The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that he rose to present a Petition on the subject of Reform, to which, notwithstanding the number of petitions which had been presented on that question, he felt it his duty to call the attention of their Lordships, not only on account of the number of signatures appended to it, but on account of the great respectability of the parties from whom the petition emanated. It was adopted at a public Meeting convened in the city of London, and held in the Egyptian-hall, consisting of the merchants, bankers, and other traders of the Metropolis; and when he stated that eight or nine tenths of those persons who came fairly under that description had signed this petition, —that in point of fact it had been signed by almost all the respectable merchants of London, and that altogether it had attached to it the names of about 9,000 persons, filling the rank of traders in London—he was sure that their Lordships would see that it was highly deserving of their attention. He was not desirous on this occasion to revive in that House the irregular, though certainly not useless discussion, upon the general subject of the measure which had taken place there previous to the late recess; but he could not avoid calling the attention of the House to the peculiar value of the opinions of that class of persons from whom this petition emanated. Having been one of those who had given their assent to this measure of Reform, solely on the ground that they thought it calculated to strengthen and render permanent the invaluable establishments under which we had the happiness to live, he was glad to find the opinions of persons who were most deeply interested not only in the permanency of our establishments, but in the continuance of the peace and the tran- 1323 quillity of the country, thus expressed in favour of the measure of Reform which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers. He was rejoiced to find persons whose most valuable interests were closely interwoven with the existence of those institutions, and with the peace of the country, thus coming forward, after having maturely considered the details of the Reform Bill, and expressing their conviction that the adoption of such a measure by Parliament would tend most effectually to preserve the institutions, and the peace and quiet of the country, upon the preservation of which their interests so vitally depended. The proprietors of land were interested in the preservation of that tranquillity, but perhaps not so much as those who were engaged in trade and commerce. Should a storm arise, whenever it passed away real property would regain its value; but it was totally a different case with those whose wealth consisted in the circulating capital of the country. Even a temporary interruption of the public tranquillity might extinguish all their hopes, and destroy all their property. He therefore regarded this petition, coming as it did from such an important class of persons, as affording a strong argument in favour of the Reform which had been proposed by his Majesty's Government. The noble Marquis concluded by presenting the petition, which was ordered to lie on the Table.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas anxious to obtain some information from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, explanatory of his declaration on a former occasion, so far as that declaration was contravened by a more recent statement on the part of Ministers elsewhere. It might be remembered that the noble Earl had pledged himself to stand or fall by the Reform Bill now on the table of the other House of Parliament, and not to abate a jot of its provisions. Since that declaration, however, Ministers had seen reason to depart from their measure in several important particulars—of which it would be sufficient to cite their having renounced their intention of reducing the number of the Members of the House of Commons. The noble Marquis was proceeding to read extracts from Lord John Russell's speech, in order to show that that noble Lord had laid great stress on the necessity of a reduction of the number of the Members of the other House, when—
The Earl of Mansfieldrose to order It was irregular, he said, and contrary to the usages of Parliament, to make the alleged reports of what might have occurred elsewhere the subject of discussion in that House.
The Marquis of Londonderrywould not persist in discussing the speech of the noble Mover of the Reform Bill, though he could not see any impropriety or inconvenience in his doing so; and should therefore confine himself to a simple question— namely, whether Ministers meant to reduce the number of the House of Commons from 658 to 596 as they had originally proposed, or not? How they meant, in case they did not reduce them, to fill up the deficiency which their disfranchising clause, and the schedules A and B, would occasion? Whether, in fact, they meant to retain these disfranchisements like so many old bad notes to be issued at convenience.
§ Earl Greyconcurred entirely with the noble Earl opposite, who had risen to order, as to the inconvenience and irregularity of discussions founded on newspaper reports, however accurate, and on the merits of a measure which had not yet come before them substantially. He, however, would answer the noble Marquis briefly, but, he trusted, satisfactorily. The noble Marquis had reminded their Lordships of his (Earl Grey's) pledge delivered on a former occasion, to the effect that he would not consent to compromise the principle of the Reform measure, but would stand or fall by it as originally planned. The noble Marquis had correctly stated his declaration. He had said, that he would stand or fall by the principle of the Bill now in progress in the other House of Parliament; and for the satisfaction of the noble Marquis would then repeat his declaration, that he would not consent for himself or his colleagues to abandon a single principle of that Bill, but would stand or fall by it as it succeeded or otherwise. When he had, however, expressed his determination to thus stand or fall by the Reform Bill, he had also explicitly stated, that it was the principle of that Bill which he would not for a moment consent to compromise—for he was not presumptuous enough to imagine that there might not be defects of detail susceptible of improvement. The principle which Ministers had in view in bringing forward the measure was, to effect such improvements in 1325 the Representation of the people as the well-being of the country required,—in fact, to adapt the Representation to the institutions, to the wants, property, and intelligence of the country; and he would not consent to any alteration in the provisions—not to say the principle—of that measure, which was at all likely to interfere with this its great object. As a means to this end, and not as an end in itself, Ministers proposed to disfranchise certain boroughs incompatible with a pure system of Representation, and therefore they would not assent to any modifications of the means which might defeat the end they had in view. With respect to what the noble Marquis had observed touching a reduction of the Members of the other House of Parliament, he begged their Lordships to bear in mind, that that reduction formed no essential portion of the measure—that it was a question the merits of which were not involved in the success or merits of the Reform Bill. It was true that he and his colleagues did entertain an opinion that such a reduction would be advantageous to the public weal, and that a fewer number would contribute to the despatch of public business; but that opinion formed, he repeated, no essential element of their plan of Reform; and therefore not to insist on its enforcement could not in fairness be construed into a compromise of the principle by which he pledged himself to stand or fall. This opinion of the inconvenience of the present large number of the House of Commons' Members was not a new one of his. He had often asserted it, more particularly when the act of legislative Union with Ireland was under the consideration of the other House of Parliament. On that occasion he moved, as an amendment to the Bill, that 100 Members be taken off the Representation of England, to make room for the 100 new Members which Ireland was to send under its provisions, and the feelings of the majority of the House, and the then Government, were far from being-hostile to his proposition, the chief obstacle to the success of which arose from the principle of compensation to certain borough proprietors in Ireland having been recognised by the Government. His opinion, then, as to the advantages of a reduction of the number of the Commons, he repeated, formed no essential part of the Reform Bill, and was to be judged of on other grounds. Then as to some alter- 1326 ations which it was proposed to make in the details of the Bill, he wished it to be borne in mind, that they were so far from being opposed to its principle, that they only went to carry it into effect, and were only such improvements as more correct information suggested. Since the plan and objects of the Bill had been first announced to Parliament, Ministers had obtained more correct returns of the population of the boroughs and towns which it would affect; and the result would be a modification, in two or three instances, of the schedules A and B; but, as he had before said, no departure from the principle of the measure. The noble Marquis asked whether Ministers meant to propose that the number of the Commons should be kept up to 658, the present number; and if so, how they meant to fill up the deficiency which the disfranchising clauses would occasion. His answer was, that Ministers would not originate any proposition to make good this deficiency. Their individual opinions were, as he had stated, in favour of a reduction of the number; but if the House of Commons should, contrary to this opinion, agree that the full complement of 658 Members was expedient, he and his colleagues did not feel that they should therefore abandon the Bill of which this reduction was not an essential feature. If a deficiency should thus require to be filled up, he was not called upon to say how it might be done with advantage to the public. All he would say was, that he would not consent to its being filled up from schedule A, that is, from the boroughs proposed to be disfranchised altogether. Nor from schedule B, that is, from those boroughs which the bill would deprive of the power of returning more than one Member, but only in such a way as would conduce to the great object of the measure —the giving to the property and intelligence of the country their due share of Representation. The Government had no power or intention of doling out the right of sending Representatives like bank notes, as the noble Marquis thought fit to describe it. Their Lordships knew well what situation Ministers were in, and that they could not dole out the right of Representation as they thought fit. Ministers had no such power. It depended upon the House of Commons, and on that House to determine how the Representation should be apportioned. Any alterations that were proposed by Ministers should be on the 1327 principle he had stated. It was in strict accordance with the principle of the measure, to correct any errors into which the framers of the Bill had fallen from the errors in the population returns. There had been, and there should be, no alteration proposed or consented to by him or his colleagues, which was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. He felt himself pledged to the character and efficiency of the measure, and to its principles, and from those principles he would not depart—and upon those principles, when carried into effect, he once more repeated, that he was prepared to stand or fall.
The Earl of Carnarvonhad, since he last addressed their Lordships, minutely examined the noble Earl's Bill, and could safely say, that one more extraordinary in itself, and more extravagantly mischievous, it had never been his fortune to peruse. The noble Earl said, he would stand or fall by its principle; but as yet they had to learn what that principle was. He really could not say what it was, unless, indeed, he could call it the principle of confiscation. Indeed, its leading principle was so difficult to discover, that its proposers had the right to claim the power of amending it The noble Earl who had just spoken, said the Bill was intended to make the Representation more consistent with the institutions of the country. He had looked through the Bill, and he could not find that principle in any part of it. Upon the proposed Bill, the whole power of the country was given to one description of voters. He undertook to say, that under the new Bill a great majority of the voters would be found amongst the lower classes. All house holders of 10l. were to vote, and the amount was not to be estimated according to the assessment, but according to the value of the houses. Every one knew, that the assessment was considerably lower than the value, and therefore if noble Lords looked to 10l. as assessed, and the sum giving the right of voting, they mistook the provisions of the Bill. Looking to other parts of the Bill they were greatly objectionable. Not less than eighty boroughs were to be left to the discretion of the Privy Council, because they did not furnish what was considered a sufficient number of voters. Thirty-nine, or nearly half that number of boroughs, did not contain a majority of the freemen within their precincts, and therefore all 1328 those boroughs might be said to be at the disposal of the Privy Council. After full, due, and mature consideration, such was the plan his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward for providing a new and a better constitution, and for preserving the settled institutions of the country, which were amongst the greatest works of man, and had given wealth, character, and reputation to Great Britain, and placed her at the head of all the nations of the world. The institutions of this country had also been proved to contain a principle of stability beyond those of any other country. The reason of this was, because the institutions of Great Britain had not been devised by any man, but had grown up with the habits of the people, and the country had prospered under them. He was not one of those who thought that, because the institutions of this country were good, they might not be improved and amended. Those whose eyes were suddenly opened, and who had become all at once Radicals, might ridicule his idea, that a Bill of Reform might become better by calm consideration, and that its details should be considered seriatim. If caution and deliberation were not used in any measure of Reform, it would not only tend to unsettle the Constitution, but to unsettle men's minds. In an article which appeared in the "Edinburgh Review," some years since, and which was forcibly and eloquently written, of which a person intimately connected with the present Government was generally known to be the author, it was justly stated, that the great practical excellence of the British Constitution arose from the immense variety of the rights of election which existed. The proposed Bill got rid of that variety, by extending the franchise to the householders in towns; so that popular clamour must always prevail, however it might be opposed to the good of the people, or the safety of the Crown. It had been thrown in his teeth that he had toiled through many unprofitable nights in that House, attending to the Bills for disfranchising corrupt boroughs. In the East Retford case, which was brought before the House last year, the voters were brought to the bar seriatim, to fix the guilt on themselves. Now, to the best of his recollection, the greater number of those who were brought to the bar of their Lordships' House, and confessed themselves guilty of bribery, were little tradesmen in small towns, men to whom the 1329 franchise was given under this Bill, as they were generally persons who occupied houses valued above 10l. The boroughs, too, to which those voters belonged—such boroughs as Penryn and Retford—containing from 350 to 550 voters, were precisely the boroughs which were now to be established under this Bill. If the Bill, by establishing such a description of boroughs, and giving the right of voting to small tradesmen, secured the purity of election, and put an end to bribery, it would act contrary to all the facts derived from experience. One of the principles of this Bill rested on the basis of population. Now, upon that point he would only observe, that though Ministers had laid down that principle in theory, they had by no means followed it in practice; for if they had, they would have found that the basis of population would have hurried them on from one step to another, until every vestige of the Constitution had been destroyed. He looked upon this Bill as the most unprincipled measure that he had ever heard of; and by the term "unprincipled" he merely meant destitute of any fixed principle. It was a measure which had evidently been got up in a hurry by the present Ministry. Their friends had made foolish speeches to their constituents out of doors, and, to make good those extravagant speeches, Ministers had brought in a measure quite as extravagant. He was certain that this Bill was not the production of his noble friend at the head of the Government; it bore no mark of his master-hand—it displayed no trace of his genius, of his talent, or of his experience. He must have assigned the task of drawing up a new Constitution for the country to a committee of superannuated school-boys, just as he had assigned the task of drawing up his budget to some young statesmen of precocious experience, for in both cases the Ministers were equally unsuccessful. They brought forward a plan of finance for the year, which they were obliged to abandon within a week of their first proposing it. He trusted that they would have the good sense to abandon in the same way their Reform Bill, which had been brought forward with as little consideration as their Budget. That Bill confiscated vested rights by wholesale, and sacrificed to mere theory privileges which had long existed in all classes of the community. It was now only the middle of April, and it was not until the 1st of March that the secret of 1330 this Bill was communicated to the public. He thought that they ought to have more than six weeks to judge of the merits of a Bill which would destroy the present Constitution of England so far as related to the Representation of the people in the House of Commons, after it had lasted for as many as six centuries. They were proceeding not with calm deliberation, but with breathless haste, to pass a Bill which might place their Lordships in the greatest jeopardy. He contended, that more time ought to be granted for deliberation; for the country had been taken by surprise, and had been deluded into a sudden burst of approbation of this measure by the clap-traps which it contained for all sorts of men. The fact was, that the more men looked into its details the more they disliked it; and doubts as to its eligibility and its expediency were rising up in the mind of every liberal and thinking man in the country. He wished that his noble friend at the head of the Government would consider, before he proceeded further with this Bill, who were the allies who supported him in it. His noble friend knew enough of the motives of men to be aware of the causes which had induced so many discordant parties to unite in approbation of his Bill. All the violent agitations of the country, all its covert treasons, were arrayed in support of it. They had determined to give his noble friend a temporary respite from the agitation of the Ballot, and of the Repeal of the Union. But they had let out their reason for so doing—they had avowed their belief that his noble friend would unintentionally do more for them in a single Session by this Bill of his, than they could ever hope to do for themselves in a long series of years by all their discussions. Yes, the Irish agitators were all his noble friend's own! and he wished his noble friend much joy of his possession. The Birmingham Union, too, was all his own—that Union which had told the highest authorities of the country that they had funds and men to furnish two armies, each equal to that which fought at Waterloo, if it should be necessary to take up arms against the oligarchy. That was a phrase which of late had become fashionable: but, for his own part, he must say, that he did not know who the persons were who were branded under the title of the oligarchy. Did the reformers of Birmingham mean by the oligarchy the gentry of the country? Did they mean 1331 that they would burn a few of their houses? Did they mean, that at their bidding the King was likely to become the greatest rebel in all his dominions? Then the two penny trash all supported his noble friend; so that, with this great confederate array, his noble friend marched against the old institutions of the country, supported by all the blasphemy and sedition which it contained. Did his noble friend think, that because the property of the country was silent, because those who held it, being accustomed to place confidence in the Government, from never having seen their flanks turned by Government on the one side, and by sedition on the other, had not expressed themselves clamorously against this measure—did his noble friend think, that they did not feel the deepest alarm at its uncalled-for magnitude, and its probable risk? They were inclined to give his noble friend all credit for honest and pure intention; but they believed that on this occasion he had been led away by the counsels of others. The magic wand of Comus, and the enchanted cup of Circe, were very potential; and he really believed that his noble friend must have been struck by the one or have been intoxicated by the other, before he changed his nature so far as to give his consent to the innovations which this Bill was calculated to make upon the Constitution. He was sorry to hear his noble friend opposite— he meant the noble Marquis (Lansdown)— avowing that within the last three months he had seen grounds for altering all his former opinions. [The noble Marquis expressed his dissent.] If his noble friend had altered them for good and sufficient reasons, he had done wisely; but if there was any thing that had given him more pain than another in the course of these discussions, it was the belief that his noble friend, on whose talents he had been accustomed to rely for the salvation of the country, had been induced to drink of the same Circeian cup with his noble colleague at the head of the Government. What effect had been produced on the public mind by the manner in which his noble friend had brought forward this vaunted Reform Bill? The effect of it had been this—that all discreet, and prudent, and thinking men looked upon his noble friend as the Neckar of the French Revolution. They believed him to be guiding the country, unknowingly, to the brink of a precipice—they believed, that when his 1332 eyes should be opened, and he should look down upon the dreadful abyss which was yawning to ingulf it, he would recoil from his own act, and, with a hand too powerless to save and too virtuous to immolate his country, he would leave it to some ruthless ruffian arm to hurl it down to irretrievable destruction. That was the opinion of thousands who were deeply interested in the commercial welfare and prosperity of the country. They were convinced that confidence, which was the life and soul of commerce, would be destroyed by the passing of this Bill; that capital would be driven from the country; that the same species of agitation which had driven manufactures from France in the time of Louis 14th, would drive them from our shores; and that then, like Virtue, when she fled the earth, they would never re-appear in their ancient resting-place. If Ministers had taken time to provide for the safety of the different interests of the country in this Bill, they might have had the benefit of his vote, such as it was, in its favour; but they had cut that question short; for in their scramble to disfranchise totally all boroughs with less than 2,000, and partially all boroughs with less than 4,000 inhabitants, and in their determination to base their Bill on a principle of population which they did not always carry into practice, they had lost sight of all those great interests which it was their bounden duty to have protected and preserved. He begged it might be understood that he was not enamoured of the anomalies of the Constitution. If any Bill had been introduced, founded on a moderate principle, it should have had his support. The measure intended to have been introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the other House of Parliament, would have deserved his support. It proceeded on an intelligible principle, whilst the Bill now before Parliament proceeded on an unknown principle, and could not be adopted without getting rid of those mighty interests on which the wealth and power of the country were founded. If they altered the institutions of the country, and adopted new institutions, it should be done with caution and deliberation. He was himself a friend to moderate Reform; and he believed that, in the present state of the country, they must concede to Reform something more than in their own calm and deliberate judgment 1333 they might think prudent. But, to concede every thing to Reform, as was proposed in this Bill—to advance blindly, perhaps to salvation, but more probably to inevitable destruction—was that which no sensible man could ever think of doing. He therefore called upon the House and upon the country to pause before they gave their consent to a measure, which might plunge the country into a dangerous abyss, from which no human councils could ever withdraw it. The noble Earl concluded by observing, that their Lordships might not perhaps pay much attention to his boding voice, but that would not prevent him from raising it, whenever any measure was proposed to them which he thought likely to inflict injury on the laws and constitution of his country.
§ The Bishop of Bristol, though not unfriendly to rational Reform, could not give his consent to the measure which was at present before the other House of Parliament. Though the petitions in behalf of that measure were very numerous, he knew enough of the modes by which such petitions were got up, to induce him to believe that they did not express the sentiments of the majority of the people. If the Bill had contained any provisions calculated to check that corruption and bribery at elections which all good men deplored, if it had gone no further than shortening the duration of the poll and limiting the expenses of election, he might have been inclined to support it: but, extensive as it now was, he could not look upon it as any thing else than a dangerous innovation upon the Constitution of the country. He objected to the Bill for another reason—it was a dangerous infringement on the rights of property; and if Parliament once commenced a course of spoliation on one species of property, there was no telling what species of property would long continue safe. He was of opinion, that even the boasted omnipotence of Parliament was not competent to deprive individuals, without their consent, of a species of property which they had long enjoyed. Individuals should not even be called on to forfeit property to which they had an undoubted right. He likewise contended, that this Bill was indefensible, inasmuch as it deprived the different corporations of the country of privileges which had long been vested in them. If Birmingham and Manchester were desirous of being represented in Parliament, let 1334 them, with the large funds which were at their disposal, compensate the decayed boroughs which they deprived of the elective franchise. Though no man was more willing than he was, to correct any real abuses, he could not help deprecating this measure, which he believed to be pregnant with mischief of every description to all the different interests of the country. He hoped that, if the Bill should come before their Lordships, the noble Earl at the head of the Government would modify it as much as possible. He was fully aware of the responsibility which he incurred by this declaration of his opinion, and he was anxious to have it understood that, in making it, he was merely expressing his own individual opinions, and not those of the honourable profession to which he belonged.
The Lord Chancellor.—"My Lords, I assure you, most unaffectedly, that I rise with great reluctance to prolong this unusual, and I believe I must say irregular, and I am sure that we all feel, greatly inconvenient, discussion into which my noble friend has so unexpectedly dragged the House. [Cries of "no, no."] Then if I must not say dragged your Lordships, I will borrow one of my noble friend's metaphors, which I will endeavour to keep unmixed,— though in the myriad of metaphors which he employed he always mixed them in the most inexplicable confusion, —I will say, that if your Lordships were not dragged, you were seduced and beguiled into this discussion by my noble friend most needlessly and unexpectedly; for my noble friend who presented the petition, confined himself most closely to that which, according to the strictest rules of your Lordships' House, is most in order: he did not enter into the whole merits of the whole question, but limited himself to making a comment on the persons from whom the petition proceeded, on the importance of the prayer of the petition, and on the manner and on the occasion on which the petitioners had congregated together. These were the topics, and these were the only topics, on which my noble friend entered; but my noble friend near me, who cautiously abstained from joining in the Debate when the question was not raised irregularly, or unusually, or incidentally upon a petition, but when it was brought forward expressly, and avowedly for the purpose of forcing a Debate on the merits of the Reform Bill— 1335 my noble friend, who was silent when we all were prepared for Debate, comes down when a petition is to be presented, and we are all unprepared, and drags us,—no I will not say drag, for that implies force, but seduces us, for that implies consent— into a discussion, to which he brings a speech of great rhetoric, exuberant fancy, multitudinous metaphor, and long premeditation, and filled with great, if not always successful, attempts to instruct and amuse us; but a speech, of which, what-ever may be its other rare and exalted merit, conciseness is not that merit which I would venture to predicate as its distinguishing characteristic. With all deference to my noble friend, I must say, that he took us all a little by surprise. My noble friend commenced his oration by saying that he had only a word or two to say regarding this petition. Then I thought to myself, ' Oh, there is nothing here but what is right and regular.' But then he said that which, from the long experience I have had of this and the other House of Parliament, gave me strange misgivings, —he said—and it is always an ominous introduction to a professedly short statement—'far be it from me upon this occasion to enter into the merits of the general question.' As soon as my noble friend had uttered those words, my experience led me to expect a long, elaborate, and premeditated disquisition on all the merits of the Reform Bill, and on every other topic which by any artifice of rhetoric my noble friend could connect with it, not excepting that which was the real cause of his speech,—a general, a virulent, and not a very candid or even amicable attack on the character and persons of those who at this moment constitute the Cabinet. I should only be running the risk of verifying my own remark were I to begin the defence of my noble colleagues and myself by abjuring any intention to enter into it at any great length. I have reason to know that my noble friend came down here fortified by good sleep and an excellent dinner,—I have not had the same benefit of either bed or board. I have undergone the fatigues of a long day without refreshment, and therefore your Lordships have some pledge that I shall not detain you longer than is absolutely necessary. My noble friend and the right rev. Prelate who followed him,—and here I will observe, that I could wish that my noble friend had imitated the right rev. 1336 Prelate, whose speech was distinguished by straightforwardness of purpose and undeviating liberality and candour,—my noble friend and the right rev. Prelate both state that they are Reformers, and that they will not stand up for acknowledged abuses. ' Only prove to us,' says the right rev. Prelate, echoing the words of my noble friend, ' only prove to us that these things are abuses, and we will be among the first to lop them off.' Is it then, in the opinion of my noble friend, who advertises himself as a reformer in one of the most anti-Reform speeches that I ever heard in the whole course of my life, and whose advertisement contains as correct an account of his reforming propensities as the advertisements in the daily journals do of the wares advertised by them for sale —is it in the eye of such a Reformer as my noble friend no abuse that the most populous, the most opulent, the most enterprising, and the most intelligent cities in this empire should be wholly unrepresented, whilst the mouldering mounds of Old Sarum, and the barren walls of Mid-hurst each send two Members to Parliament? 'Oh, but then,' says he, 'if your plan had been confined to that, Birmingham and Manchester might have been permitted to return Members to the House of Commons.' Be it so. But then, is it no abuse,—mind, I am addressing myself all this time to a sincere thoroughgoing Reformer, for such my noble friend professes himself to be,—is it no abuse, I ask, in the eyes of my noble friend, that the power of giving laws to a great empire, with millions of subjects at home, and tens of millions of subjects abroad,—the power of giving laws to this great and intelligent country, and of all but giving laws, as my noble friend said, through this country to all the world besides,—is it no abuse, I say, that the power of making such laws should be vested as property in private individuals? Is it no abuse in his eyes that the power should be given, not by the choice of the people, but according to the caprice, inclination, or good-will of a peer or other powerful patron? Is it no abuse in his eyes that this power should be set up to auction in our public marts;—that it should be sold as notoriously as the beasts in Smithfield;—that it should be let for a term of years, like a stall or a stable;—and that it should be so openly treated as an article of traffic, that when a question arose, as I stated the other 1337 night, regarding the prompt, the discount was allowed, not in money, but in returning a Member—I speak from my own knowledge—to the Parliament now assembled?" The noble Lord then proceeded to ask—had not the buying and selling of seats been proved to be as common as that of cattle in the market? And was it in the face of acknowledged abuses such as those—abuses which, in the words of a former Speaker of the House of Commons, would have caused our ancestors to startle —that the friends of rational Reform, who would lop off these abuses, were to be denominated innovators, and to be accused of tearing up the Constitution by the roots? But there was an outcry made in favour of corporations and bodies which had come by usurpation to have a monopoly of the Representation. In his mind it was no small recommendation of the measure to say, that such abuses and anomalies would in future be got rid of by means of it. Nothing could be more degrading to him who sold, and to him who purchased, than the existing traffic in votes at elections; its effect was more prejudicial to the morals of the people, and worse for the country generally, than the evil of nomination boroughs. This barter and sale of men's voices and consciences was debasing to him who came into Parliament by means of it, and destructive of the character of those by whom he was returned; and no where was the base traffic more remarkable than in towns where freemen possessed a right of voting, particularly non-resident freemen. It was proposed by the Bill, as the best mode of lopping-off abuses, to take the right of election out of hands by which it had been invariably abused/ and to place it in the property of the country. At the same time let the noble Lord bear in mind, that the Bill did not disfranchise existing freemen. He had himself witnessed a contested election in a great rotten borough—for he would so denominate Liverpool, and place it at the head of all the rest,—and although for many months afterwards the candidates had no notion of any corrupt or undue practices, the cost of the election amounted to upwards of 40,000l. He had been told that three times 40,000l. would not be sufficient to pay the expenses of the last election that had disgraced the town of Liverpool—he hoped the last in every sense of the word; for if this Bill were torn to shivers, another 1338 and a local Bill would be necessary to deprive parties of a franchise which they had abused. The noble Lord complained of the measure having been brought forward without due deliberation, although three months had been suffered to elapse before it was introduced. But if Ministers had delayed the Bill till another Session, he rather suspected there would have been found some friend to Reform like the noble Lord, to complain of the delay. What had been said of the fair sex appeared to be applicable in the present instance:—
We men have many faults: poor women have but two,There's nothing right they say,—there's nothing right they do.So the noble Lord thought with respect to his Majesty's Ministers: like the ladies, they had only two faults in his opinion— they said and did nothing right. But this opinion of the noble Lord was of recent birth: up to a late period he had expressed no distrust or disapprobation of Ministers. He was sure that his noble friend was the last man in the world to be guilty of a wilful misrepresentation of any well-known fact; he was convinced, therefore, that he did not mean to make any wilful misrepresentation, and that he had said what he did not precisely intend to say. He had cast imputations upon those in whom, as he had already observed, up to a very late period, he professed to have the most unbounded confidence. His noble friend appeared to deny it:— when he said a late period he meant a period before Christmas, he would not even say Christmas; but an earlier period, about the 22nd of November; up to that period his noble friend at least appeared to entertain no distrust of his Majesty's present Ministers. He was neither afraid of new inroads on the fabric of the Constitution, nor of their bringing forward ridiculous measures; and, least of all, did he ever indulge in such observations as he had favoured their Lordships with in his gambols that night—he alluded to his calling them overgrown, superannuated school-boys. He was not aware what sort of beings superannuated school-boys might be: his Majesty's Ministers were not mere tyros in political affairs, nor novices in point of experience or resolution, yet such was the magic influence of the Bill —so much had it disturbed his noble friend's powers of reasoning—so great a 1339 change had it produced in his opinion— that he could discover nothing but superannuated school-boy blunderers, bunglers, or what not, in men in whom, up to a very late period, comparatively speaking, he had nothing but confidence to place—of whom he had but praise to speak. That Bill appeared indeed to be one of fascination, as regarded the noble Lord, for it had beguiled him of his better feeling, and deprived him of his better sense. As an instance of which latter effect, take the noble Lord's famous sentence beginning with Comus, ending with Circe, and containing every thing dreadful and seductive but Scylla and Charybdis. He could not undertake to follow the noble Lord through all the inconsistencies of his speech. The noble Lord declared he would have supported the measure if he did not believe it to be pregnant with mischief to the commercial, monied, and manufacturing interests of the country. Would not the noble Lord allow the bankers and monied men of London, and the manufacturers of Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield, to know something of those interests? He would not accuse his noble friend of an overweening appreciation of his own intelligence, in the opinions he had expressed as to the interest of the manufacturing and monied classes in the proposed Reform; but yet he thought it rather too much that his noble friend should give himself more credit than he would allow to the London bankers, for a correct estimation of the true interests of the monied classes, and that he should consider himself better acquainted with what concerns the manufacturing interests of the country than the manufacturers themselves; and further, he thought it rather too much that his noble friend should pronounce that measure to be unpalatable and injurious to the people, which almost all England had concurred in approving. Ill-fated, unhappy England! which has not only a Government determined to destroy the institutions of the State, and a people bent upon the annihilation of popular rights, but the whole body of her manufacturers combined to ruin her manufacturers; the bankers to compromise the monied, and the merchants to barter the commercial interest. Having ventured to trespass so far upon the attention of their Lordships, in answer to his noble friend, he should reserve, until other opportunities might arise, his defence of himself and his colleagues, in 1340 respect to the details of the Bill. He had then risen only to show that his noble friend had in fact argued nothing against the measure, and to repel the imputation which had been cast upon him, that in some number of a certain Periodical, he had demonstrated that a piebald Representation was indispensable according to the Constitution. He knew, that such things were often said, but he was sure that he had not expressed any such opinion. [The Earl of Carnarvon intimated, that he did not impute the article to which he had alluded to the noble Lord, but to a right hon. Gentleman connected with the Government.] It was, also, a gross perversion to assert, that population was the basis on which the Reform Bill proceeded. He contended that the Bill made property really and in effect the basis of Representation; and he denied that the present Representation of the freemen in Corporations was a representation of property. He knew, indeed, that it was possible for a man so to pass his life in inconsistency, as to make his last inconsistencies seem consistent with themselves; and he therefore was the less surprised, when he heard it at the same time asserted that the great principle of Representation, according to the Constitution, was the Representation of property; and that the present state of the Corporations afforded the Representation contemplated by the Constitution. But could it be said for a moment that property was the basis of the suffrage in the Corporations? Was it not the fact that the freeman might be a pauper in the pairish workhouse, and might transmit to the pauper issue of his loins the privilege of making laws for the disposal of property, and for the control of the Peerage. Did his noble friend find fault with the present Administration for their endeavours to abolish that privilege as far as was consistent with existing rights? The utmost that a respect for existing rights could require of them, they had done. They had not interfered with the present freemen, who were to be allowed to retain the suffrage for life. The Representation at present was totally disconnected with property, whereas the measure of the Government was based solely upon property. When he heard those objections from the declared friends of Reform, he was reminded of the proverb, "Save me from my friends." He, for his part, would prefer to meet the honest, uncom- 1341 promising, avowed, intelligible, and unvirulent opposition of the noble Duke, lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, than to fall into the arms of the fastidious friends of the present Ministers. Although he had, at first, felt some unwillingness to disfranchise all the boroughs included in one schedule of the Reform Bill, yet, when he came to consider the case in all its bearings, he was convinced that there was no safe mode of proceeding otherwise. He never had stated on a former occasion his doubts on the subject of these boroughs. He never had been, and never should be, ashamed to own, that he entertained those doubts be they as unpopular as they might. But when he came narrowly to inspect the subject, he found, that if the Legislature once trenched on the confines, it would not be consistent with any principle of expediency or safety, to stop short of taking all that could be got. He concurred in the present measure, which embraced a large view of the case, because, being in office, and having the support of the Government, he thought it likely to be carried; and he formerly brought forward a more confined measure, because he thought that what he then proposed was the utmost of what he should then get: he had since, however, overcome his first reluctance, and had been induced to give, and cheerfully to give, his support and assistance to a measure which he approved of, because he considered it consistent, intelligible, and effectual, and well calculated to produce, he would not say a change in,—but a restoration of, the purity of the Constitution. He felt assured, however, that, on a future opportunity, he should be able to show his noble friend that, under no circumstances, could it be fit that a Representative of the people, having the power to vote away their property and rights, should be deputed from a pig-stye, or from a ruined wall, or an enclosed mound, having no inhabitants, except for about five minutes in every seven years. There was no man less liable to the charge of having rashly attempted to overthrow the institutions which had nursed the prosperity of this country than the man who was then addressing their Lordships; but he was also incapable of confounding the rust with the pure metal, or the abuses with the original purposes of our institutions. His admiration of the theoretical excellence of the Constitution did not cause him to resist 1342 the removal of those practical perversions of it, on account of which Mr. Pitt, who at all events was no reformer, said, that it was impossible for an honest Minister to conduct the affairs of the country. He was desirous to answer the question of his noble friend as to "Who were the allies of the Government in their enterprise of Reform?" For his part, he would not judge of any man by that perverted adage, according to which a man's character was to be estimated, not by the truth of his opinions, or the uprightness of his conduct, but by his company. It was broken charity to inquire, not whether a man pursued himself a straight path, but by whom was he accidentally accompanied? He thought the measure of Reform pursued by the Ministers, sound in principle, consistent with itself and with the Constitution. Proceeding, therefore, with an anxious wish to improve, not to destroy, our institutions, were they to be condemned because their measure had this additional quality, or, as he ought rather to call it, this additional advantage, that it had received the general approbation of all classes of the people? Was it a reproach to say, that those persons called agitators were the allies of the Ministry, when, by the same accident, they had the approbation of the whole body of the people? He would repeat, was a measure, which, being consistent with its own principles, and with the principles of the Constitution, having, moreover, the accident of the universal favour of the people, to be condemned, because it had the additional accident, he would not call it merit, of pacifying that small portion of his Majesty's subjects who had avowed their own despair that anything which it was in human power to effect could ever pacify them. He did not assert that the general approbation the measure had met with was of itself a sufficient ground to justify it, and induce their Lordships to pass it, but it was surely a most extraordinary objection to the Bill to say that it had pacified the country and met the wishes of all classes of his Majesty's subjects. He had good grounds for hoping that they who now slighted that Bill would find amongst its results the pacification even of Ireland. For he could pledge his word, that in parts of that country where the Repeal of the Union had engrossed men's thoughts a few weeks ago, dissatisfaction had ceased, and all 1343 were reconciled to the legislative Union by the announcement of the Ministerial plan of Reform. He did not fear that their Lordships would be alarmed into a disapproval of such a Bill by the exaggerations of his noble friend. When the whole of the United Kingdom, from the extremity of Cornwall to the most northern point of Scotland, and from the Isle of Ely to the Coast of Galway, rested their content upon the consummation of that measure, he was sure their Lordships would not be persuaded by the representations of his noble friend to bring the tranquillity of these realms into jeopardy by its rejection. He did not mean to use the language of intimidation (into which the warning of foreseeing wisdom was too often interpreted) when he reminded their Lordships of those predictions of the great Chatham, which their severer ancestors had listened to with respect and honour, though unhappily they neglected his advice, on this question of Reform. Although the counsels of that great man were not followed, his warnings were heard without displeasure, and he (the Lord Chancellor) would venture to say, in later times, that he thought the thunders of Heaven might sometimes roll in the voice of a united people.
§ Lord Wynfordwas happy to find that the noble and learned Lord who had just addressed their Lordships, was not one of the projectors of that which he (Lord Wynford) regarded as the most scandalous part of the Ministerial project of Reform, and which involved the annihilation of vested rights. The cutting off the nomination boroughs was, in his opinion, a most sweeping confiscation, without being justified by any offence. When an offence was proved, it might justly lead to forfeiture. Liverpool was an apposite case to illustrate what he meant, and which would justify such a course of proceeding, [n such a course he would cordially concur, and would consent to confiscation when the guilt had been proved, but not before. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had talked a good deal about thunder —was there no thunder in Heaven, then, for injustice? Injustice, he believed, whether practised by a nation or classes of men, never passed unpunished. He hoped that their Lordships would attend to the opinion which the noble and learned Lord had formerly professed, and not follow his present opinion, which might 1344 lead to a confiscation of all property. He knew what Mr. Pitt's opinions were as well as that noble and learned Lord; and he recollected well, that though Mr. Pitt admitted the imperfections of our Constitution, he had always contended that they were imperfections we must still carry about us, and could not get rid of them without destroying the Constitution. They were like excrescences on the body, which could not be removed with safety. He took it for granted, as nothing had been proved against the boroughs which were to be disfranchised, that they had done nothing wrong; and yet, though no guilt had been brought home to them, sixty-two of them were to be disfranchised at once. But he wished their Lordships to recollect that confiscation did not stop here. It touched another and an important part of the Constitution; and let them take care that they did not hold a doctrine to-day which might be abused against themselves to-morrow. The freemen of towns—those who held their rights by burg age tenure—were to be disfranchised, and their rights were to be confiscated.. It might be said, perhaps, that the Bill did not touch the present possessors, but it did their children; and if they touched the freemen to-day, what security could any man have that to-morrow the freeholders would not be attacked? The children of those freemen who were to be disfranchised, bad as much right to their franchise as their Lordships had to their seats in that House, or to their estates. He would caution their Lordships to beware of that argument! they laid claim to their titles, as freemen claimed their freedom,— by birth. Suppose any one were to say, "We do not like the peerage of England; just let it remain as it is at present, and after the deaths of the present Peers, do away with it altogether." What answer could their Lordships make to such an argument if they on the very same principle, confiscated the rights of freemen, freeholders, and burg age tenants? He remembered to have heard a noble Duke, he would excuse the allusion, talk about the right of 40s. freeholders to return Members to sit in Parliament. He was bound to take it for granted that, in the case to which he alluded, Parliament did what was right. It was not for him, knowing nothing of what was passing at that time—indeed, it would be unconstitutional in him, to form any other pre- 1345 sumption. He conceived that the ground on which the Legislature acted was, that they were not genuine freeholders, and that they were only upheld for certain purposes. Admitting that their Lordships were not to deprive existing freemen of their privileges, how could their Lordships answer for taking away the rights from their children? Let it be recollected that the rights of freeholders in towns, and of burg age tenants, descended like property to their children. The 40s. freeholders were an abuse; that could not be said of the freemen of the ancient boroughs of England. He put it gravely to their Lordships, therefore, what answer could they give, if they took away the rights of the children, should any person hereafter come forward and say, that the present Peers ought to be allowed to retain their titles, but that, instead of descending to their children, they must be given up? He could not see any distinction between the two cases. He therefore entreated their Lordships maturely to reflect and consider how far the principles on which they might act could be extended to their Lordships, and their families. The noble and learned Lord declared, that property was the basis of the Bill: and yet it took the right of voting from men of character, property, and respectable situation in life, and conferred it on men who might actually be reduced to a state of pauperism. He had examined this Bill, clause by clause, from one end to the other, and he could not understand on what principle it was framed, nor did he find that any two of its advocates, in the statements they had made, had given the same, account of it. He understood the noble Earl to say, the other day, that the principle of the Bill was population; that was now disclaimed; the principle of the Bill was not population, although it gave the right of voting to about 170,000 people. The noble and learned Lord said, the principle of the Bill was property. How did the noble Lord prove that? "Oh," said he, "we give the freeholders votes!"—Why they, your Lordships know, had votes before; and, instead of giving them votes, they are to be mixed up with paupers, or something very like it. The Bill, then, deprived the freeholders of their rights, by sharing those rights with paupers. They were to be mingled with, leaseholders of 50l. a-year, while the holders of Church pro- 1346 perty, the lease of which was generally renewed every two or three years, were excluded. In the cities that were counties within themselves, like Bristol, the freeholders were very hardly treated. In general, the voters who paid only 10l. rent, would far out number those who had 30l., 40l., or, 50l. a year, and thus the Bill would throw the elections altogether into the hands of paupers. He was entitled to say that on the authority of the Liverpool Poor Bill, in which it was stated, that the leaseholders paying 10l. a-year, could not pay their poor-rates. The Reform Bill would throw down all those interests which had grown up by time, and which gave every class a share in the Representation, and would throw that Representation entirely into the hands of one class only. The poorer and lowest classes would be able to return a majority of the House of Commons. The landed interest would, under this Bill, as he had calculated, have only 136 Members, while the Representatives of the pauper class would be 298. The fear, therefore, which some persons had pretended to feel for the predominancy of the landed interest, was very idle, and destitute of foundation. In fact, the scheme would take away the Representation from the great mass of the property in the country, and give it to an oligarchy of wealth. He considered Universal Suffrage to be only another name for universal plunder, but he was not sure that it would not be as bad under this Bill. He was certain that property would neither be represented nor protected under it. He did not deny, that under it talents would find their way into Parliament, but they would be not the talents which would benefit the country—they would destroy its institutions. The talents would be those of men who had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and who would make themselves the willing instruments of terror. They would be demagogues, and their talents would be employed to the worst purposes. Property would no longer be protected. It would be made the subject of a general scramble, and general confusion must be the result. In conclusion, the noble Lord called on their Lordships rather to follow the former opinions of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, than his present opinions, for he seemed not to go cordially along with his colleagues in their plan.
Lord Farnhamcould not allow the 1347 assertion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that this Bill had pacified Ireland, to pass uncontradicted. There was not the slightest foundation for believing that it had, or would have, any such effect. Instead of becoming pacified, that country was going forward in a very different direction. He had rather expected, such was the state of that country, to have heard the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, come down to the House, and ask for further powers to tranquillize it; but he was happy to find, that there was no necessity to have recourse to such unconstitutional means. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the Bill had removed the desire for the Repeal of the Union. The fact was, that the people were under the influence of demagogues, and by them they had been instructed to forbear from pressing the question of the Repeal of the Union. An address, however, of the hon. member for Waterford to the people of the Queen's County had been published, which showed that the Secretary of War came into Parliament under the protection of that hon. Member.
§ The Lord Chancellor explained, that he had never supposed, or said, that the Bill could pacify Ireland; that it could get rid of poverty, misery, and crime; but he said that, in some parts of Ireland, it had been productive of the best possible effects; and, with respect to this, he must refer their Lordships to an extract from a document which had already been referred to in another place, and which contained these words, with reference to Ireland:—"The Reform measure has put a stop, in some places, to a system of agitation for a repeal of the Union, which has so long-prevailed." He was afraid, certainly, that measures of coercion might be necessary, as well as remedial measures; he hoped not, but he was afraid; and he mentioned that, to show that he could never suppose that a measure of that kind would pacify Ireland. If it were necessary, Ministers certainly would apply to Parliament for additional powers; but that necessity might, he hoped, be averted.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.