Lords Sitting of 21 March 1831

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. In favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform, by the Duke of GRAFTON, from the County of Suffolk, unanimously agreed to at a public Meeting; and from Woodbridge and Aldeburgh:—By Earl SPENCER, from the Town of Northampton, from Daventry, and from Upton, Suffolk:—By the Earl of KINNOUL, from the Royal Burgh of Perth, and from Forfarshire:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Borough of Lancaster, although the Bill would disfranchise the Petitioners altogether; and from eight other places: — By Lord KING, from South Molton, Bridgewater, and six other places: —

The noble Lord said, that all the Petitioners expressed loyalty to the King, confidence in the Government, and a conviction that the measure of Reform would prove a most efficient and beneficial measure.
By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from the Burgh of Queen's Ferry:—By the Earl of DUDLEY, from Sedgeley, Staffordshire:—By Lord DURHAM, from Warrington, Greenwich, Durham, and other places:—By the Duke of NORFOLK, from Horsham, Cove, Bexley, Glasgow, and Perth: —By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from Darlington and Totness:—By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Haddington:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Warrington and Romsey:—By the Duke of SUSSEX, from St. Luke's, Chelsea, from Holywell, in Flintshire, Renfrew, and Dumfries:—By the Earl of CARLISLE, from Carlisle and Cumberland. Against the Bill for Parliamentary Reform, by the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Dalkcith:—By the Earl of MANSFIELD, from certain Inhabitants of Edinburgh. By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Operative Spinners of Manchester, in favour of the Labour in Cotton Factories Bill. By the Earl of ELDON, from the Roman Catholics of Merchants' Quay, Galway, for the extension of the franchise to Catholics. By the Duke of WELLINSTON, from Sheffield, for an Alteration in the Beer Bill. By Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, from Falmouth, against any alteration in the Timber Duties.
A Message from the House of Commons brought up the Mandamus Bill.

PETITIONS AGAINST REFORM.
Lord Montaguehad been intrusted with two Petitions on the subject of Reform, and they being of a different character from those lately presented, he considered it his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to the statements of these petitions. He wished to avoid entering into the general question, and to confine himself to the petitions. One was from the freeholders of the County of Selkirk, the other from the Burgh of Selkirk; and both complained that, by the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, the petitioners

589
would be virtually disfranchised. The freeholders stated, that, from the earliest records, they returned two Members to the Parliament of Scotland; and that, by the Treaty of Union, it was settled they were to return one Member to the British Parliament. They had heard, however, with great surprise, that, by the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, they were to be deprived of this right, and, in conjunction with Peebles-shire, to return only one Member to Parliament. The petitioners were at a loss to discover on what principle they were to be deprived of their privilege. The petitioners had not seen the Bills, and when they received them, they would naturally seek to discover on what grounds they were to be deprived of their rights. The preamble of the English Bill would tell them that it was expedient to increase the number of county Members; but in the Bill for Scotland, they would find not one word in the preamble about county Members. That Bill contained only a dry enactment, that Scotland was to return twenty-eight instead of thirty county Members. By the English Bill, the county of Rutland was to return two Members with a population but little exceeding that of Selkirkshire and Peebles-shire united, which were to return but one. There were at least seven English towns which were to return two Members each, of which the population was inferior to that of the two Scotch counties. If Selkirkshire was taken singly, the ease would be still more striking. From the superior population of Peebles-shire, it was quite evident that, under the proposed new qualifications, Selkirkshire could never return the Member, and thus would be doomed, practically, to perpetual disfranchisement. He would say nothing of the new qualifications, numerous as were the objections to them, because they were not noticed in the petition. It was, indeed, not worth while for the petitioners to inquire how a county Member was to be elected, when it was quite evident they never could elect one. Passing then to the Burgh, Selkirk, with three others, Peebles, Lanark, and Linlithgow, at present return one Member, and Selkirk has generally had its fair share in the election; it was proposed, however, to add Falkirk to these four burghs, a town hitherto unrepresented, with a population so superior to that of any of the other burghs, that, under the new qualifications, it would always return the
590
Member. By uniting with Linlithgow, a town at no great distance, and in the same county, it would prevent Selkirk, Peebles, and Lanark, from ever having the Member of their choice. The petitioners asked, why they were to have the populous town of Falkirk thrown in upon them, while many English towns were to enjoy the privilege of electing a Member, though their population be inferior to that of the four united burghs. Scotland might have made a bad bargain at the Union as to her Representation; with it, however, she had hitherto remained contented. Under it she had increased in happiness and prosperity; but if the Treaty of Union was to be violated, at least let Scotland be placed on an equal footing with England.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, that he would not, on that occasion, follow the noble Lord through all his arguments. The noble Lord had presented a petition from Selkirk, and had told their Lordships that the petitioners would be disfranchised by the Bill. He had a petition to present from persons similarly circumstanced in all respects, but their prayer was, that the Bill might pass into a law. The petition was from Linlithgow. The petitioners expressed their joy and approbation at the measure, and declared, that they were not only most willing, but most desirous, to surrender their individual privileges and interests for the sake of what they and the majority of their fellow-subjects believed to be a great public benefit. There was one observation which had fallen from the noble Lord (Montague) opposite, which he could not allow to pass unnoticed. The noble Lord had expressed a hope that, if the Union were to be violated at all, Scotland would at least be allowed a fair relative proportion to England in the new system of Representation. He would say nothing then about violating the Union, but he must remind the noble Lord that by the proposed measures Scotland would gain five, while England would lose sixty-two Representatives. Surely, then, Scotland would be better off than it was at present.
Petitions to be laid on the Table.

PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF REFORM.
Lord Goderichpresented a Petition from the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Commonalty of the City of Lincoln, praying that the Ministerial Plan of Reform might become a law. The petitioners said, that, as this

591
Bill had been considered by some to be an invasion of corporate and municipal rights, and as they were persons participating in such rights, they were anxious to declare it to be their opinion, that such an argument, however well founded, ought not to be an obstacle to a measure which had the public voice in its favour.
The Duke of Norfolkpresented similar petitions from the borough of Horsham, from Cove, from Waterford, from the Corporation of Barbers in Glasgow, from Perth, and from several other places.
Lord Farnhamsaid, that as some of those petitions came from Ireland, and as he had received petitions from that country of an adverse nature, he could not refrain from making one observation upon the subject. He considered it a most extraordinary thing that, while the second reading of the Reform measure for England was fixed for that night in the other House of Parliament, the Bill for Ireland had not yet been introduced into Parliament. The noble Lord who had brought forward the plan of Reform elsewhere, had opened it as an entire measure, and yet they were now proceeding to deal with it in a mutilated form. He did not think that it was possible to debate the general measure fairly without having the details of the Irish measure before them. He begged, therefore, to know from the noble Earl (Grey) opposite, when the Irish measure would be produced by the Ministers. At present their Lordships were totally ignorant of the nature of that measure. It had been supposed, indeed, that the Irish measure would be analogous to the measure for England, but there were peculiar features in Ireland which would render such a measure wholly inapplicable to that country, and which would cause such a measure to be productive of very detrimental consequences.
Earl Greysaid, it appeared to him that the course which the noble Lord had pursued was somewhat irregular. The noble Lord had asked him when a Bill—which could only be brought into the other House of Parliament—would be introduced by the Government. Now it was quite impossible that he, consistently with the respect which was due to the other House of Parliament, or consistently with the proceedings of that House, could answer the question of the noble Lord. It was a Bill, however, which those who were employed in framing it were using all dili-
592
gence upon, and which would be brought in without loss of time. As to whether the measure would be productive of very detrimental consequences, if it were analogous to the measure for England, that was a matter which could not be properly discussed at present. Allow him, however, to observe, that this was the first time he had ever heard it said, that a general measure of Parliamentary Reform could not be fairly discussed without debating at the same time that part of the details of such measure as applied to Ireland. He old enough to have voted with Mr. Pitt when Mr. Pitt supported Parliamentary Reform, and to have strongly opposed Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Pitt opposed a similar measure to that which Mr. Pitt had supported at the outset of his political career. But in all those discussions, he had never heard it said, that it was necessary for them to know what Reform it was proposed to make in Scotland before they could debate the principle of Reform fairly. No; the measures had always been allowed to rest on their own merits; and he must say, therefore, that there was no foundation for the complaint of the noble Lord. As far as he could be permitted to state any thing regularly in answer to the noble Lord, he had no objection to inform the noble Lord, that the Bill was prepared, and that it would be produced at the first convenient opportunity.
Petitions laid on the Table.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had to present a mass of Petitions to their Lordships on the subject of Reform. He could do no more than read the names of the places from which these petitions came, and he took that course, not out of any disrespect to the petitioners, but because he felt that it would be impossible to do more without occupying far too much of their Lordships' time. The petitions, which were fifty-six in number, came from different corporate bodies in various parts of the kingdom, all of whom would be affected by the Reform Bill; that was to say, they would all be disfranchised, either wholly or in part; and yet the prayers of the petitioners were, that the measure might be passed into a law. After reading the names of the thirty places from which the petitions came, being chiefly in Scotland, the noble and learned Lord said—"After presenting these petitions to your Lordships, I spare your Lordships the presentation of eighty or ninety more which have

593
been intrusted to me, because I am desirous not to encroach unreasonably upon the time of your Lordships. I selected these from corporate bodies, because I wish to give an illustration of that noble disinterestedness which so many classes have displayed upon this momentous question. While, my Lords, we cannot be too grateful to those distinguished individuals—Members of this House, and of the other House of Parliament—who have come forward so gallantly with expressions of their readiness to sacrifice their personal interests, and to give up cheerfully the most enticing of all possessions—I mean the possession of political power,—while I say, my Lords, we cannot be too grateful to those high-minded individuals, we must not forget to award the same meed of praise to persons in a lower class of life, who have displayed the same disinterestedness and public spirit. From this display, my Lords, I would fain, with your Lordships' permission, draw one moral. How grievously mistaken, my Lords, those persons must have been, who, either in Parliament or out of Parliament, have endeavoured to stir up a feeling of opposition and discontent to his Majesty's Ministers. [A slight laugh.] This is not the first time, my Lords, that I have been witness to a premature laugh,—to a laugh, my Lords, which if those who indulged in it had only had the patience to wait a little, the laugh would most assuredly have been postponed sine die. However, my Lords, I do not complain, and I trust that my noble friends who are inclined to laugh will forgive me if I goon with my moral to this,—not fable,—but, happily for the honour and the character of our country, —passage of history. This shows, then, how great is the delusion under which those persons labour who have attempted to excite feelings hostile to this great measure among—the lowest classes I was going to say, but I will not call them so, for their conduct has placed them above their tempters and seducers, and I will call them, therefore, the humblest classes, not the lowest. They who have resisted the arts and snares of the seducers must be higher at least than the seducers themselves. These tempters have gone among the people, and endeavoured insidiously to excite them against the Bill, by holding the following language to them:—'You common people will get no votes, for the Bill is founded on the principle of property,
594
and you have got no property.' But the people turned round upon them and said, 'This is the first time that you, or any of your kidney, have shown that you ever thought about the welfare of the people, or their want of property.' This, my Lords, is not the first time that such an argument was addressed to the people. It is an old argument, my Lords,—as old as the commencement of the Christian era —and the person who used it is well known in sacred history. The moral that I would impress upon your Lordships is to be found in a passage of the sacred writings, and is this:—'Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?' 'But this,' adds the sacred historian, with indignation, and contempt, and scorn,—' this he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief.'"
The Duke of Wellingtonthought, that their Lordships would do well to adhere to their original resolution of not discussing this measure until it came regularly before them. He should have thought that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have adhered to that resolution, but the noble and learned Lord had not done so, and had referred to arguments which had been used in the other House of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor.—No, indeed, it was an argument which was used at two county Meetings.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, well the argument was one which had been adduced to the common people; and, since the noble and learned Lord had thought proper to go so far, he wished the noble and learned Lord had gone a little further, and adverted to certain other arguments which had been used to the same class. One of those arguments was, that this measure would lead to ulterior measures; that the measure must undoubtedly and inevitably lead to Radical Reform and Universal Suffrage. If the noble and learned Lord thought proper to allude to one part of an argument, let him allude to the other part of it also. However, he disclaimed any desire to continue the discussion of this subject, and he thought that their Lordships would do well to confine themselves to the statements of the petitioners.
The Lord Chancellorperfectly concurred in the propriety of the rule, generally,

595
which the noble Duke had advocated, and assured the noble Duke, that he should not have deviated from it, except that in presenting fifty-six petitions from persons so circumstanced as the petitioners were, he had thought it right to do justice to the disinterestedness which the petitioners had displayed. Whatever argument had been addressed to the people with regard to ulterior measures, he was wholly at issue with the noble Duke, if the noble Duke meant to say that the people supported this measure with the view of procuring by means of it such ulterior measures of Reform as the noble Duke had designated. He would not go into the argument of this point now, but content himself with stating one fact. He knew that thousands of those who had signed the Edinburgh petition had said,—" We are aware that we can get nothing by this Bill, but we will petition for it, because it will give to the country a proper system of Representation."
Earl Greypresented Petitions to the same effect from Greenwich, from Birmingham signed by 21,000 inhabitants, and from Manchester, signed by 20,000 inhabitants. Though he felt that the occasion of presenting petitions was not the most fitting for a discussion of the great measure of Reform now in progress through the other House of Parliament, he could not but observe with reference to the imputations against the supporters of that measure thrown out by the noble Duke (Wellington)—namely, that they supported it as a step towards the attainment of "ulterior views," extending to a very extensive change in our Representative system; that the chief object which Ministers proposed to themselves in bringing it forward was, to effectually put an end to the clamour and discontent which the withholding of a sound and constitutional Reform had generated, and thereby add to the stability of the existing institutions of the country; and that, even as far as they had gone they had been eminently successful, for that the demand for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments, had been silenced since their plan of Reform had been promulgated.
Petitions laid on the Table.

LAW OF DIVORCE (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Eldonrose for the purpose of moving the first reading of a Bill on the subject of the Law of Divorce in Scotland,
596
It had long been a question whether children, born of English parents not married, could be legitimized by the parents going to Scotland and being married there. That question, however, was now set at rest. Repeated judicial decisions of that House had settled, that children so circumstanced could not be rendered legitimate. Another question, one which had been repeatedly recommended to the consideration of their Lordships on arguments at their bar, and one which it was most desirable to set at rest, was this — if parties, having been married, and lived together in this country, took it into their heads to go to Scotland to be divorced, what period of domicile in Scotland should be necessary, in order to give the Scotch Courts the power to divorce the parties, a vinculo matrimonii? It was right that he should tell their Lordships, that the twelve Judges of England had decided, that a marriage solemnized in England could be dissolved only by an Act of Parliament. He would give no opinion upon the subject, but certainly the opinion of the twelve Judges had no slight weight with him, and he was sure their Lordships would agree, that when the Scotch Courts and the twelve Judges were at issue, they ought to interfere.
The Bill read a first time.

BANKRUPT COMMISSION BILL.
The Earl of Eldon The Earl of Eldon, on the Order of the Day being read for receiving the Report of the Committee on this Bill, rose to request the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to postpone the Motion till the return of a noble and learned Chief Baron (Lyndhurst) from Circuit. The Bill was one of great importance—involving most serious alterations in the legal institutions of the country—requiring, therefore, a calm and deliberate and unhurried investigation of its provisions and principle. It was to procure for it this deliberate discussion—and because it was due to the country that those who had filled the high office to the jurisdiction of which it related, should state their views of its character and tendency, and not from any motives of party, or for the purpose of throwing needless obstacles in the way of the Government, that he requested the noble and learned Lord to agree to having the Order of the Day postponed.
The Lord Chancellorcould have no objection, founded on views of personal

597
consideration, to acceding to the noble Lord's request. He was himself anxious that the noble and learned Chief Baron should be present at the discussion of the Bill; that, in fact, the Bill should be thoroughly examined and debated in its every detail; for he was convinced that the more it was investigated the more their Lordships would be convinced that it would be an amendment in our commercial law which could not be too soon effected. Besides, he was not a stickler for a day; he cared not, so far as he individually was concerned, when the discussion would be taken; only he hoped that, for the sake of the public interests, the delay would be the shortest compatible with that calm and deliberate investigation so justly insisted upon by the noble and learned Earl, whom he acquitted altogether of being actuated in his request by any paltry or contemptible motives of party. The only hesitation he had in acceding to the request for further delay was, that he feared that such a short one —say a week—as their Lordships might with reason assent to, would not be sufficient to ensure them the presence of the noble and learned Chief Baron now on Circuit. [The Earl of Eldon expected Lord Lyndhurst in town next week.] He apprehended that such would not be the case, and that the noble and learned Lord would not be able to attend before the Recess. He, however, hoped to be able to speak more decidedly on this point tomorrow, when he expected an answer from the noble and learned Lord to a letter which he (the Lord Chancellor) had written to him on Friday last, with a view of ascertaining his intentions respecting the Bill, and in order to promote them as much as lay in his power. To-morrow, then, when he expected his noble and learned friend's answer, he should fix a day for taking the discussion on the Bill; for the more thoroughly it was discussed, the more his object would be accomplished.