HC Deb 30 May 1842 vol 63 cc986-92
Sir R. Peel

moved the third reading of the Property-tax Bill.

Mr. Sharman Crawford

moved as an amendment, That as by the existing laws, a large proportion of the people of this realm are excluded from voting for Members of Parliament; and as it also appears, by the reports of different election committees, that corrupt practices have been used to an extraordinary extent in procuring the return of Members to this present House of Commons; and as, from both these causes, this House cannot be considered a fair representation of the people; it is therefore unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by Parliament until all just causes of complaint, with regard to the mode of electing the Members of this House, shall be first redressed. The hon. Member throughout the whole of his speech was most imperfectly heard. We understood him to say, that it was a fundamental principle of the constitution that a Money Bill should not originate in the House of Lords, on the ground that the people should only be taxed by their representatives in that House. He denied that under the present system there was even a virtual representation of the people. If they compared the return of the population, with the representation of the people in Parliament, it would appear, that in England and Wales the electors were not in greater proportion to the population than one to eighteen and a half; and in Ireland, the proportion was one in seventy-seven; and in Scotland, it was one in thirty. The proportion was now probably somewhat different, so as to render the number of the electors in a still smaller proportion to the population. At the above rate, the average of the United Kingdom would be as one to forty-two of the population, or as one voter in every nine families. Of nine male heads of families in the United Kingdom, on the average only one has the right of voting. This, to his mind, was undeniable evidence of the corrupt state of the representative system. No greater proof of this could have taken place than the conduct of the House on the motion of the hon. Member for Fins- bury, when he proposed that every Member appointed on the committee on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to inquire into the recent election compromises, should take a pledge at the Table that he had never done an illegal act to promote his election. And when it appeared there were not sufficient Members in that House who would take that pledge, it appeared that there were not less than forty places returning Members to that House against which petitions had been presented on the allegation of bribery. If a review were taken of the proceedings and reports of the different election committees and other disclosures since the Reform Act, we should find up- wards of forty towns tainted with the imputation of bribery. He believed, this would be a list of places in which bribery has been proved since the Reform Bill, and reported by the committees:Hertford, Carrickfergus, Newry, Derry, Warwick, Ipswich (twice), Evesham, Newcastle-under-Lyne (twice), Ludlow, Cambridge, St. Alban's, Walsall (treating), Sudbury, Southampton. Cases in which compromises have been made to avoid exposure: —In 1837, Bridgnorth, Norwich, Yarmouth; in 1842, Bridport, Nottingham, Lewes, Reading, Harwich, Penryn; in 1841, Canterbury. Cases in which bribery was proved before the general committee of bribery at elections:—Maldon, Cambridge, Norwich, Leominster, Hereford. Special committees have sat and reported on the bribery at Yarmouth and York. Gross bribery has been proved to exist in Lon- don, Hull, Liverpool; and places where the bribery is notorious, Pontefract, Beverley, Berwick, Stafford, Maidstone, Bridgwater, Boroughs in which petitions remain still to be tried, in which bribery is charged:—Belfast, Barnstaple, Sunderland. Again, he felt, that in consequence of the state of the representation, this nation had been engaged in wars which had been most disastrous in every sense of the word. To show the feeling which existed on this subject, every member of the Birmingham conference on the subject of reform, with the exception of two, signed the following declration:— We, the undersigned (many of whom are convinced of the utter inconsistency of all war with Christianity), and all of us deeply impressed with a sense of the terrible evils inflicted by it upon our race, the heaviest temporal calamity under which society groans, hereby record our solemn protest against it. We deem it our duty, more especially at the present moment, when the horrors of the system are brought out in vivid relief before our eyes by the recent loss of human life in Affghanistan, to declare our full conviction that the hostilities now carried on by this country in the eastern world, whether in China or beyond the borders of British India, having originated in glaring injustice, cannot be expected to terminate otherwise than in national disaster and disgrace. We believe the commencement of these hostilities to have been as unjust, impolitic, and unnecessary, as their progress hither- to has been calamitous. We have just reasons to fear that their continuance will be protracted, and we are sure that they will be productive of an incalculable amount of evil, both social and moral. We enter our solemn remonstrance against them as not only anti-Christian, but barbarous; and we deeply deplore that the public press of this country should, with few exceptions, lend its aid to kindle in our population the most vindictive passions, and to dif- fuse sentiments worthy only of the darkest ages of feudal ignorance and tyranny. We hold it to be the duty of every friend to his species in every possible way to discountenance those organs of opinion which labour with no small assiduity to foster a warlike spirit, and to in- cite the country to the perpetration of injustice which will make the name of Englishmen in- famous in the estimation of the whole world. Great Britain is already suffering in an enormous load of debt, and in commercial and manufacturing distress, consequent upon the pressure of that debt, the penalties of former wars. As a people we are ill able to bear up under the heavy burdens which have thereby been imposed upon us. We are now called upon to submit to an inquisitorial Income-tax, the necessity for which is clearly admitted as traceable to the hostile operations we hate undertaken, in the face of all laws, human and divine, in China and Affghanistan. We have thus to pay, in an increase of taxation, for the demoralization at home, and the bloodshed and ruin abroad, which these hostilities have already produced, to feed from our rapidly diminishing resources the monster which is making havoc of our fellow-men. Therefore, we, the undersigned, feeling the necessity of using every peaceable method of checking the evil, lay this our solemn remonstrance before the public, and record our devout hope, that the day may not be far distant when our countrymen will be sufficiently enlightened to refuse to enter upon a profession, the spirit and tendency of which is to inflict the most grievous and irreparable evils upon our race," What he recommended as a remedy to these evils was the extension of the suffrage, the division of the country into electoral districts, the ballot, and the shortening the duration of Paliaments. He had already, during the present Session, brought a motion to that effect before the House, and all inquiry into that matter had been refused. Was not the general prevalence of distress throughout the country a proof of the badness of their legislation? He might be asked what would take place if this resolution was carried? The result would be, that the House would immediately take into consideration the state of the representation, and have a new Parliament altogether. He did not call upon the House to adopt the principles of the Charter, but only at once to declare that it would proceed to redress all just causes of complaint. In bringing forward this motion, he was not influenced by any party considerations. He had always advocated the amendment of the representation of that House, and he always supported the principle that representation should be equivalent with taxation. At present, when new taxes were proposed, he thought that it was a most appropriate time to bring forward the motion. The hon. Member concluded with proposing his motion.

Sir R. Peel

trusted, that the hon. Member would not charge him with any want of respect if he declined to enter into the discussion of this motion, which the hon. Member's speech, however, held out every inducement to do. He thought that much more favourable occasions could have been adopted for proceeding with a proposition for a change in our representative system. The hon. Gentleman, on his former motion on this subject, stated very strong opinions that that House did not represent the feelings of the people, and that the whole system of representation was defective. The hon. Gentleman's motion, which involved the main principle of his resolution of that night, had already been fully discussed. The proposition which was now made was even of a more extensive character than that made on a former occasion, for the hon. Member now declared that the House of Commons, as at presented constituted, was incapable of performing its functions, and that the only step they ought to take was immediately to resolve upon an extensive reform in the representation. If the House was not at liberty to impose an Income-tax, they were hardly competent to reform the tariff, and were not capable of performing any of the constitutional functions which had been assigned to it. If the House was unfit to impose this measure, there was no other act which they could justly perform. He was very much afraid that the hon. Gentleman's motion would go to the extent of declaring, that the House could not even reform itself. In short, all the functions of legislation must be stopped until this reform took place. He thought that this would be most unwise in the present state of the country. He had already stated the substantive objections he entertained to the proposition on a previous occasion, and he would not then repeat them. He thought also, that it would be most inexpedient to discuss the question of Parliamentary re- form on a motion for the third reading of the Income-tax bill. He trusted that the hon. Member would not think that his abstaining to say any more on the present occasion arose from any want of respect.

Mr. O'Connell

confessed, that the motion might have been made in a more convenient form, but still he could not concur on all that had been advanced by the right hon. Baronet. There was an impression in the minds of many hon. Members who had obtained their seats by no unfair means, that if the time should come when the alterations which they thought necessary were definitively refused to be made by giving a bonâ fide suffrage, the period might also come when they would be induced to give more obstructions to the measures of Government than hitherto. That it was necessary to purify the House from bribery was no longer a matter of declamation, but of positive proof. The right hon. Baronet must not be surprised, therefore, if he met with further opposition to a Government which would not consent to further Parliamentary reform.

Mr. Hume

had no hesitation in saying, that the House did not at present represent the feelings of the country; but with respect to the form of the motion, he must say, hon. Members were placed in a difficulty, because they were not able to obtain a direct negative on this question. For his part he decidedly objected to the Income-tax, thinking that other means might have been adopted for raising the required amount of taxes; and he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the measures he proposed would give the relief to the country which he anticipated. Every hour, in his opinion, brought more proof that those measures were a mere palliative of the evils of the present crisis. There was a great mass of proof that what the people wanted was employment and food, which they would have if they could get employment. By the operation of the Corn-laws on wages the House had placed the whole community under that ban that they must starve; and there could be no hope without a revival of trade. That revival this country would never see until they had a free communication with America and other countries who had that which we wanted to give in exchange for our manufactures. A vast deal too many of our acts of Parliament were acts to support monopoly in one shape or the other. As to the corruption and bribery at the late election, every hour proved it. Another borough (Lyme) had just been brought within the line, and a new form of bribery had been disclosed — bribery, namely, in the form of money lent to the voters for a number of years, in order to secure their votes. That was distinctly bribery. All these things supported the position that the House of Commons did not at present represent the feelings of the people. He should vote for the amendment, and should oppose every stage of the bill now before the House. As to the operation of the Income-tax, it would only increase the evil. There was no transfer of the burden from one class to another, as the right hon. Baronet assumed; it was an additional tax.

Lord J. Manners

had no doubt that this motion originated from a new society for Parliamentary reform which had sent a circular to the Members of the House. These stated, that the chief part of the newspaper press of the country, including all the metropolitan press, being under the influence of one or other of the two great parties, it was impossible that Members could be fully made acquainted with the feelings of their constituents, and that, therefore, the House did not represent the wishes of the country, and the system of representation ought to be reformed. With that conclusion, drawn from such pre- mises, he did not concur, and he should like to know what portion of the population it was, that could not obtain a full and free expression of their grievances by means of the press. In his opinion there was no class so well represented in the House as the middle class—the shop-keepers and farmers. With respect to the Income-tax Bill, he supported it because he looked upon it as a bold—and believed it would be a successful—attempt to diminish the influence of wealth; to which, and not to the influence of aristocracy, a great part of the present evils were to be attributed.

Lord J. Russell

observed, that the adoption of the amendment of the hon. Member would go to the extent of making the House declare, that it was incapable to perform the functions of legislation. He should oppose the amendment and should also take the sense of the House on the third reading of the Income-tax Bill

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 156; Noes 21:—Majority 135.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Conolly, Col.
A'Court, Capt. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Acton, Col. Craig, W. G.
Ainsworth, P. Dalmeny, Lord
Allix, J. P. Damer, hon. Col.
Bagge, W. Darby, G.
Baillie, Col. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Baird, W. Denison, E. B.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Dickinson, F. H.
Barnard, E. G. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Barneby, J. Duncombe, hon. A.
Barrington, Visct. Duncombe, hon. O.
Beckett, W. Eliot, Lord
Bodkin, W. H. Escott, B.
Boldero, H. G. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Broadwood, H. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Brodie, W. B. Flower, Sir J.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Ffolliott, J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Fuller, A. E.
Burroughes, H. N. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Busfeild, W. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Cavendish, hn. G. H. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Cayley, E. S. Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Chelsea, Visct. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Chetwode, Sir J. Greenall, P.
Childers, J. W. Greene, T.
Cholmondeley, hon. H. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Chute, W. L. W. Grimsditch, T.
Clerk, Sir G. Grogan, E.
Clive, E. B. Halford, H.
Cockburn, rt. hn.SirG. Hamilton, J.H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Hamilton, W. J.
Compton H. C. Hamilton, Lord C.
Hampden, R. Packe, C. W.
Harcourt, G. G. Palmerston, Visct.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Patten, J. W.
Hawes, B. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Heathcote, G. J. Peel, J.
Henley, J. W. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Herbert, hon. S. Pollington, Visct.
Heron, Sir R. Pollock, Sir F.
Hervey, Lord A. Ponsonby. hn. C. F.C.
Hodgson, R. Price, R.
Hogg, J. W. Pringle, A.
Howard, hon. E. G. G. Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Howard, P. H. Reade,W. M.
Hughes, W. B. Reid, Sir J. R.
Humphery, Mr. Ald. Rice, E. R.
Hutt, W. Richards, R.
Johnstone, Sir J. Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Kelburne, Visct. Round, C. G.
Knatchbull, right hon. Round,J.
Sir E. Rushbrooke, Col.
Lefroy, A. Russell, Lord J.
Legh, G. C. Sheppard, T.
Lemon, Sir C. Smith, rt. hon. R. v.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Smyth, Sir H.
Lincoln, Earl of Smythe, hon. G.
Lindsay, H. H. Somerset, Lord. G.
Litton, E. Stanton, W. H.
Long, W. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Lowther, J. H. Stewart, J.
Mackenzie, T. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Mackenzie, W. F. Thornhill, G.
Maclean, D. Trevor, hon. G. R.
M'Geachy, F. A. Vere, Sir C. B.
Mainwaring, T. Vesey, hon. T.
Manners, Lord J. Wall, C. B.
Martin, C. W. Wilde, Sir T.
Master, T. W. C. Wood, C.
Masterman, J. Wood, Col. T.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Worsley, Lord Wortley, hon. J. S.
Morgan, C. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Mundy, E. M. Wrightson, W. B.
Newport, Visct. Wyndham, Col. C.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Northland, Visct. TELLERS.
O'Brien, A. S. Baring, H.
Ogle, S. C. H. Fremantle, Sir T.
List of the NOES.
Bodkin, J. J. Leader, J. T.
Bowring, Dr. Marsland, H.
Brotherton, J. Murray, A.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. O'Connell, M.
Cobden, R. Plumridge, Capt.
Drax, J. S. W. E. Scholefield, J.
Duncombe, T. Strickland, Sir G,
Ellice, E. Wakley, T.
Ferguson, Col. Williams, W,
Fielden, J. TELLERS.
Hollond, R. Crawford, W. S.
Hume, J. O'Connell, D.

Question again put that the bill be read a third time.