THE HON. MEMBER FOR ST. IVES. (Hansard, 8 July 1835)

§ Mr. Divett
rose to call the attention of the House to a very extraordinary act on the part of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Halse.)

§ Mr. Hume
As I understand, the hon. Member alluded to by the hon. Member for Exeter is not present, would it not be better to postpone the Motion until he is in the House?

Mr. Miles
I certainly do not think it fair that a Motion in which the hon. Member for St. Ives is personally concerned, should be discussed in his absence.

§ Mr. Divett
had seen the hon. Member about twenty minutes ago, in the House, 305 and told him that he meant to bring this subject before the House. The hon. Member for St. Ives then told him, that he would be in the House at five o'clock. Under these circumstances, he thought he was justified in submitting the Motion which he meant to make. He would then at once proceed to read a notice of a Motion, in relation to the Corporation Reform Bill, which had been put on the notice book by the hon. Member for St. Ives. It was as follows:—"That all prisoners in Newgate, and the other gaols in England and Wales, although possessing no other qualification, be, upon the principle of the Bill, entitled indiscriminately to an equal participation in all the franchises, as well magisterial as elective, thereby created; and that, to obviate all uncertainty or doubt of the benevolent intention of the Bill, and the happy tendency thereof, being, in effect, to render all the higher ranks of his Majesty's loyal and respectable subjects subordinate to the lowest, without regard to property or character, a Clause be introduced, in accordance with the same principle, expressly enacting to that effect; and that it may for ever thereafter be well understood, that the whole population in the corporate jurisdictions are, in all other relations of life, placed upon a footing of perfect equality, agreeably to the natural rights of man; and also a Clause to provide a suitable retreat for the gentry residing within these jurisdictions, and who, with a mind and feelings becoming their station, may seek an escape for themselves from the scene of such a revolutionary infliction." He did not then mean to characterize in any way the Motion which he had just read; as he thought that the hon. Member for St. Ives would see the necessity of apologizing to the House for having placed such a notice upon their book. If, however, the hon. Member did not see the expediency of taking that course which was due to the dignity of the House, he (Mr. Divett) would move, in the strongest language in which it was possible to express his meaning, that this notice be expunged.

§ Mr. Hume
would second such a motion. He was certainly desirous that the hon. Member to whom it referred should be present before they entered on any proceeding in the matter; but after the explanation which had been given on this point by the hon. Member for Exeter, he did not see any reason why the Motion should be delayed. It had always been understood that no notice should be inserted on the 306 notice book which had not a practical and useful object to answer. He did not think that any hon. Member could say that the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Ives had any such tendency. He was, therefore, desirous that this notice should be struck out; and this, he believed, was all the House could do in the matter.

§ Mr. Divett
conceived that such a notice was a gross insult, as well to the House as to the respectable householders intended to be incorporated under the new Municipal Bill. Having given notice to the hon. Member for St. Ives, that he would call the attention of the House to this subject at five o'clock; and as the hon. Member did not choose to make his appearance, he thought he was justified in at once moving, "That a notice having appeared on the books from the hon. Member for St. Ives, which appears to be a gross insult to this House, and to the householders to whom the Corporation Bill is meant to apply, it is the wish of the House that such notice be expunged."

Sir G. Clerk
doubted very much whether the hon. Member for St. Ives would move a resolution on the Corporation Reform Bill in conformity with the terms of the notice which he had given. He did not mean to express his concurrence in, or give his support to, the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Ives; but he merely wished to observe that when the hon. Member should make the Motion it would be then competent to any other Member to move that the resolution which he might submit be expunged; and he believed that it had not been unusual for hon. Members who entertained a strong opinion on any Measure passing through that House to take the same means as the hon. Member for St. Ives had used of expressing their minds in bold and sometimes not very decorous language. This was a mode of attack to which the late Mr. Sheridan had frequently resorted, and in one instance with reference to the Royal Marriage Act; and he did not see what the hon. Member for Exeter could gain by having his Motion agreed to, because even if the Motion were expunged it would still be in the power of the hon. Member for St. Ives to bring forward his Motion if he should think fit. The notice was only an intimation to the House that it was intended to bring forward such a Motion, and the House, he thought, should not be called on to interfere with that notice.

§ Mr. Warburton
said, that, taking for granted that the notice was given as a mode of conveying the opinions of the hon. Member on the subject of the Corporation Bill, it must be considered rather a speech than a notice. It was, at all events, a very inconvenient mode of carrying into effect the supposed intention of the hon. Member for St. Ives, and he would, therefore, support the Motion for expunging the notice.

Mr. Ruthven
thought it rather premature to expunge the notice without hearing the defence of the hon. Member for St. Ives, if he had any to make.

§ Mr. Divett
If the terms in which the notice is drawn up had been used in the heat of debate, I should be willing to concede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dublin; but as it appears to be a notice coolly and deliberately penned, I feel bound to persevere in the Motion which I have made.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that he thought that the continuance of such a notice on their books, as that which had been given by the hon. Member for St. Ives, was little creditable to the common sense or the dignity of the House. He hoped that such a notice, which he could not call an insult to the House, because he did not know what was the intention of the hon. Member who placed it on the Journals, would not be any longer continued on the books.

§ Mr. Divett
would withdraw his Motion for expunging the notice, if that was the feeling of the House.

§ Mr. Hume
Then I shall move, that the notice given by the hon. Member for St. Ives be discontinued in the votes.

Mr. Miles
considered that the notice was not worthy of the consideration which seemed to be attached to it by the Motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex.

§ Colonel Leith Hay
differed entirely from the hon. Member who spoke last, as to the way in which this Motion should be treated by the House. He did not think that such a notice should be allowed to remain on the books. He could not bring himself to believe that the hon. Member who placed it there had not sense enough to see that such a mode of proceeding was far from being conducive to the maintenance of the dignity of the House. The hon. Member might have considered it a very good joke, but it was certainly one which ought not to have been played within the precincts of that House.

§ Mr. Wilks
said, that though the propriety pf bringing this question forward might, in 308 the first instance, be questioned, still, as it had been introduced, he thought it should be persevered in, because the withdrawal of it now might be construed into an expression of approval of the proceeding on the part of the hon. Member for St. Ives.