HL Deb 14 April 1831 vol 3 cc1313-22
The Earl of Haddington

said, that he rose to present to their Lordships a Petition from the important county of Edinburgh, against the Bill which a noble Lord had introduced into the other House, for the object of Reforming the Representation in Parliament. So many occasions had lately been taken to depreciate county petitions, that he felt himself called upon to vindicate the rights of the landed interests to speak their opinions, without being misrepresented, upon matters of such high importance. The meeting from which the petition had proceeded was not what was commonly called a hole-and-corner meeting. It was a meeting called by a public requisition, and it was openly held in the county hall. Some persons were not inclined to pay much attention to county petitions unless they were numerously signed; but if the property and rank of those who attended a meeting gave any consequence to a petition, he should claim the utmost deference to that which he had then to present. He could take upon himself to say, that there were few persons at the meeting in question who were not the representatives of landed property. A difference of opinion had prevailed at the meeting, but it had subsided, and the result was, the voting of a petition praying, that the Reform Bill now before the House of Commons should not pass into a law. The petition stated, that the petitioners, though against the Reform Bills, were not averse to such a Reform as would be consistent with the established Constitution of the country. This, he must confess, was a new feature in petitions from that part of the United Kingdom from which this petition came (Scotland), shewing that the question of Reform was no longer one of principle, but a question of degree. What degree of Reform the petitioners might be pleased with, it was not for him to say, and perhaps they might not go so far as he was inclined to go; for he thought it essential for the safety of the institutions of the country that the measure of Reform should go far enough to conciliate the opinions of the great bulk of the intellect and respectability of the country. The petitioners prayed that the right of voting should be continued to all places at present possessed of it, and in this prayer he cordially agreed. The principle of disfranchisement was dangerous in itself, and fraught with the most evil consequences, and the qualification of 10l. was not founded in any established principle whatever. The petitioners next speak of the manner in which the Reform Bill would affect the interests of their own county. They did not object to the granting of Representatives to large manufacturing towns, nor to the general regulation of elections; but they protested against dividing the Representation of counties, and thus depriving them of the privileges they had enjoyed for many centuries, and which had been confirmed to them by the treaty of the Union. If this alluded to what was proposed with respect to the counties of Selkirk and Peebles, he had no hesitation in saying, that in this particular the Bill ought to be altered. In his opinion, the time was come that the principle of popular elections must be introduced into Scotland. The petitioners stated, that the proposed plan of Reform would have the effect of subverting the due influence of property, and of giving the privilege of returning Members to persons of small possessions. If the Bill were to remain in its present state, he should certainly concur in the views of the petitioners. It was established by the returns before the House, that the people inhabiting towns would have the preponderance in returning Members who ought to be returned by the landed interest. The inhabited houses in Scotland amounted to 851,000 odd hundreds. The inhabited house-tax upon such of these as were rated at above 10l. a year, amounted to 35,700l. Of this 25,036l. was levied upon houses rated at between 10l. and 20l. a year. The whole constituency of Scotland was calculated by the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill at about 60,000 and by the inhabited house-tax it would appear that more than one half of this constituency would consist of householders, and of these, 25,000 would consist of very small householders. He did not know, that the inhabited house-tax was any criterion, for taxation by the present Bill was not referred to. It was enacted, that the Sheriffs of counties were to decide the value of the houses, and if the owners thought themselves aggrieved, the appeal lay from the Sheriff alone, to the Sheriff and a Jury: and lastly, the appeal might be carried even to the House of Lords. The people of Scotland, therefore, dreaded the introduction of such a system of endless litigation, with all its consequences of fraud and perjury. He did not know upon what principle at present the house-tax was laid, for to his knowledge a great many houses worth more than 10l. a year escaped taxation. By the clause in the present Bill, a house and land might be valued together, so that small houses rated at only 5l. a year, if they had a little land attached to them, would be valued at 10l., and acquire the right of voting. The country would be overwhelmed by voters of this petty description. He was certain that very mistaken notions prevailed amongst people in England on this point, owing to the different manner in which buildings were managed in Scotland from the mode in which they were managed in this country. The Bill provided, that building leases should not give a right to vote unless where they were for 50l. a year, but in Scotland, where buildings were leased out in perpetuity, the Bill would confer the right of voting. He was sure that it would be extremely difficult to strike out a proper mode for establishing a constituency in populous towns in Scotland; but in towns where there was a large population, his Majesty's Ministers, by carefully attending to all the suggestions which might be made to them from competently informed quarters, and by proceeding with due caution and deliberation, might be able to furnish a good system of popular election in Scotland, which would be understood there, which would lead to no chicanery, and which would be quite satisfactory. With regard to the whole measure of Reform, he trusted that when it came to be discussed, it would be recollected, both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, that while that measure introduced a great and important change into the existing state of the Representation, even in England, the change which it went to introduce into Scotland would be a complete and entire novelty; for in that country, during the last 300 or 400 years, except in some of the borough towns, nothing like a popular election had been known. In making that statement he only stated an undoubted fact, and it was one which rendered necessary the application of great caution and deliberation to the consideration of a measure which was intended to introduce a popular system of election into that country. There was no country in the world where all the relations and dependencies of social life were in a happier state than they were and had been in Scotland for many years, and he hoped sincerely and anxiously that nothing would come from Parliament which would tend to impair or endanger such a state of things. He would not take upon himself to say, that any thing which Parliament would do upon this subject would have such an effect; but nevertheless, it was impossible to contemplate the great change which it was proposed to introduce into Scotland, without anxiety as to its result; and he should be grieved indeed, if that result should be to disorganize the social relations at present existing in that country, for at such a rate political franchises would certainly be dearly purchased. He should not, on this occasion, go further into the general question, but would con- clude by stating, that the prayer of the petition was, that the Bill now before Parliament should not pass into a law.

The Earl of Rosebery

said, that as one of the largest landed proprietors in the county of Edinburgh, he felt called upon to make a few remarks on this occasion, both upon the petition which had been presented, and the statement which had been made by his noble friend who had just sat down. He was ready at once to admit, that several of the names attached to the petition were those of gentlemen of rank, of ancient family, and considerable property, in the county of Edinburgh. He would also say, that many others of the petitioners were known to him, either personally or by reputation,—that they were valued for their character and property, and that, in fact, all those who had signed this petition were men of respectability, whose opinions were undoubtedly worthy of attention. But there were two points connected with this and all other county petitions which had been or which would be presented from Scotland on the subject of Reform, which should never be forgotten when the value and importance of such petitions were to be duly and fairly estimated. The first point was, that county meetings in Scotland in no respect or degree whatever resembled county meetings in England. The county meetings in Scotland were not constituted, as in this country, of every description of persons of property and intelligence in the county. The county meetings in Scotland comprised a particular class of persons, many of whom had no property in the county in which the meeting took place. The second point to which he wished to direct the attention of their Lordships, as connected with those county petitions from Scotland, was, that the great majority of the individuals who attended those meetings were personally and directly interested in the opposing the change which it was proposed to make in the Representation of that county. He was not prepared to go into an analysis of this petition on this occasion, to demonstrate that it completely came under the class of petitions which he had just described; but, looking at the petition, he saw appended to it the names of several persons who had no property in the county of Edinburgh; and he was sure of this fact also, that several persons who were possessed of property in that county were debarred from attending the meeting at which this petition was adopted, because, owing to the peculiar constitution of county meetings in Scotland, they would have no voice there. The number of persons who had signed the petition was sixty-two, in a county the population of which, after deducting the population both of the City of Edinburgh and the town of Leith, amounted to 53,000. He begged further to remark, that it appeared from a return which had been laid upon their Lordships' Table, that in the county of Edinburgh there were 464 proprietors rated at 10l. and upwards. Now he would contend, that until a meeting of the county of Edinburgh should be held, at which those 464 persons could attend and have a voice, their Lordships would not be able to ascertain the real feelings of that county with regard to the measure of Reform; and he was convinced that if such a meeting should be called, the petition which would be adopted at it would be of a very different character from that which had emanated from those sixty-two individuals. The observations which he had made on this petition applied also to the other petitions which were in progress from the other counties in Scotland. He had made out a list of the number of persons who had attended four or five county meetings in Scotland at which petitions had been adopted, and the English Peers in that House would be somewhat disappointed when they found what was the character of such county meetings. In the county of Perth—the largest in Scotland—a very opulent county, with a population amounting to 140,000, and containing, according to a return on their Table, between 700 and 800 persons rated for a property of 10l. and upwards, the number that voted at a county meeting, convened to consider the question of Reform, consisted of a majority of fifty-eight against it, and a minority of thirty-six in favour of it, and that was what was called a large county meeting in Scotland. In the county of Banff, which contained a considerable population and a great number of landowners, the amount of persons that attended a county meeting, at which a petition had been adopted in favour of the measure, consisted of thirteen who voted for the petition, and four who voted against it. In the county of Moray, eight persons attended the county meeting, five of whom voted against Reform, and three in favour of it. In Selkirk, which was undoubtedly a small county, six persons attended the county meeting three of whom voted for, and three against the measure of Reform. In the county of Haddington, which was an opulent and wealthy county, the meeting was composed of twenty persons; no petition was adopted at that county meeting, but several speeches were made, and a variety of resolutions were passed, and twelve of the persons present voted against the measure and eight in favour of it. These details would show to their Lordships what was the real nature of Scotch county meetings —how they were constituted, as regarded those who could attend and vote at them; and having laid those details before their Lordships, he would leave them to judge whether petitions from such meetings could he considered as justly expressing the opinions of the landed proprietors of Scotland on this subject. For his part he would say, that neither the petition from the county of Edinburgh, nor the petitions from the other counties in Scotland, at all, in his mind, afforded an evidence, either as regarded property or as regarded population, of the feeling which existed in Scotland upon the subject of Reform. He hoped that under this qualification and reservation all those county petitions from Scotland on the subject of Reform would be for the future received in that House. He should not go further into a discussion of the general principle of the measure on this occasion than to state, that all who entertained the opinion that Reform was necessary in the southern parts of the kingdom, must be of opinion, notwithstanding the extreme novelty to which his noble friend had alluded, as applicable to such a measure, that Reform was doubly necessary in Scotland. In a country like Scotland, where every part of the Representative system required amendment, he was ready to admit, that the question ought to be entertained with caution and wisdom, but, he would also add, with sincerity, efficiency, and in good earnest. If the present opportunity for amending that system should be allowed to pass by, it might happen that no opportunity would hereafter present itself for effecting it. By introducing such a Reform into Scotland, they would at once elevate the character of the people of Scotland, and the character of their Representatives, rendering them more worthy of their confidence, and better calculated to discharge the important duties which devolved upon them as Mem- bers of Parliament. By introducing such a Reform there, they would demonstrate that there could not be a greater fallacy than that which had been advanced by many persons, and which he had often heard propounded with no lack of boldness but with an entire lack of argument,— namely, that the extraordinary prosperity of Scotland was attributable to the state of its Representation. He was of opinion that many persons who made that statement did not themselves believe it, and that those who did believe it had mistaken the means by which a great and beneficial end had been achieved. He should reserve what he had further to say until the time for discussing the Bill regarding Scotland should arrive, when he hoped to be able to point out some improvements, the introduction of which into the Bill would render it more perfect and efficient, and more analogous to the particular institutions of that country which it was intended to ameliorate. In conclusion, he begged to disclaim any want of courtesy or respect towards those petitioners, for to both his courtesy and his respect he felt that they were fully entitled: at the same time he had felt it his duty to exercise that freedom which, as a member of that House he possessed, in examining the distinct merits of this petition, and in pointing out to their Lordships the real weight which ought to be attached to it.

The Duke of Buccleugh

did not deny the statement of the noble Earl who had just sat down, that this petition had emanated from but a small number of persons in the county of Edinburgh, but the majority of them were persons who had large properties there. He had no doubt that if they held out to the 464 persons to whom the noble Earl had alluded, the option of having a vote or not, that they would be for a measure which would give them the right of voting. It was a fact that the most mistaken notions were abroad in Scotland regarding this Bill, and he believed that by far the greater portion of the lower classes in that country were not aware of its real nature, or of what it would give them, and that they were totally mistaken as to the advantages which they expected to derive from it. He could inform their Lordships, that the prevailing impression amongst those classes in Scotland was, that this Bill would give them a right to vote in the counties; that after it passed there would be no more excisemen,—no more gaugers: that they should have a free trade; that whiskey would be cheap, &c. He was aware of the fact that such an impression had been created amongst the lower classes of the people in Scotland by persons who were going about the country there, exciting the most absurd expectations amongst the people, and industriously promoting an agitation, the fruits of which were witnessed in the riots that had lately occurred in Edinburgh. He could not understand why Selkirk should be disfranchised, or why it should be joined to Peeblesshire. But he should defer stating his reasons for objecting to the Bill altogether, until it had come regularly before them.

The Earl of Haddington

presented a similar Petition from certain persons who had not been able to attend the meeting at which the petition he had previously presented had been adopted. In doing so he begged to say, that he did not deny, that those petitions came from a small number of persons, but he only claimed for them that weight and attention to which their respectability entitled them. He only asked that respect for their petition, which would be given to the petition of the gentry of Hampshire or any other English county.

The Duke of Wellington

presented a Petition from the Noblemen, freeholders, Justices of the Peace, and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Dumbarton, complaining of the extensive and sweeping Reform which was contemplated by the Reform Bill as regarded Scotland. He observed that there was no part of the country which, during the last fifty years, had been more progressively and uniformly prosperous than Scotland; that was a fact which could not be disputed, and he remembered, with particular satisfaction, a remark which had been made once by a noble friend of his, whose loss at present he every day saw more reason to deplore, —he meant the late Earl of Liverpool,— that Scotland was in every respect the best-conditioned country in the world; yet this was the country into which his Majesty's Ministers proposed to introduce what the petitioners called "a sweeping Reform." He begged to say, that whatever might be the difference between the county Meetings in Scotland, and the county Meetings held in England and elsewhere, it was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers, particularly when they were about to propose a change which went to alter that which had been settled by the act of Union and by a solemn treaty between the two countries, to have consulted the opinions and wishes of the great landed proprietors in Scotland, before they brought forward a measure of that description.

Petition laid on the Table.

Lord King

remarked, that seeing the importance which the noble Duke was anxious to attach to this petition, he supposed the noble Duke thought that the county Meeting at which it had been adopted was at least no farce.