the House had reason to complain, because it was called upon to vote before the necessary information was produced; and, as regarded the second clause, it had reason to complain, because, although certain information had been laid before the House, sufficient time had not been allowed for any Member to make himself acquainted with it. So that, in point of fact, Ministers, conscious of the support which they would receive from a majority of that House, were determined to carry clauses for the total or partial disfranchisement of eighty-six boroughs before it was possible for any man to form a correct opinion as to the place which any one of those boroughs should hold in the two destroying schedules of the Bill. He was of opinion that it was too much for any set of men to ask the House of Commons to proceed in such a manner. To call for the determination of questions—such important questions, too, as the disfranchisement of boroughs—while the House was yet in total ignorance of the facts upon which that disfranchisement was said to be founded, was, he did not hesitate to say, the most unfair proceeding ever attempted by any Administration that ever held the reins of Government in this country. Further, he must observe, that when the hon. and learned member for Louth was about to move that the number of boroughs in schedule A should be sixty-one instead of fifty-six, the noble Lord evaded the proposal by saying, that number being inserted would not prevent any more being placed therein, 723 although it would prevent any deduction from that number. If this principle was followed up with regard to schedule B, and the Committee assented to the precise number of thirty being placed therein; and if it was considered expedient hereafter to decrease that number, the noble Lord might turn round and declare, they were precluded from doing so by their having previously agreed to the enacting part of the clause. It was from these circumstances that he felt unsatisfied with the explanation which the noble Lord had given—unacquainted with the information which had so recently been laid upon the Table, and unwilling to lend his sanction to what he conceived to be the unwarrantable precipitancy of the Ministry, he should resist the introduction of the word "thirty," in the clause then under their consideration. He therefore moved, that that word be omitted.
§ Sir George Warrenderrose to support the amendment moved by his right hon. friend, and, in doing so, begged to explain the grounds upon which he approached the question of Reform in its new and modified shape. He approached it with the most bonâ fide intention of endeavouring to carry through the Committee such a measure of Reform as should at once be consistent in principle and safe in operation. This the country demanded, and this he now thought it incumbent on Parliament to accede to. But though he was anxious for the speedy settlement of the question of Reform, he could not concur with Government in forcing the House to proceed to any particular vote in the absence of necessary information: and partly upon that ground he rose to support the amendment proposed by his right hon. friend. With regard to the thirty boroughs which were to be placed in the clause then under their consideration, he thought the Government must admit, either that they were nomination boroughs, not free in election, or that they were open boroughs, perfectly free in election. Then, in this dilemma were the Government placed—if they were nomination boroughs, they ought not, in accordance with the principle laid down in the Bill, to be allowed to return one Member; if they were not nomination boroughs—if their elections were free—they ought not, in accordance with the same principle, to be deprived of one Member. But he contended that they were not nomination boroughs, and that, therefore, they ought to be left untouched. To deprive them of 724 one Representative each would be to create in them disunion and discontent, since it would be impossible for one Member to represent all their conflicting views and interests. If these thirty places were, therefore, to be partially disfranchised, on the ground of being nomination boroughs, then he said, they ought not to be touched until they were proved so. But if this plea was abandoned by those who supported the measure, then he was prepared to contend, that the principle of enfranchisement ought not to be based upon the disfranchisement of places against which there was no accusation. It was most unwise to resort to such a step, for it was opening the door to endless alterations. It was laying down a principle and establishing a precedent by which an increasing place, without Representatives, might call upon the Legislature to take the Members from a smaller place, and transfer them to itself. But, previously to his advancing any further argument upon these points, he begged to call the attention of the House for a few moments to a matter which related personally to himself. In the month of December last, he felt it to be consistent with his public duty to vote for the second reading of the present Bill. In consequence of that vote, he had been assailed in various publications, and subjected to all the vituperation in which the Press of this country was sometimes apt to indulge. He was, however, so much impressed with the general utility of the wholesome exercise of the liberty of the Press, that, however unmerited he felt the attack upon himself to be, he was not disposed to come down to that House and to found a formal complaint upon it. But, as there were, perhaps, some persons in the country who might think him really guilty of the inconsistency and dishonesty with which he had been accused, he felt it due to himself not to allow the calumny to pass unnoticed or uncontradicted. He would not mention the gross terms in which his conduct had been stigmatized; but to those who might think him guilty of inconsistency in voting for the second reading of the present Reform Bill, when he had voted against the second reading of the last, he begged leave very shortly to state the grounds upon which his latter vote had been given. In the first place, he thought that Ministers had made several very important concessions—concessions which removed many of the objections which had induced him to oppose the former Bill, 725 In the next place, he found that commerce and trade were paralyzed—that all hopes of a surplus of revenue, while the question of Reform was agitated but not settled, was annihilated—that dismay had taken possession of one class, turbulence and riot of another—that public confidence was shaken—the authority of the laws in abeyance, and some of the principal towns and cities of the kingdom in a state of insubordination. This was the result of the rejection of the former measure, and, under such circumstances, he felt it necessary that the question of Reform should be speedily settled, and that the responsibility which attached to it, should be thrown upon the shoulders of the Government who had introduced it. It was upon these grounds that he had voted for the second reading of the modified measure which Ministers brought in in December last. When the former Bill was under the consideration of Parliament, it was said hon. Members who resisted the measure "opposed everything, and proposed nothing," He was unwilling to obtrude himself on the patience and indulgence of the House; but when he stated that in one of the daily metropolitan Journals he had been distinctly accused of apostacy and gross treachery, he thought it was only natural, however unwilling he might be to place himself in contact with the Press, that he should be anxious to exonerate himself from charges which, though utterly without foundation, might still have their weight and influence with some. As that House was the only place in which any Member who was attacked ought to notice the charges which were made upon him, he trusted that he should be allowed to proceed with the few additional observations which he had to make. Having stated the grounds upon which he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, as well as the spirit in which he approached the present discussion of it, he would now proceed to state the objections which he had to the particular clause then under consideration. He had already stated, that he did not think that this clause, which went to the partial disfranchisement of thirty boroughs, came within the principle upon which Ministers declared that they were acting. He was, therefore, at a loss to conceive upon what principle it was that those boroughs were to be deprived of one Representative each. That the great commercial and manufacturing towns, where interests, industry, and wealth, were at once vast and important, ought to be admitted to the elective franchise, 726 every one, he thought, must admit. To that extent he, at least, was willing to concede the question of Reform; but if the principle upon which the elective franchise were given was mere population, he must object to it. He could not consent to disfranchise places merely because they were not populous. If population were the principle upon which Ministers proposed to act, Ireland ought to have many more Representatives; and England, to give anything like the shadow of fairness to its Representation, ought to be divided into districts. But if property and respectable population were admitted as a ground of Representation, then ought none of the places in schedule B to be disfranchised. He should not object to the deduction of some of the Members allotted to the places mentioned in schedules C and D. Indeed, he thought they might be reduced with advantage; but he protested against the disfranchisement of any of the places mentioned in schedule B, which, containing partly a rural, and partly a commercial and manufacturing population, might be said to unite the interests of all. He thought that all the Members for the metropolitan districts ought to be struck off. He could not understand upon what principle it was, that they were to acquire so many Representatives. Had they any separate interest? None. Were they the seats of manufacture, or marts of commerce? No. It was not pretended that they had any other claim to additional Representation than that of mere population—a population, too, which he thought was not very likely to add, by its elections, to the useful Members of the House. Yet it was to give additional Representation to such places that Ministers proposed to diminish the Representation of the respectable, and many of them important towns, enumerated in schedule B. He felt that this would be unjust to the towns themselves, and injurious to the landed interests. He, therefore, concurred with the proposition of the right, hon. Gentleman below him, and should vote for the rejection of the clause.
§ Lord Eastnorwas anxious to avoid intruding upon the attention of the House; but as it was well known that he steadily opposed the last Reform Bill, he wished to show, that in taking a course somewhat different on the present occasion, he acted consistently with a faithful and honourable discharge of his duty as a Member of Parliament. It had appeared to him, with respect to the former Reform Bill, that it 727 was not a reconstruction or amendment of the decayed portion of our Constitution, but that it was an entire new-modelling of the system, which would tend only to division and injury to our institutions. However, after the events of the last fifteen months, he would say of the proposed measures, that he believed they were not approved of by the great mass of the property of the country, although he would admit that they were approved by the great mass of the population and a considerable portion of the property of England. Upon these grounds, and judging from existing circumstances, he was of opinion that no Government could conduct the affairs of this country with the force and energy which could render it duly efficient unless the system of nomination boroughs was put an end to. With that feeling he had made his mind up to support this Bill—at least, as far as the object of the first clause went—which he did not construe as solely to refer to the fifty-six boroughs included in it, but which he did suppose to have for its object the destruction of all nomination boroughs. Though he agreed in this principle, he must say the Bill contained other provisions which would still prevent him from voting for it as it stood at present. His apprehension was, that the Bill, if passed with its present enactments, would go far to make that House the Representative of the passions of the people, instead of their discretion and their sense; and it was impossible for any Member to deny, that if it ceased to represent the sober sense and wisdom of England, and was swayed only by their passions, the Constitution must come to an end. Feeling this strongly, he must object altogether to the proposition for allowing the metropolitan districts to return Members and however desirous he was of seeing a reconstruction of what was decayed in the system, he could not vote for this Bill so long as it contained that clause. He thought it one likely to create mischief; for when there were so many popular Representatives, backed as they would be by the great body of their constituency, and in a manner so prompt and immediate as would not be possible with other portions of the population, he could not help feeling that such Representatives would always be compelled to act according to the opinions that for the moment might prevail amongst their constituents. The public Press, too, which exercised so strong a control over this class of persons, had an interest 728 in creating excitement, and it would no doubt operate on their feelings so as to leave little scope for their judgment or their deliberation. With the sentiments he had expressed with respect to nomination boroughs, he also thought, that if a great alteration were to be made, the sooner it was carried into effect the better, for, so long as this question remained in agitation, due attention could not be paid to the general affairs of the country, particularly to its domestic concerns, such as the condition of the poor, and of agriculture, although he feared so much amelioration in their respective states was not to be expected from Legislation as was generally imagined; but while the country remained in a state of uncertainty, nothing whatever would be done or attempted. There were two or three other points in the Bill which ought to be altered. He felt that it would ultimately be injurious to the landed interest; for although the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had said he wished that interest to have its fair share of Representation he (Lord Eastnor) did not think this Bill would produce that result. As an instance of what he alluded to, he begged to advert to the smaller freeholders of cities being thrown into the counties as voters. These persons were of a different class of society, and had different interests from other freeholders of the counties.
§ Mr. John Weylandsaid, as they had now passed the clause which went to regulate schedule A, he thought they had proceeded far enough in the way of experiment, and that it would be advise able to proceed no further in the way of disfranchisement. They had already taken 112 Members from Schedule A, which, with the two for Weymouth, would allow 100 Members to be divided between the great manufacturing towns, and permit fourteen to be allotted to Ireland and Scotland; and he put it to the House whether this was not, for one step, as great a change as ought to be ventured upon, till they saw how the principle worked? He considered the Bill an experiment, because it proceeded on no general principles. It was confessedly full of anomalies, and therefore there was no argument, as derived from general considerations, which should induce the House to stop short at one point rather than at another. But there were many arguments, as derived from expediency, which ought to induce them to stop at the point at which they were now arrived in the career of disfranchisement. 729 They had been pressed by the conjoint influence of the Crown, the Government, and the people: and they had fully partaken in all the excitement which had influenced these different bodies; they had been acted upon, also, by the fear of losing popularity, and the consequences which often attached to men of ambition in that House, which often followed from a change in the public sentiment: furthermore, they had been acted on by the consequences which were likely to attend upon that accession of power and influence which the addition of more than half a million of additional voters would confer upon the popular interest. Nor could it be said, that the Political Unions, at one time indirectly countenanced by Ministers, had exercised no influence over their deliberations. Surely all these considerations ought to have sufficient weight to induce them to suspect the coolness of their past judgment on this matter, and called upon them to pause before they proceeded further. But, perhaps it might be said that such a course, if now adopted, would injure the success of the Bill. If he thought it would injure the success of a fair and just Bill, he should be the last to propose any measures likely to create delay—being now, as he had ever been, anxious to avow himself a fair and moderate Reformer; but he contended that there was no one expedient so likely to promote the complete and rapid success of the Bill, as that it should be brought forward upon terms satisfactory to the property and intelligence of the country. What was the great impediment now in the way of success, but the opposition of the other House of Parliament, representing, as it did, in this instance, the opinions of at least a fair moiety of that property and intelligence? The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in alluding to this impediment as a reason for not making the Bill still more popular, stated his wish to send it up to the other House as nearly as possible in the shape in which they had rejected it; which appeared to him and others as a somewhat singular course of argument. But he believed that he perceived what was floating in the noble Lord's mind. That House had been told by authority higher than his, that if they rejected the measure of last Session, they would be forced to adopt a still more unsatisfactory one here after; and no doubt the noble Lord thought that the; Government were treating the House of Lords with great forbearance, if they only presented for their acceptance a repetition 730 of the selfsame dose, which they had formerly refused to take. But this appeared to him a very dubious policy in those who really wished to settle the question; for he could not doubt that in such a case the Lords would again reject it; at least, that this result could only be prevented by such an unconstitutional exercise of the Royal Prerogative as must tend (whenever the present excitement should have passed away) to degrade in the eyes of the people that prerogative itself, and the branch of the Legislature which it was strained to control. A popular poet well observed—
———"We love the KingWho loves the law, respects its bounds,And reigns content within them. He is oursTo administer, to guard, to adorn the State:But not to warp or change it. We are hisTo serve him nobly in the common cause.But those were neither serving him nobly, nor serving the common cause, who would incur the risk of abusing the Royal Prerogative to annihilate the independence of the great conservative branch of the Legislature. Influenced by the preceding considerations, and anxious to avoid these evils, he implored the House to begin the work of compromise by rejecting this clause of the Bill; and to follow up this step by such a modification of its other clauses, as should lead to shortened deliberations and a more rapid conclusion, so that the undivided attention of Parliament might at length be turned to those great and vital discussions upon more important matters which had too long awaited its attention, and the neglect of which had brought it into disrepute in the eyes of the people.
Sir Robert Peelwas proceeding to address the Committee, and had observed that he had no wish to revive—when he was interrupted by a stranger in the gallery, who exclaimed "Justice, verily justice—I am commanded by the Lord God to proclaim to you—it was in the month, of January last that he revealed"—The individual was immediately taken into custody and removed. The right hon. Baronet then went on to say, that he had last Session so fully discussed the principle involved in the present clause, that he had then little to add, but that, after the maturest investigation of the subject, and wholly uninfluenced by what had been said on former occasions, he had arrived at the conclusion—similar to that formerly stated by him—that it would be as injurious as it would be unconstitutional to take away from the thirty boroughs set down in schedule B the right of returning 731 two Members each. The very principle on which Ministers attempted to justify the total disfranchisement of schedule A, went to show that they were wholly unwarranted in depriving the boroughs of schedule B of a moiety of their Representation. For what was that principle? Why, that the boroughs in schedule A were mere nomination boroughs. Now, for the sake of argument, let it be granted that they were nomination boroughs, and that as such it was right to wholly disfranchise them, did it follow that therefore boroughs which Ministers did not and could not designate nomination ones, should in like manner suffer partial disfranchisement? Either the boroughs in schedule B were nomination boroughs or they were not; if they were, why, on the Ministerial principle of disfranchisement, were they to be permitted to return any Representatives whatever? If they were not, why deprive them of their full complement of Members? What abuse had they committed which justified the penalty of partial disfranchisement? He had, on a former occasion, so fully stated his reasons for preferring in all boroughs a right of double Representation to the return of a single Member, that he would not again discuss that point.
One word with respect to the clause fixing "fifty-six" as the number of boroughs to be contained in schedule A, on which he had expressed his sentiments on Friday last. On that occasion he had asked for delay, in order that they might have the evidence before them on which they were called upon to agree to a proposition for depriving fifty-six boroughs of their franchise privileges, but was left in a minority, Ministers refusing to grant this rational request. Judge of his surprise—indeed he would say humiliation—on finding on the morning of Saturday, on his table, the very information which Ministers refused to tarry for even one day, and on a motion to obtain which delay he had, at ten o'clock on Friday night, been out voted. The very promptitude with which the information was furnished showed, not only the justness and timeliness of his request for a short delay, but also the essential importance of the information required to a due investigation of schedule A; indeed, on this last head, there were the "instructions" of the Home Secretary of State to the gentlemen appointed to examine into and report upon the boundaries, population, taxes, rental, &c., of the several cities and 732 boroughs included in the schedules of the present Bill, insisting upon the necessity of full and accurate information as of the last importance to the discussion of the details of those schedules. As, however, Ministers had refused to grant this information in the first instance, it was but fair to presume that the motion, fixing upon fifty-six as the number of boroughs to be contained in schedule A, did not preclude a discussion of the merits of the particular boroughs to make up that number. The evidence, he was sure, would shew, that it would not be possible to fill up that number without violating the very principles on which Ministers professed to ground their proceeding—but of this more on a future occasion. The argument of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), justificatory of the clause fixing upon the number fifty-six, struck him as unusually unsatisfactory. The noble Lord said, "We take fifty-six, because that is the number of boroughs set down for disfranchisement in our former Bill. We do not go further, because we might thereby risk the success of our measure in the House of Lords, it being not probable that those who rejected a Bill with fifty-six disfranchised boroughs, would sanction one containing more; and we cannot insert a less number, because the country which approved of the former Bill would not be satisfied with a less efficient disfranchisement schedule." This was thought triumphant reasoning for schedule A. But how did it apply to schedule B? how did it bear upon the preliminary selection of the number thirty for the number of boroughs of which schedule B was to consist? In the last Bill schedule B contained forty-one boroughs. Surely "the People" approved of schedule B with its forty-one boroughs, equally with schedule A with its fifty-six boroughs. If the circumstance of the country's having approved of a particular number in a former measure were an argument compulsory for that number being retained in the new Bill, how did it happen that Ministers themselves fixed upon "thirty" as the number for schedule "B," being eleven less than the number in the Bill approved of by "the people?" If the country would now be satisfied with thirty instead of forty-one boroughs as the complement of schedule B, was it not probable that it would be equally satisfied with fifty instead of fifty-six boroughs in schedule A? And if the number was to be thus taken at haphazard in the first instance with regard to schedules A and B, 733 without any reference to circumstances, might not the country be dissatisfied that some pet number should not also be beforehand fixed upon for schedule C, which Ministers left to be determined by circumstances? He should like to hear these questions answered. The right hon. Baronet concluded with saying, that he would move at a future time, either that the present clause be omitted altogether, or, what would practically be the same, that each borough in schedule B should be permitted to retain its two Members.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the question in the present case, with regard to schedule B, was just the same as in the former case, as respected schedule A; and he saw no reason why they should be anxious for information as to the specific cases of particular boroughs, in order to arrive at the conclusion that thirty of the smaller boroughs should be partially disfranchised. If they had said, that thirty boroughs, with less than 2,000 inhabitants or 500 houses each, were to lose each one of their Members, then the right hon. Baronet might have some plea to object to the specific cases in the absence of information. But when, after the information obtained last Session, it was known there were upwards of 100 boroughs which came so close together in the scale of importance, that there was but a very trifling difference between some of the lowest and the highest, then he apprehended there could be little difficulty in coming to the determination that it was adviseable, that a certain number should be wholly or partially disfranchised. They had resolved, therefore, to take fifty-six of the one class, and thirty of the other, in order that the House might become, what it had not been for some time past—a real Representation of the feelings and opinions of the people. On this broad principle, it was of no importance as regarded the general Representation of the people of England, whether the right of returning Members was to be preserved by Midhurst or Milborne Port, although undoubtedly it was of considerable consequence to the inhabitants of these respective places. In many of the boroughs which at present returned Members, there was no returning-officer, no resident electors, nor any known or well-defined boundaries. Of Beeralston, for instance, which had been frequently mentioned in the course of the debates the Surveyor of Taxes said—'I have had considerable trouble to ascertain the exact boundaries of this borough, but have now 734 reason to believe the whole account to be correct. The boundaries of the town, as taken by the returning-officer, appear to be quite correct; but, in his statement, he has considered the whole town as inincluded in the borough, which is not the case, there being twenty-seven houses or cottages contiguous to, and forming part of, the town, which are not in the borough. Perhaps I may be pardoned for mentioning a fact relative to Beeralston; which is, that no person exercising the elective franchise there resides in the borough, nor even in the parish in which it is situate; nor could I learn who was the returning-officer from any one in the place.' The right hon. Baronet had repeated the question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Warrender), and asked, why the supporters of the Bill did not get rid at once of all nomination boroughs? But the right hon. Baronet seemed to forget, that Bath and Cambridge, although populous and important towns, were strictly nomination boroughs under the present system. Those towns, with places similarly circumstanced, were to retain their Members, because the means of free election and of forming a respectable constituency could be had within them. They were only to be freed from the manifold corruptions and abuses which at present prevailed, by restoring to the legitimate electors the rights which they had been deprived of, or which were in abeyance. If he were asked why he could not consent to allow the boroughs in schedule B to retain two Members, he would answer at once—because it would give them too much weight in the scale of Representation. It had been observed, that the possession of the power to return two Members prevented party animosities. He believed the very reverse to be the consequence of that power, and that where there were two parties, of which one constituted a small minority, the bitterest contests always took place for the return of one of the two Members, and that those engaged in it frequently observed they would not have minded it, if there had been but one Member to be returned. For instance, who ever heard of this bitter animosity at Abingdon or in Monmouth? On the contrary, the people of the county of Monmouth had requested that the number of places in that county sending one Member should be increased. The object of the Government was, to make the Representation speak the real feelings and opinions 735 the people. By the present system, it was only during times of great excitement, such as prevailed during the No Popery cry in 1780 or 1807, when a dissolution happened to take place, that a majority was returned to the House of Commons who truly represented and who would give utterance to the feelings of the people. The consequence was, that the passions of the people were occasionally represented, their sober sense and sound judgment never. When the frenzy of some great popular excitement was to be gratified, the House could be made to represent the opinions of the people; but, in ordinary times, when the great object ought to be to return Members to control the public expenditure, and to return men who would keep a watchful eye over the public purse, or improve the national institutions, then a dissolution produced no change. The system of Representation at the present moment was, he conceived, the very worst that could be invented for giving effect to the real wishes of the people. The object of the Ministers was to improve it; and they hoped, by a removal of the abuses which had been flourishing for nearly a century, to procure the return of honest and enlightened Representatives, who would give effect to the wishes of the people, in their portion of the great Council of the Nation.
Lord Sandonsaid, he had given his cordial support to the proposition to include fifty-six boroughs in schedule A, without waiting for an examination into the cases of the particular boroughs which were to be placed in that schedule. He regretted that he felt himself compelled to withhold the same support from the present proposition. He was willing to fix the number of schedule A, because he was anxious to give at once a pledge to the country that he was honest and sincere in his desire to unite with them in abolishing the system of nomination. He was satisfied, that the choice of any number for that purpose must be arbitrary, and that no subsequent examination of details would assist the House in coming to a decision as to which borough was, and which was not, capable of being liberated from nomination by an alteration in the franchise. He was glad, therefore, to be assisted in placing his finger upon a given number, and he thought the reasons assigned by his noble friend for specifying fifty-six amply sufficient for the purpose. It was that number which had been finally adopted by the House in a former Session, and approved of by the country, as adequate 736 to the object of extirpating the principle of nomination: it was therefore enough, and it was certainly desirable, not to do more than enough, considering the feelings of the other House of Parliament as to the extent of disfranchisement already proposed. Again, it was natural not to propose a smaller number than before, because at least that number of vacant seats would be required to represent other important interests. But which of all these reasons pressed them to fix, before examination, the number of schedule B? What principle of the Bill was involved in this schedule? Not the principle of destroying nomination; for if nomination were still likely to linger in these boroughs, they ought to be inserted in schedule A at once. The only principle which he could detect in such a schedule was one which had never hitherto been laid down as such by the proposers of the Bill—one not hitherto, in spite of the casual instances of Abingdon and Higham Ferrers, admitted into the Constitution, he feared it would be found most inconvenient at present and dangerous in its future consequences—it was that of proportioning Representation to population. He would not enter at large into the dangers and disadvantages of such a principle, nor into the inconveniences of a minor kind, not however inconsiderable, of leaving many towns with only a single Member. He would at least affirm, that it was their duty not to deprive any town of the advantage of a double Representation, until they were satisfied, by an examination of the subsequent schedules, that more important objects compelled them to that necessity. In fact, schedule B should consist of that residue which would be left, after a consideration and adjustment of schedules C and D—any alteration in them—the refusal of additional Members to the metropolis, to the suburbs of some other towns to which Members were therein assigned—the assignment of additional Members to any towns now in schedule D——additional Members assigned to or withheld from Scotland or Ireland—any alteration would affect the numbers in schedule B, provided they were agreed, as he understood they were, to maintain the original numbers of the House, and, therefore, until these points were decided, it was unreasonable and preposterous to fix the numbers to be contained in that residuary schedule. Neither could he share in the apprehensions apparently entertained by his noble friend, of the dangerous preponderance 737 which would be gained in the Representation by the small rural towns, if each of the towns of schedule B retained its double Representation. He had heard complaints of the influence of nomination, and of the mischiefs arising from that influence in the hands of a few great men: but neither had he ever heard of, nor did he apprehend any dangerous results from the free elections of moderately-sized county towns, with a population of interests partly agricultural, partly of trade, and influenced by the calm, enlightened, and virtuous feelings of what was commonly considered the little aristocracy of such places and their neighbourhoods. So far from it, that he thought they would be found a desirable element in the new Representation. The Ministers had struck out, as obsolete, and at length mischievous, some existing elements of stability in the existing state of the Representation; but he hoped also they would take care and provide others as effectual and less obnoxious to public odium. He perfectly acquiesced in the proposition, that every Member of that House ought to have some effective body of constituents to which he should be responsible; but, at the same time, he did not desire to see the whole House consist entirely of Representatives of large popular bodies, exercising, as they would do, a constant and vigilant superintendance over every vote and action of their Representatives, and thereby depriving the House of that great advantage to every legislative assembly, a certain proportion of Members who relied on their own individual judgment; and thus formed, as it were, a sort of tribunal of opinion within the House of unimpassioned and uninfluenced judges. Desiring, therefore, rather to increase than diminish the number of these small but free constituencies, not, however, by any means denying but that they might find themselves driven by the necessity of providing Members for very important places to that of having a schedule B at last, possibly as numerous as that proposed; and seeing no advantage whatever, but much inconvenience, in clogging the subsequent parts of the Bill by this premature decision as to the precise numbers to be assigned to this schedule, he should feel himself compelled to vote for the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the word "thirty" be omitted from the clause.
§ Mr. Adeaneexpressed his determination to vote against the Motion, as he would not be pledged to disfranchise the exact number 738 of boroughs which had been introduced into the schedule, in the absence of all precise information concerning them. He was glad, however, to find, that the number of the Members of the House was not to be diminished. By the present Motion, if it were adopted, the Committee would be precluded from making any alteration in the number of boroughs included in the schedule, whatever might be the evidence which was brought forward in their favour; and, it might so happen, that this evidence would be of so satisfactory a nature that they could not disfranchise them with justice, in which case they must disappoint some place that now expected Representatives. He should not depart from the principle of the Bill, but, on the contrary, follow it up by voting for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Lord Althorpconsidered that the objection of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last would apply stronger to the late than the present Bill, with respect to the number of boroughs introduced into the schedule now under the consideration of the Committee. The reason of partially disfranchising those places was, that it was thought that leaving them with two Representatives would give them too much influence. The House having consented in the last Session to forty-one boroughs being included in the schedule B, the hon. Member need be under no apprehension as to the present number being too large. They had increased the number of Representatives for large constituencies, and therefore it was right to diminish the number of those who were to lose one Member. His noble friend, the member for Liverpool, remarked, that the constituency furnished by such small country places were of a valuable description, but its utility must depend on its comparative amount, for, as his noble friend said, he disapproved of a Representation wholly formed of large popular constituencies, so, no doubt, he would equally object to a Representation entirely derived from the small towns. The whole was, then, a question of degree, and he trusted that the Committee would think with him, that the thirty boroughs in the schedule would be fully represented by having each one Member, and would give its sanction to the proposition.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, had given an unanswerable answer to the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, for that noble Lord had concluded his speech by stating, 739 that the measure was to restore the boroughs to that state which the Constitution intended, hut of which they had been deprived by corruption and bribery for a century; and the noble Lord's proposition was, to place these thirty boroughs in a situation in which none of them had ever been before. It was not his intention to detain the Committee by re-arguing the general principle of this schedule; he rested his objections upon the able arguments of his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel), and the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, who had so clearly shown the injustice and the; inexpediency of this clause of the measure, By the very Bill now before the Committee, it would be impossible to carry into effect the proposition submitted without some alteration. He should be able to prove, if Gentlemen would be good enough to lend him their attention for a few moments, that thirty was a greater number than, upon any principle of justice and fairness, or even of rationality, could be maintained. Let the House suppose the clause carried, and thirty the number fixed upon as that of the boroughs which should be included in schedule B. The next thing to be done would be, to alter the Bill; for, by a curious fatality, there stood in the schedule, as liable to disfranchisement, the borough of Totness, which it was the intention of Ministers to remove from that situation, and to place Wallingford in its stead. If the arguments of the noble Lords opposite, drawn from the inconvenience of disappointing hopes and expectations which have once been raised, be worth anything, would they not consider the hopes and expectations of the town of Wallingford, which, in the printed Bill, was excluded from the number of the thirty which were to be partially disfranchised? But, by one of those legerdemain operations they had seen in the course of these proceedings, Totness, which stood 86 in the list, and was to have been disfranchised, now stood 87, and escaped disfranchisement; whereas Wallingford, 740 which was to have escaped, found itself, at the command, "quick, presto, pass," in the fatal list. What was the difference between these two towns, that they should make so great a change with respect to them. He entreated hon. Gentlemen who were about, to vote for the insertion of the number of thirty in this clause, to consider whether they could, in their conscience, even in the confined view of the question he thus brought before them, vote for more than twenty-nine, when his Majesty's Ministers themselves were so doubtful upon the point, that they had changed their minds upon it once or twice, or oftener, already. Look at the relative value of these places; Totness contained 502 houses, and paid 1,058l. to the assessed taxes, which, added together, gave 1,560 as the aggregate value of Totness. Wallingford contained 489 houses, and paid 1,073l. to the assessed taxes, and the aggregate of those two sums, which Ministers said was to decide the question, was 1,562, so that Wallingford was in its right place in the Bill, and in a wrong place in the new list, if considered only relatively to Totness. The hon. Gentlemen opposite said, indeed, that by Lieutenant Drummond's calculation, Wallingford was made inferior to Totness; but that was the very reason why he complained of those calculations; for it was made so by the influence of another part of the list—by a third element being brought into the calculation, with which those two boroughs had nothing to do. No impartial person could say, he thought, that Wallingford ought to be one of the thirty; for if a microscopic eye could discover any difference between it and Totness, it was in favour of Wallingford, and Ministers told them that Totness ought to be saved; so that here, at the very outset, they had not only reason, but the admission of Ministers, to prove that the number of thirty was practically erroneous.
The Committee divided on the original Motion. Ayes 210; Noes 112—Majority 98.
| List of the AYES. | |
| ENGLAND. | |
| ALTHORP, Viscount | Northamptonshire |
| ASTLEY, sir J. Dugdale, bt. | Wiltshire |
| ATHERLEY, Arthur | Southampton |
| BAILLIE, John Evan | Bristol |
| BARING, sir T.B., bt. | Wycombe |
| BARING, F.T. | Portsmouth |
| BARNET, Charles J. | Maidstone |
| BAYNTUN, S. A. | York |
| BENETT, John | Wiltshire |
| BLAKE, sir Francis, bt. | Berwick |
| BLAMIRE, William | Cumberland |
| BLUNT, sir R. Charles, bt. | Lewes |
| BOUVERIE, hon. D. P. | Downton |
| BRISCOE, John I. | Surrey |
| BROUGHAM, William | Southwark |
| BUXTON, Thos. Fowell | Weymouth |
| BYNG, George | Middlesex |
| CALCRAFT, Granby H. | Wareham |
| CALVERT, C. | Southwark |
| CALVERT, Nicolson | Hertfordshire |
| CARTER, J. B. | Portsmouth |
| CAVENDISH, lord | Derbyshire |
| CLIVE, Edward B | Hereford |
| COCKERELL, sir C., bt. | Evesham |
| COLBORNE, Nich. W. R. | Horsham |
| CRADOCK, Sheldon | Camelford |
| CRAMPTON, P. C. | Milborne Port |
| CREEVEY, Thomas | Downton |
| CURRIE, John | Hertford |
| CURTEIS, Herbert B. | Sussex |
| DENMAN, sir Thomas | Nottingham |
| DUNDAS, hon. Thomas | York |
| DUNDAS, sir R. L., bt. | Richmond |
| DUNDAS, hon. John C. | Richmond |
| ELLICE, Edward | Coventry |
| ELLIS, Wynn | Leicester |
| ETWALL, Ralph | Andover |
| EVANS, de Lacy | Rye |
| EVANS, William B. | Leominster |
| EVANS, William | Leicester |
| EWART, W. | Liverpool |
| FAZAKERLEY, J. N. | Peterborough |
| FERGUSON, sir R. C. bt. | Nottingham |
| FOLEY, John H. H. | Droitwich |
| FOLKES, sir W. J. H. B., bt. | Norfolk |
| FORDWICH, lord | Canterbury |
| FOSTER, James | Bridgenorth |
| GODSON, Richard | St. Alban's |
| GORDON, Robert | Cricklade |
| GRAHAM, rt. hon. sir J. R. G. | Cumberland |
| GRANT, rt. hon. Robert | Norwich |
| GUISE, sir B. W. bt. | Gloucestershire |
| GURNEY, Richard H. | Norwich |
| HAWKINS, J. H. | Tavistock |
| HEATHCOTE, sir G., bt. | Rutlandshire |
| HENEAGE, George F. | Lincoln |
| HEYWOOD, Benjamin | Lancashire |
| HODGES, Thomas L. | Kent |
| HODGSON, John | Newcastle-upon-Tyne |
| HORN E, sir W. | Newtown |
| HOSKINS, Kedgwin | Herefordshire |
| HOWICK, viscount | Northumberland |
| HUDSON, Thomas | Evesham |
| HUGHES, J. | Grantham |
| HUGHES, William H. | Oxford |
| HUME, Joseph | Middlesex |
| INGILBY, sir W. A., bt. | Lincolnshire |
| JOHNSTONE, sir J. V. B. | Yorkshire |
| JERNINGHAM, hon. Hen. V. | Pontefract |
| KEMP, Thos. Read | Lewes |
| KNIGHT, Henry G. | Malton |
| KNIGHT, Robert | Wallingford |
| LABOUCHERE, Henry | Taunton |
| LANGSTON, James H. | Oxford |
| LEE, John L. | Wells |
| LEIGH, T. C. | Wallingford |
| LEFEVRE, Charles S. | Hampshire |
| LEMON, sir Charles | Cornwall |
| LENNOX, lord William P. | King's Lynn |
| LITTLETON, Edward John | Staffordshire |
| LOCH, John | Hythe |
| LOPEZ, sir R. F., bt. | Westbury |
| LUMLEY, John S. | Nottinghamshire |
| MABERLY, W. L | Shaftesbury |
| MACDONALD, sir James, bt. | Hampshire |
| MACKINTOSH, sir J. | Knaresborough |
| MANGLES, James | Guildford |
| MARJORIBANKS, Stewart | Hythe |
| MARRYATT, Joseph | Sandwich |
| MARSHALL, William | Beverley |
| MAYHEW, W. | Colchester |
| MILBANK, Mark | Camelford |
| MILDMAY, Paulet St. John | Winchester |
| MILLS, J. | Rochester |
| MILTON, lord | Northamptonshire |
| MORPETH, viscount | Yorkshire |
| MORRISON, James | Ipswich |
| NEWARK, viscount | Bassetlaw |
| NOWELL, Alexander | Westmoreland |
| NUGENT, lord | Aylesbury |
| ORD, William | Morpeth |
| PAGET, Thomas | Leicestershire |
| PALMER, general | Bath |
| PALMER, C. F. | Reading |
| PALMERSTON, visct. | Bletchingly |
| PAINE, sir Peter, bt. | Bedfordshire |
| PELHAM, hon. C. A. W. | Lincolnshire |
| PENDARVIS, Edw. W. W. | Cornwall |
| PENLEAZE, John S. | Southampton |
| PENRHYN, Edward | Shaftesbury |
| PEPYS, C. C. | Malton |
| PHILLIPPS, sir R. B., bt. | Haverfordwest |
| PHILLIPS, Charles M. | Leicestershire |
| POYNTZ, W. S. | Ashburton |
| PRICE, sir Robert, bt. | Herefordshire |
| RAMSBOTTOM, John | Windsor |
| RAMSDEN, John Charles | Yorkshire |
| RICKFORD, William | Aylesbury |
| RIDER, Thomas | Kent |
| ROBINSON, sir George, bt. | Northampton |
| ROBINSON, George R. | Worcester |
| ROOPER, John B. | Huntingdonshire |
| RUSSELL, lord John | Devonshire |
| RUSSELL, Charles | Reading |
| SANFORD, E. A. | Somersetshire |
| SCOTT, sir Edward D. | Lichfield |
| SEBRIGHT, sir J. S., bt. | Hertfordshire |
| SKIPWITH, sir Gray | Warwickshire |
| SMITH, John Abel | Chichester |
| SMITH, Vernon | Northampton |
| SMITH, George R. | Midhurst |
| SPENCE, G. | Ripon |
| SPENCER, hon. F. | Worcestershire |
| STANLEY, J. | Hindon |
| STANLEY, hon. Edw. G. S. | Windsor |
| STEPHENSON, H. F. | Westbury |
| STRICKLAND, George | Yorkshire |
| STRUTT, Edward | Derby |
| STUART, ld. Pat. J. H. C. | Cardiff |
| STUART, lord Dudley C. | Arundel |
| TENNYSON, C. | Stamford |
| THICKNESSE, Ralph | Wigan |
| THOMPSON, William | London |
| THOMSON, rt. hon. Charles P. | Dover |
| TORRENS, Robert | Ashburton |
| TOWNLEY, R. G. | Cambridgeshire |
| TROUBRIDGE, sir E. bt. | Sandwich |
| TUFTON, hon. H. | Appleby |
| TYNTE, Chas. K. K. | Bridgewater |
| TYRELL, Charles | Suffolk |
| VENABLES, William | London |
| VERE, Jas. J. Hope | Newport, I. of W. |
| VERNON, hon. George J. | Derbyshire |
| VILLIERS, T. H. | Bletchingly |
| VILLIERS, Frederick | Saltash |
| VINCENT, sir Francis, bt. | St. Alban's |
| WAITHMAN, Robert | London |
| WALROND, Bethel | Saltash |
| WARBURTON, Henry | Bridport |
| WELLESLEY, hon. Will. P. T. L. | Essex |
| WESTERN, C. C | Essex |
| WILBRAHAM, George | Cheshire |
| WILDE, Mr. Serjeant | Newark |
| WILKS, John | Boston |
| WILLIAMS, William A. | Monmouthshire |
| WILLIAMS, sir Jas. bt. | Carmarthenshire |
| WILLIAMS, John | Winchelsea |
| WOOD, Matthew | London |
| WOOD, Charles | Wareham |
| WROTTESLEY, sir J., bt. | Staffordshire |
| SCOTLAND. | |
| ADAM, admiral | Kinross, &c, |
| DIXON, Joseph | Glasgow |
| FERGUSSON, R. C. | Kirkcudbright |
| GILLON, William D. | Selkirk, &c. |
| GRANT, rt. hon. C. | Inverness-shire |
| JEFFREY, rt. hon. F. | Perth, &c. |
| JOHNSTON, James | Inverkeithing |
| KENNEDY, Thomas Francis | Rothsay, &c. |
| LOCH, J. | Tain, &c. |
| M'LEOD, R. | Sutherlandshire |
| MACKENZIE, J. A. S. | Ross-shire |
| SINCLAIR, George | Caithness-shire |
| STEWART, Edward | Wigton |
| IRELAND. | |
| BLACKNEY, Walter | Carlowshire |
| BOYLE, hon. John | Cork |
| BROWN, J. D. | Mayo |
| BROWNE, Dominick | Mayo |
| BROWNLOW, Charles | Armaghshire |
| BURKE, sir John, bt. | Galwayshire |
| CALLAGHAN, Daniel | Cork |
| CAREW, R. S. | Wexfordshire |
| CHAPMAN, Montague L. | Westmeath |
| CLIFFORD, sir A. | Bandon Bridge |
| COPELAND, Alderman | Coleraine |
| DOYLE, sir J. M. | Carlowshire |
| FRENCH, Arthur | Roscommonshire |
| GRATTAN, James | Wicklowshire |
| JEPHSON, C. D. O. | Mallow |
| KING, hon. Robert | Corkshire |
| LAMBERT James S. | Galwayshire |
| LEADER, Nicholas P. | Kilkenny |
| MULLINS, Frederick W. | Kerry |
| O'CONNELL, Daniel | Kerry |
| O'CONNELL, Maurice D. | Clare |
| O'CONNOR, Don | Roscommonshire |
| O'NEIL, hon. J. Rd. B. | Antrimshire |
| PARNELL, sir H. B., bt. | Queen's County |
| PONSONBY, hon. George | Youghall |
| POWER, Robert | Waterfordshire |
| RUSSELL, John | Kinsale |
| RUTHVEN, Edward S. | Downpatrick |
| SHEIL, R. L. | Louthshire |
| WALKER, Charles A. | Wexford |
| WALLACE, T. | Drogheda |
| WESTENRA, hon. H. R. | Monaghansh. |
| WHITE, Samuel | Leitrimshire |
| TELLER. | |
| RICE, rt. hon. T. S. | Limerick |
§ The question was then put, that each of the boroughs enumerated in the schedule should return one Member.
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, that he did not think it expedient that Irish Members should interfere with the number of Members to be chosen for England, and he, therefore, did not propose to offer any opposition to the English Bill; but he would take an opportunity of moving, hereafter, that a certain number of Members be fixed upon to represent the kingdom of Ireland, in proportion to the numbers which were allotted to England, and he was persuaded
§ the Scotch Members would make common cause with the Members for Ireland.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanhad noticed a discrepancy which appeared between the returns made by the Parliamentary Commission with respect to the number of houses in Tavistock, which he required to have explained. It was set down in their returns as containing 600 houses, while the returning officer gave 619. It behoved the noble Lord to give some explanation why the returning officer's report was, in this case, considered right, while, in other cases, the Commissioners' return was taken.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he would immediately give the explanation required by the hon. Baronet. With respect to Tavistock, in the first instance, the returning officer had given the number of houses at 696; and the Parliamentary Commissioners gave the number about seventy less. They stated in their return that the borough contained 600 houses; but that, beyond the borough, there were twenty-six houses—making a total of 626. This caused a further inquiry to be made, and the Surveyor of the Ordnance was sent down for that purpose and he fixed the number of houses at 623, which was the number actually given in the last reports.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanhad reason to complain of the inconsistencies of Ministers, who in some places preferred the returns of the Parliamentary Commissioners, and in others those of the returning officers. Now there was often a considerable difference existing between the two, as, for instance, in the case of Ashburton, where one set of papers stated the numbers of the houses to be 446, while another stated them at 549; in Westbury 536 were reported by the Commissioners, while the returning officer gave 588; and in Wilton 406 by the former, and 363 in the latter; and in the case of Tavistock, there was appended a little note, which increased the number of 600, as made by the Commissioners, to the number of 623, as stated by the noble Lord. The differences here might not appear very important, but they were sufficient to show that the returns were not correct, and thus to make every one feel that he was about to act upon insufficient information. It might be true that a careful comparison of all the different papers, and of the different parts of them, would enable a Member to correct the inaccuracies; but then it was too much to expect, that every Member should thus go through every return with a view to satisfy himself of its accuracy. He protested against this loose manner of conducting the business of disfranchisement.
Lord John Russellsaid, he must again admit, that there had been a difference between the returns of the Parliamentary Commissioner and of the returning officer, with regard to the number of houses in the borough of Tavistock. The returning officer stated them at 696, the Parliamentary Commissioner returned them at 626—there being a difference of seventy between them. The return of the Parliamentary Commissioner stated the number 746 of houses in the borough itself to be 600, and in the suburb immediately adjoining, twenty-six. He had observed the difference, and a strict inquiry had accordingly been made, and the result of that inquiry was, the return, reporting them at 623. He could not, under these circumstances, conceive how he could be accused of favouring inconsistencies in the returns, when he had taken the utmost pains to set them right.
Mr. John A. Smithnoticed by the report, that the number of houses in the borough was 600 in the town, out of the limits of the borough twenty-six, from which three warehouses must be deducted; the actual number of houses, therefore, was 623, a number which made its relative position No. 95 in the list.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanthought the noble Lord had only made out his case of complaint, for he had complained that there were differences between the returns of the Parliamentary Commissioner and of the returning officer, and the noble Lord had proved the correctness of the statement. In the instance of Tavistock, the returning officer's return was taken, while in the instance of several others, that of the Parliamentary Commissioners was adopted on the scale of the paper called the Relative Returns.
Lord John Russellunderstood the accusation of the hon. Baronet, but he could again assure the Committee, that the hon. Baronet was incorrect. He had directed an inquiry because of the complaint made as to the difference between the returns of the returning officer and of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and the result was such as he had stated. He had certainly, therefore, done all that he could to remove the ground of complaint arising upon the inconsistency of these two sets of returns.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, he believed he could explain the apparent difference between the noble Lord and his hon. friend. They were considering two different papers, and when his hon. friend made his statement, he had not read the paper marked No. 8, containing the amended list, correcting some of the admitted errors of the original list, but leaving the great error of the principle on which it was formed still the same.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, Ministers had acted in a most precipitate and unjustifiable manner. The House was called upon to disfranchise boroughs upon the most contradictory returns, before they had time to understand or disentangle the obscurities in which they were enveloped, 747 He had no doubt there were many places in both the schedules which would necessarily give rise to much discussion.
§ The question carried, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ The 3rd Clause was then read, which enacts "That each of the places in schedule C should, for the purpose of this Act, be a borough, and should as such borough include the place or places respectively comprehended within the boundaries, to be settled and described by an Act to be passed in the present Parliament for that purpose, and that each of the said boroughs, named in the said schedule, should, from and after the return of the present Parliament, return two Members."
Lord John Russellproposed, that as no place in schedule C had been yet the subject of discussion, the Committee should proceed to the discussion of the adoption of the next clause, as part of the Bill, and of the schedule D as part of it, and when the number of places had been agreed to, they could read the schedule as part of the clause. Such was the course adopted in the last Parliament.
§ Mr. Crokerhoped that the noble Lord would not persist in this arrangement, for it would take the House completely by surprise, by adopting in schedules C and D a course different from that which had been pursued in schedules A and B.
Lord John Russellwas unwilling to put the right hon. Gentleman to inconvenience in that way, but he thought the course he had recommended was the most adviseable.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, as there was to be a Bill to ascertain the boundaries of the newly-created boroughs, as well as of the old ones, and as, indeed, the number and respectability of the new constituency, and consequently, the right of the borough to enjoy the representative franchise, would, in both cases, be determined by the limits to be assigned to them, it followed that they could not proceed to examine the individual claims, either of the new or the old boroughs, till they had some information as to their local composition and extent.
§ Mr. Crokerhad no doubt that it was so intended; but he thought it should be speedily introduced, for if it were not, every step they took might be taken in error. If there was, as was admitted, a necessity for this Boundary Bill with respect to the Schedules A and B, it was certainly equally 748 necessary with respect to the schedules C and D.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the boundaries of all boroughs would be settled by the bill which it was proposed to bring in.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that the clause referred to contained a provision that the boundaries of the new boroughs should be settled by Act of Parliament; and that, in like manner, the boundaries of the old boroughs should be so settled. Now he thought that these bills ought to be introduced at once, for it was impossible for them to come to a good decision upon any one of the boroughs that might be submitted to their consideration, till they knew how those boroughs were to be constituted, and what were to be their limits. Upon their knowledge of the intended limits of these boroughs must depend their opinion of the propriety of preserving or destroying their right of voting. Looking upon the Boundary Bills to be most important, he wished to know when they were to be introduced?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the arrangements for these Bills were in a great state of forwardness, and that they would be produced at the earliest possible period.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellthought that the Boundary Bill and the Reform Bill ought to go hand in hand together, as he had no doubt discussions would constantly take place as to whether the boundaries proposed by the Bill were proper or not.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the Bills would be brought forward before the schedules were discussed.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, it was utterly impossible that he could decide on the fitness of some places to be constituted boroughs, and of the necessity of disfranchising others, until the boundaries of each were specified by legislative enactment; he, therefore, begged to give notice, that unless these boundaries were fully stated, in such a manner that he could understand them, he should object to decide upon the case of any one borough.
§ Mr. Crokerbegged to call the attention of the noble Lord to an apparent inconsistency, with regard to the borough of Calne, in the returns. It was stated, that in the month of March last, a census had been taken of the population of that borough, which then amounted to 997, but the returns now gave a much greater number of persons as living in that place; he, therefore, wished to learn the date of the last return, and the cause of the difference?
Lord John Russellreplied, that a specific census had been taken of the population of Calne, and on that the returns were made on which they had acted.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, this explanation was not quite satisfactory, for it appeared the number of inhabitants had become larger as the limits of the place were contracted. It was quite clear, that there had been some management as to these returns from Calne, and the noble Lord's failure to give anything like an explanation, rendered the case still more suspicious.
Lord Newarktook the present opportunity of troubling the Committee with a very few words in support of the proposition which, as no one else had given notice of any similar motion, he should feel it his duty to submit to the Committee; and he would say at once, that nothing but the strong conviction of its expediency on several grounds, in preference to the arrangement of the schedules as now proposed, could have induced him to be the person to bring it forward—aware as he was, that its success might be endangered by his want of ability in recommending it to the notice of the Committee, as well as by the little weight which so young a Member as himself could hope to bring to its support. He thought, that the object of his proposed alteration was sufficiently apparent upon the very face of it—it was, to get rid altogether of schedule D, without interfering with the adjustment, in point of numbers, of the sixty-three new borough Members, with the sixty-three new county Members, as proposed by his Majesty's Government. The Committee would recollect, that when the principle of schedule D was so ably attacked by the noble Lord, the member for Northamptonshire, who moved in the Committee, in August last, that the twenty-six boroughs then in schedule D should return two Members each, one principal ground of resistance to that noble Lord's motion which was urged, was, that it went to destroy the balance, and that it would be a sort of breach of faith to the agriculturists, if, for the sake of getting rid of schedule D, they were to have added twenty-six Members to the commercial towns. But, if his memory served him, it was at the same time admitted by most of the speakers, and on almost all hands, that schedule D was faulty in principle, though the mode then imposed did not appear to the House to be the best way of getting rid of it. It was the recollection of what passed then which had induced him to guard his 750 proposition against any similar objection. He did not propose to destroy the balance as now adjusted, or in any way to affect the balance or the numbers; except that as sixty-three happened to be an odd number, that would make a difference of one in the numbers he proposed to create by his schedule C, as compared with the present schedules C and D; and that one, he thought, if it were given to the West Riding of Yorkshire, would not derange the balance much, by being taken out of the schedule of boroughs. His proposition then rested upon the inexpediency of first creating a schedule D; and that inexpediency his Majesty's Ministers, it appeared to him, had tacitly acknowledged, if not openly proclaimed, in the course which they had taken as to these very schedules. For, by the former plan of these schedules, C and D contained together fifty-three Members, out of which actually a majority was given to schedule D; whereas now, out of the sixty-three, less than one-third were left in that, schedule. In short, it appeared that having ten more Members to give to the towns, they had preferred that schedule C should have nine of them, rather than add ten more places to schedule D, at one Member a-piece. So that he thought it looked very much as if they had no great fancy, upon the whole, for these Cyclopean boroughs in schedule D. Now, his objection to the principle of a schedule D was twofold; first, as to the places themselves, because he thought it was furnishing the majority in those populous towns with the power of utterly extinguishing and overpowering the wishes and opinions of the minority; and because he thought nothing so likely to provoke violent contests; and it ought not to be overlooked that, in many of these places, that majority would probably be of the lower, rather than the higher order of voters. And next, as to the general effect upon the country; he could imagine no means more conducive than the creation of this schedule D, to a succession of interminable claims on the part of many other places, now treading close upon the heels of the smaller places in the schedules, and which must infallibly and irresistibly urge those claims if they see the principle of one Member acted upon: and he would ask, what should we be then prepared to meet them with, or how should we make room for them, but by re-opening the question of disfranchisement? How should we resist Bradford, in Wiltshire, and Trowbridge, and Doncaster (all above 751 10,000), and Leek, in Staffordshire, and Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire, and Congleton, in Cheshire, with little short of 10,000 each, unless we drew some definite line, and did away with this plan of one Member? These were some of the grounds upon which he objected to a schedule D, and it now only remained for him to say a few words with respect to the manner in which he had ventured to propose to get rid of it. Of course there were three ways of doing this; he might have proposed to merge the whole of D in C, but that would have required an addition of disfranchisement, for the two together would have required eighty-two Members instead of sixty-three; or he might have proposed to omit the enfranchisement of any of the places now in schedule D; but this would have destroyed anything like a balance between the new county and new borough Members, as the former would then have been sixty-three, and the latter only forty-four. There remained the third course, which was, to adhere to the numbers as now proposed; but to say to the towns, "We will give to the thirty-one most considerable among you, each its two Members, and whichever of you can prove yourselves so entitled shall be enfranchised accordingly." This, therefore, was the course which he ventured to propose. He was not prepared at the present moment to say which were the places which would probably fail in making out their claim, but the test of houses and assessed taxes being once applied would leave no doubt or difficulty in determining that point. In urging these considerations, he had no desire to see impaired the great and substantial boon which this Bill offered to the people. It must be unnecessary for him to state, that he brought forward this proposition from no feeling of hostility towards the Government or their measure. At the same time, it was equally unnecessary for him to say, that their only title to his humble support must rest upon the merits of their measures. He trusted that his conduct as an unpledged Member of Parliament, through the Committee on the late Bill, would have sufficiently proved that he was not one of those who were liberal merely from compulsion, or whose patriotism was merely to be measured by the extent of their pledges. In bringing forward this alteration, his only desire was, that that settlement to which their efforts had been so earnestly and long directed, should be as satisfactory and as nearly final as possible.
§ Mr. Crokerconcurred in the general opinion of the noble Lord. Representation by two Members was, for a great variety of reasons, preferable to that by one. And though, in the mode the Ministers had chosen to proceed, he did not see how they could effect double Representation every where, yet still he thought that it might be properly introduced in the cases proposed by the noble Lord.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the noble Lord had very correctly observed, that in the last Session many Gentlemen had expressed objections to the mode of enfranchising towns which was proposed to be adopted. The noble Lord was also correct in observing, that Ministers had considered these objections as having some weight, for they had, in part, acted upon them in selecting some places which were then in schedule B, to be saved from partial disfranchisement by the present Bill. He differed, therefore, from the noble Lord, rather in degree than in principle. The proposition made by the noble Lord, he did not consider as opposed to the principle of the Bill, but upon the best consideration he could give the question, he was inclined to prefer the mode in which the Bill was at present shaped, to that recommended by the noble Lord, and he must, therefore, resist his proposal.
§ Consideration of the schedule postponed.
§ The Chairman then put clause 4th, which enacts that each of the places named in schedule D shall be a borough, and return one Member to Parliament.
§ Agreed to.
§ The Chairman then put the question on clause 5th as follows:—"And be it enacted, that the borough of New Shoreham shall, for the purposes of this Act, include the whole of the Rape of Bramber, in the county of Sussex, save and except such parts of the said rape as shall be included in the borough of Horsham, by an Act to be passed for that purpose in this present Parliament; and that the borough of Crick-lade shall, for the purposes of this Act, include the hundreds and divisions of High-worth, Cricklade, Staple, Kingsbridge, and Malmesbury, in the county of Wilts, save and except such parts of the said hundred of Malmesbury as shall be included in the borough of Malmesbury by an Act to be passed for that purpose in this present Parliament; and that the borough of Aylesbury shall, for the purposes of this Act, include the three hundreds of Aylesbury, in the county of Buckingham; and that the borough of 753 East Retford shall, for the purposes of this Act, include the hundred of Bassetlaw, in the county of Nottingham, and all places locally situate within the outside boundary or limit of the hundred of Bassetlaw, or surrounded by such boundary, and by any part of the county of York, or county of Lincoln."
§ Mr. Crokersaid, he objected to the maintenance of these anomalous boroughs of Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and Bassetlaw. He could not understand why places which, if they stood alone, did not deserve to be placed even in schedule B, were, by having been heretofore disfranchised for corruption, to preserve the right of sending two Members. He thought it would have been much better to deal with these places according to the importance of the towns, and not by preserving the districts which had been created by the former disfranchising acts; but he would not divide the Committee on the subject—he only desired to record his opposition to the principle.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that this clause proceeded upon a principle for which he and his right hon. friend had, in a former stage of the discussion, contended—namely, that the boundaries of the boroughs should be stated in this Bill, instead of leaving them to be defined by another Act.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The Chairman next put the question on the clause which enacts, that the towns of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis shall be deemed and taken to be one borough; that the towns of Penryn and Falmouth shall be deemed and taken to be one borough; that the towns of Sandwich and Deal shall be deemed and taken to be one borough, and that each borough thus formed shall return two Members to Parliament.
§ Mr. Freshfieldobjected to the union of the two towns of Penryn and Falmouth, which he believed would be productive of nothing but disgust, confusion, and disorder. There had always existed a considerable degree of jealousy between these places. The boys belonging to them were accustomed to fight battles with each other, and no Penryn man was ever known to marry a Falmouth woman, and vice versa. The towns were rivals in trade, and had no one common interest between them. If they should be united, every election would be attended with contests which would disturb the public peace. If Ministers thought that Falmouth ought to return a Member, they might place it in schedulde D. Under 754 these circumstances, he would move as an Amendment, that all that part of the clause which related to Penryn and Falmouth be omitted.
Lord John Russellsaid, that all the information which Government had received showed the propriety of uniting the two places.
Mr. Goulburncomplained, that Ministers kept all their information to themselves, and gave none of it to the House. That which they had received might be satisfactory to them, but all the House had heard was quite the contrary. The local condition and circumstances of the two towns, made a union between them appear to be most unadviseable, if the reports of Gentlemen connected with their localities and situation could be relied on.
§ Mr. Crokerbegged to ask the noble Lord, if he had any objection to lay the information Ministers had received with respect to this particular case on the Table of the House?
Lord John Russellsaid, he saw no necessity for doing so; the question was decided during the last Session of Parliament without any such information.
§ Mr. CrokerThat question was decided under different circumstances; population was then made the basis of Representation, but by the application of the present rule, one of these towns might alone be entitled to return two Members.
Lord John Russellsaid, he assured the right hon. Gentleman, that he had no desire to prevent the House having the same information as they had received during the last Session.
§ The Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. Freshfieldsaid, he had another objection to the wording of the clause; as it at present stood, it included only the "towns" of Penryn and Falmouth, but the limits of the borough of the former place extended beyond the town. If these words were not altered, all those electors who at present lived in that part of the borough would be disfranchised: he therefore proposed to introduce the words "borough and town" as applicable to both places.
§ On the question being put, that the towns of Sandwich and Deal be considered, for the purposes of this Act, as one borough,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, this union would be very objectionable, as it would deprive the former place of any share in the Representation, particularly if the towns of both 755 Upper and Lower Deal were to be included. He, therefore, begged leave to ask the noble Lord if that was to be the case?
Lord John RussellIt was; both the towns of Upper and Lower Deal were to be included within the boundaries of the borough.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that remark of the noble Lord furnished the strongest argument he had yet heard of the necessity of having the Boundary Act before them.
§ Mr. Crokerbegged to call the attention of the House to the proposition he was about to make. It would be in the recollection of the House, that he had last year objected to the uniting of boroughs; but now, when he found that it was proposed to extend the boundaries of several places by the addition of suburbs, and even distant places, he thought it his duty, on the principles thus adopted by Ministers, to propose a union of two other sets of boroughs, much nearer to, and more closely connected with each other, than Falmouth and Penryn, which they bad just voted, or than a dozen places which were united by schedules C and D. The House must bear in mind that Aldborough, in Yorkshire, was taken out of schedule A last year, by the addition of a neighbouring parish, which made up the necessary amount of population which entitled it to retain its franchise. Now, that parish contained the borough of Boroughbridge, which lay within a few furlongs of Aldborough, and which he thought ought, according to the principle adopted in this Bill, to be added to it. He should not have the slightest hesitation in proposing to take the sense of the House on this reasonable proposition, did he not find, that these boroughs, thus united, would only stand fifty-sixth in the list; and, therefore, observing the rule he had always prescribed to himself, of not troubling the Committee when the principle of the Bill was not departed from, he would not press the noble Lord on this point, unless, on further inquiry and calculation, he found that Ald-borough and Boroughbridge united would stand fifty-seventh or fifty-eighth in the list, in which case he should move, on the Report, their insertion under those numbers in schedule B. The other boroughs the union of which he proposed, were Aldeburgh and Orford, in Suffolk—these towns were situated on the same river, or rather within the same harbour. They were considered 756 as one port; they were distant from each other only three miles, and had a complete identity of interests, and lay in a district which would not have another borough within thirty miles of it. They were not liable to the objection made in the former case, for their united numbers would carry them high into schedule B; and he almost flattered himself that, under such circumstances, the proposition would not be opposed by the noble Lords, it being according to the principle they had adopted, in the case of all the boroughs, old and new, which had had suburbs, districts, and even distant towns added to them. He wished, on the present occasion, only to call the attention of the noble Lord to these two towns, which were nearer to each other than Deal was to Sandwich, and quite as contiguous as Falmouth and Penryn, and which had this additional claim, that they were both of them now in possession of the franchise, a claim of existing right which neither Falmouth nor Deal had; he, therefore, hoped his proposition would be acceded to, and that these two places might be united together, and be placed in schedule B.
Lord John Russellsaid, the two boroughs mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were both inconsiderable places, and had no pretensions to the distinction to return a Member under an improved system of Representation.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that the noble Lord was mistaken. Aldeburgh alone stood forty-ninth on the noble Lord's own list, and the two towns, taken together, had the number of houses, and paid a sufficient amount of taxes amply to deserve one Member.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman, and thought it would be a good principle to unite boroughs in order to enable them to retain their Representatives. The towns of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis furnished an example of union which ought to be followed out. He would hereafter refer to the subject.
§ Mr. Crokerwould not take the sense of the Committee at present, but would renew his proposition on some future occasion.
§ Clause 6th was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ The 7th clause was then read—"And be it enacted, that every city and borough in England which now returns a Member or Members to serve in Parliament (except the several cities and boroughs enumerated in the said schedule A, and the several 757 boroughs of New Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and East Retford) shall, for the purposes of this Act, include the place or places respectively which shall be comprehended within the boundaries of such city or borough, as such boundaries shall be settled and described by an Act to be passed for that purpose in this present Parliament; which Act, when passed, shall be deemed and taken to be part of this Act, as fully and effectually as if the same were incorporated herewith; and that every such city or borough shall, together with the place or places respectively so to be comprehended therein as aforesaid, be a city or borough for the purpose of returning a Member or Members to serve in all future Parliaments.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, when the first Reform Bill was brought under the consideration of the House, Ministers proposed to take upon themselves the responsibility of appointing the Commissioners, who were to determine the boundaries of the respective boroughs; but this intention was abandoned, and it was settled they were to be appointed by the Act itself. These Commissioners accordingly, on the Bill passing that House, proceeded upon their duties, and the result of their labours was now to be brought before them. He therefore wished their divisions, additions, and distinctions to be clearly understood, that the House might not proceed without that due deliberation which the importance of the question fully deserved. He therefore should propose that their report should be referred to a select Committee, to be chosen by ballot, which Committee should have the power to call for evidence and records, to enable them to arrive at an equitable conclusion with respect to the boundaries of the respective boroughs which would be submitted to them. At the same time he must say, that the returns now before the House went into the very minutiæ of the cases of certain boroughs.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, in the course of the discussion that had taken place, it had been repeatedly urged, that it was necessary to have every particular species of information clearly defined; with that view it was, that in a certain number of boroughs the names of the owners of houses, their situation, and the extent of the jurisdiction of the borough itself, were particularly described.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, no definite instructions appeared to have been given to the Commissioners, relating to the boundaries of boroughs; local knowledge of the various 758 places detected many errors in the returns. As far as he was concerned, he should apply this rule to Tamworth, and he, therefore, begged leave to ask, was it intended to include the whole of that town within the limits of the borough, and for what portion of it were the assessed taxes calculated?
Lord John Russellsaid, the document on the Table proceeded from the returning officer of Tamworth. It certainly did him no credit, for it appeared so inaccurate on the face of it, that another return had been required, and he believed the latter would be found correct.
Sir Robert PeelThen, according to the noble Lord's own showing, Government had been at the expense of printing returns which they knew to be inaccurate. What object could they have in view, and how could any person say it was a document prepared by the returning officer, when even his name was not signed to it?
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, these returns had already run to the length of eight or ten folio volumes, without containing correct information. If nobody else did, he, therefore, would move to suspend the clause till the information laid on the Table was accessible in a convenient form, and tolerably accurate.
Lord John Russellsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had last Session censured the Government for intrusting the settlement of boroughs to persons without adequate information, now turned round and found fault with the Government for laying too much information on the Table. The Ministers thought it right to lay every species of information, as it was sent to them, on the Table of the House.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, the inaccurate return, according to the noble Lord, was made by the returning officer, who was the officer of the Government; but it seemed that the return made by the Town Clerk, who was the officer of the borough, was correct.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, a complaint made against the last Bill was, that it suspended the prerogative of the Crown; but this clause did that very thing. It provided "that the boundaries of cities and boroughs shall be settled and described by an Act to be passed for that purpose in this present Parliament, which Act, when passed, shall be taken to be part of this Act.'' He should, therefore, give notice, that this Bill should not take effect till the Bill providing a constituency and boundaries 759 of boroughs should be passed into a law. He would make such a motion at the end of the clause.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, Ministers appeared determined to decide the question first, and give the necessary information afterwards.
Mr. Wilkssaid, he must protest against an opposition to this clause being imputed to disinclination to Reform. Reform he was determined to advocate; but the provision contained in this clause he would steadily resist. This provision, in all its new and dangerous universality, had no necessary connexion with any of the principles of the Bill. Neither the excision of all nomination or corrupt boroughs, nor the enfranchisement intended by the Bill, required the extraordinary powers and proceedings which this clause would confer and promote. The House probably had not attended to the comprehensive nature of the measure this section propounded—otherwise they would perceive, that there was no Member who might not be affected by its operation, or whose constituents it might not injure, alarm, or excite. Had the clause only declared that the boundaries of all new boroughs intended to be created by the Bill, or the boroughs included in its schedules, should be subject to such arrangements as the Commissioners might suggest, as the Government might approve, and as Parliament, by a Boundary Bill, might enact, so far these arrangements would have been considered as expedient, and been deemed connected with the cause of Reform. But when the clause ventured to enact that every city and borough in England should be subjected to intermeddling and change, and, though otherwise unaffected by the Bill, might be visited by these Commissioners, and be liable to such additions, or subtractions, or change, as they thought proper to advise, it presented a needless and dangerous innovation against which the precautionary voice should be raised, and which should be steadily and sternly opposed. As though there were not already sufficient difficulties in the pathway of Reform, by this provision new trouble and dangers were formed; a new apple of discord was to be cast into every hamlet of the country, and new sparks were to be struck to enkindle strife and conflagration, where all hitherto had been tranquillity and content. What had already occurred under an intimation of this provision, made him deprecate the changes thus to be introduced. By this provision, the boundaries of the largest and most populous 760 boroughs might be subject to discussion and change. Their antiquity, their extent, their local distinctness, the number of the independent electors they contained, would afford no protection from the objections and conflicts which the demon spirit of change, urged on by the ambitious, or the interested, or the prejudiced, would obtrude and create. Who did not know that an opportunity would be hereby afforded for those intrigues and attempts which the histories of all boroughs recorded? The owner of contiguous houses might seek to add value to his estate, and acquire power for himself. Some noble or wealthy proprietor of adjoining estates would seek to create a political influence, by additions he might propose, injurious to the freedom of the people, and that independence the House professed to desire. Applications would be invited; discussions would ensue; misrepresentations probably would triumph, as individual interest would be more acute, and clamorous, and persevering, than the general body of a constituency whose rights might be prejudiced and honour assailed. As far, too, as the convenience and character of that House were concerned, he felt there were objections to the clause. By this provision many additional cases might be appended to that Boundary Bill, which would be sufficiently voluminous and perplexing, if confined only to the boroughs which the schedules affected. Hours and days, and weeks and months, would scarce suffice for the investigation of the new and needless subjects that would be forced upon the attention of the House, and from which no adequate advantage, either local or public, could ever result. Under such convictions he should now propose, as an amendment, that the following words be omitted—"Every city and borough in England which now returns a Member or Members to serve in Parliament (except the several cities and boroughs enumerated in the said schedule A, and the several boroughs of New Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and East Retford)"—and that the following words be introduced, "Every borough in England enumerated in the said schedules, B, C and D." That amendment, he trusted, the House would sanction, and even the Government approve; as, while it averted the general interference which he deprecated and condemned, it would provide for all the interference and arrangement which the cause of Reform could require.
§ Mr. Robinsonsupported the amendment, 761 If the clause, as proposed, was carried into effect, he was convinced it would lead to results which the Government would deplore. It would disturb the settlement of ancient boroughs, and would be a gratuitous insult upon those places where no causes for complaint had ever arisen.
§ Mr. John Campbellopposed it. He thought the alteration in many places made it necessary to include within the limits of boroughs, the inhabitants who lived outside their ancient walls; generally speaking, the most respectable of the inhabitants of these places lived in the suburbs, and had at present no votes.
Lord John Russellsaid, if the amendment of the hon. Member were agreed to, the boundaries of many a borough would exclude the constituency of the town belonging to it.
§ Mr. Crokerhad always been of opinion, that those additional parts of certain towns should be added to the boroughs to which they were attached, but the objection now made, and in which he concurred, was, that they were about to subject every borough in England to the operation of the proposed Boundary Bill, and this Boundary Bill was still in embryo, so that, if some additional provisions were not added to the clause, and by any accident the Parliament should be dissolved, the greatest confusion would inevitably ensue.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, there were several places where it would be very desirable to add the other parts of the town to the borough, and he thought the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman would confine the operation of the clause within its proper limits. He would take the case of Tamworth, where the castle was built before the Conquest, and the Charter was granted by Queen Elizabeth. He did by no means desire to prevent the inhabitants of all parts of the town from being allowed to vote for Members of Parliament, but he wished the limits of the borough, as settled by ancient records, should be preserved.
Mr. Wilksbegged to understand whether a formal advantage was to be taken to resist the amendment he had proposed, because he had not interfered when the Chairman was reading the early part of the clause.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he considered the hon. Gentleman had allowed the proper time to go by before he had proposed his Amendment.
Mr. Wilksbegged leave to give notice, that he should propose the Amendment on 762 the bringing up of the Report, as the question was too important to be eluded by a side wind.
Mr. James L. Knightproposed an Amendment as an addition to the Clause, to the following effect, "Provided also, that this Act shall not take effect till the Act of Parliament settling the boundaries and constituency of boroughs shall be passed." He had apprehended that the Bill was not to take effect until that point had been accomplished, but the clause as it stood seemed to allow it might be brought into operation before the Boundary Bill passed, by which great inconvenience might arise to the old constituency; he therefore desired its effects should be limited by the provision he had proposed. He believed no substantial objections could be made to the adoption of these words as part of the clause, and, therefore, he now begged leave to move that they be inserted therein.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellconsidered the Amendment absolutely necessary, and he trusted the noble Lord did not think it was brought forward to create delay and cause vexation. The clause certainly could not be agreed to without some such additional provision as was proposed by his hon. and learned friend.
§ Lord Althorpconsidered the Amendment unnecessary, inasmuch as the Bill, as it stood at present, contained a clause providing against the contingency which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite supposed to be possible.
Mr. Goulburnthought, with his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Knight), that if a dissolution of Parliament should take place before the passing of the intended Boundary Bill, many boroughs would have no constituency.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he should have no objection to consider the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, if it were brought forward, not as an Amendment, but as a separate clause.
Mr. Knightsaid, that if he understood from the noble Lord that such a clause would be inserted in the Bill, he would not press his Motion.
§ Lord Althorptrusted that he should not be pressed to divide at once on a proposition for which he was wholly unprepared.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, they had better delay the further consideration of the subject, to allow the noble Lord an opportunity of considering the matter maturely. In many boroughs it was a question affecting the rights of property as well as of voting.
§ Mr. William Bankessaid, that since it appeared that the noble Lord had met with an unexpected difficulty, which he required time to consider, surely he would not require Gentlemen upon that (the Opposition) side of the House to divide at once in favour of the clause as it at present stood, without having time to consider whether the Amendment now proposed would be equally effectual if proposed as a separate clause.
§ Mr. Crokersuggested that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Agreed to. The House resumed.