HL Deb 23 March 1831 vol 3 cc825-36
Lord Farnham

presented a Petition against the Reform Bill from the Sheriffs and Common Council of the City of Dublin. The petitioners deprecated the adoption of the measure, as calculated to give an undue weight to the democratic part of the Constitution; and also because, if extended to Ireland, it would create a constituency in that country hostile to the continuance of the Union. The noble Lord said, he entertained the same apprehensions as the petitioners, of the results likely to proceed from the proposed Bill of Reform. He also presented a Petition to the same effect from the Master, Wardens, and Brethren of the Guild of Merchants, Dublin.

The Earl of Roden

said, that having been requested to support the prayer of the petitions, he felt bound to state, that he conceived the petitioners had made out their case, as to the danger to be apprehended from the passing of the proposed Bill. He wished to take this opportunity of saying, that he was not one of those persons who were altogether opposed to every system of Reform, because he thought that very important, efficacious, and safe changes might be made in the Representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament. But he begged leave to say, that he had ever been, and he trusted ever should continue, hos- tile to any revolutionary measure. With respect to Ireland, he believed that the effect of the Bill would be to effect a dissolution of the legislative union, and consequently the dismemberment of the empire. He was certain that it would be the means of annihilating the Church in Ireland. Entertaining these views, he had thought it his duty to express his disapprobation of the Bill at the earliest opportunity. He considered that the inconsistency of public men on great and important questions had opened the door to sweeping theories and dangerous experiments, which he was afraid was calculated, not only to undermine the Constitution, but the foundation of the empire.

Earl Grey

was by no means disposed to deviate from what was understood to be for their Lordships a convenient course of proceeding, viz. not to enter into a discussion of the general question of the Reform on the presentation of petitions. At the same time he never could hear a measure which he, in common with his Colleagues, had recommended to the Legislature to be passed into a law, designated as a measure of a revolutionary character, without in opposition to that assertion—for it was assertion only—making an assertion with equal confidence, that the Bill had no such tendency. He said, on the contrary, because the Bill offered the best means of putting a stop to all revolutionary tendency, that he was determined to support it. The noble Lord had stated, that in his opinion the petitioners had made out their case, that the proposed measure would lead to a dissolution of the legislative union between the two countries. The petitioners had made out their case much in the same manner as the noble Lord had made out his,—by assertion alone, without any argument to support it. Whenever the time came for the noble. Lord to adduce his arguments, he would be ready to maintain the directly opposite position. He was so strongly convinced that the continuance of the legislative union was necessary for the security of both countries, that if the proposed measure could be shown to have any tendency to dissolve that Union, he should think it one of the strongest objections that could be urged against it. He said on the contrary that it would tend to create satisfaction and contentment in this country where doubt and division had long prevailed; that it would tend to put down in England those theories which the noble Lord thought so dangerous, and at the same time in his opinion, it would also, if extended to Ireland, tend to create in that country satisfaction and contentment, and to excite that confidence which was the best security for the peace and tranquillity of the empire. It was for these reasons that he was prepared to give it his most cordial support. With respect to the last part of the noble Lord's speech, in which he stated that the cause why dangerous theories was proposed, was the inconsistent and contradictory conduct of public men, —against that charge he was not called upon to defend himself. With respect to the question to which he conceived the noble Lord had particularly alluded, as having given rise to inconsistent conduct in public men, he for one had not conceded it from any fear of agitation, but from a conviction founded upon the justice as well as policy of the measure. That was an opinion which he had maintained for years; on account of which twenty-six years ago, he had relinquished the office he had in his Majesty's service, when he only concurred with the other members of Government in proposing a limited measure of relief to the Roman Catholics. For that opinion he had relinquished office, and to that opinion he had uniformly adhered, till at last he saw it adopted, and triumphantly carried into execution, by those very persons who had always expressed sentiments hostile to the concession of any measure of relief to the Roman Catholics. Against the charge of inconsistency, therefore, he was not called upon to defend himself. With respect to the question more particularly before the House, he had the same thing to say,—namely, that he had uniformly supported it, from its earliest introduction to the present moment, when it was now brought to a state which made him hope that it would likewise be carried. But, if that should also fail in his hands, he was certain of this, that it would be soon forced upon the country; and if others succeeded to power on the destruction of the present Government on the question of Reform, the measure would be forced upon them, and they would be obliged to concede it on the same principle as they conceded that question to which the noble Lord had alluded in speaking of the inconsistency of public, men—the principle of fear. He could not help stating thus much; and he should only further say, that the measure of constitutional Reform proposed by his Majesty's Government— he said constitutional Reform, in contradiction to the statement of the noble Lord, who had given it the character of a revolutionary measure—was calculated to restore those principles on which the Constitution rested, and would give general satisfaction to the people, security and strength to the Government, and prosperity to the country.

The Earl of Roden

begged it to be understood, that when he alluded to the inconsistency of public men, the noble Earl was the last person to whom he could have alluded; and he begged leave to remind him, that, on the occasion of the Catholic Debate, he had expressed his great admiration at the uniform consistency of the noble Earl, and placed it in contrast with those public men who had not virtue to adhere to their declared principles.

The Earl of Carnarvon

hoped, that the proposed measure could be proved not to be a revolutionary one. That it had the portentous character of a revolutionary measure, he apprehended was the impression of one-half of the thinking people of this country, connected with its trade, its monied interests, and landed property. He thought that the vote of the House of Commons last night had decided that some Reform was necessary; but it was his opinion, that that great question could be entertained only after great deliberation, and after due time had been given to consider it. He disapproved of a measure of such great magnitude as the one proposed by the Government being brought in with such breathless haste. The noble Lords opposite had only been six weeks in office, when they came down to the House to announce a measure by which he feared all the settled institutions of the country would be undermined and overturned. The whole system of county, borough, and town representation in the country was to be changed. When he had said that such a sweeping measure was nothing less than a new Constitution, he had been derided by the noble Lord opposite. But this was as much of a new Constitution as were any of those changes which were being made in the nations of Europe. Whether it would strengthen or overwhelm the institutions of the country, it was impossible for him to say. He would rather see a practical and gradual Reform proposed than such a sweeping measure, which bore away all the old institutions of the country. A Constitution, in his opinion, was not the gift of a day, it grew up with the manners and wants of a country. It was formed by the manners of a people, and it formed them in return, and it was idle to think it could be shifted like a garment. There were many virtues in theory which became vices in practice; and many seeming errors and inconsistencies, in practice worked and blended well together. Those who proposed to change should well consider that the power, glory, and greatness of England had grown up with, and been maintained by, the institutions which now existed, whilst other nations had fallen to decay; and they should be cautious how they withdrew a single prop of a system which had been so eminently successful. Many were the Constitutions which he had seen laid down with geometrical accuracy, and forced upon a people who were unprepared to receive them, and which vanished as they appeared. He was connected with no boroughs, and he was not aware that he could influence a single vote. He had no interest in the question, but what every man felt who loved his country. He believed that moderate and gradual change might be carried to an unlimited extent, if carried progressively. He was always ready to reform abuses, and to advance as time advanced, step by step, to perfection; but he was adverse to any sudden and sweeping change. It was under the present Constitution that the country had risen to prosperity and power; and that the rights and interests of Englishmen had been preserved, while every other empire around had tottered to ruin. He had seen no less than twenty-six Constitutions produced in the course of the French Revolution, as fast as they were formed in the prolific brains of the French philosophers. We had seen how the constitutions manufactured on the Continent had fallen to the ground. We had ourselves been great constitution-mongers. We had modelled a constitution for Corsica; and a very respected and distinguished person opened, in vice-regal splendor, the Parliament constituted according to the perfection of the British Constitution, without one rotten borough. That constitution of Corsica existed for a few years; but the Lord-lieutenant, in- stead of being hailed by the gratitude of the regenerated nation, was at length obliged to take shelter from the fury of his reformed Parliament by going into the fortress, where he was defended by the British army, and at length made his escape into a British vessel. We also tried a similar experiment in Sicily; but the constitution no longer existed in that country. It was the attempting to reform all at once which produced these practical evils; and it was therefore that he, whether he was right or wrong, was disappointed with this measure. With cautious, slow, temperate Reform—with Reform, bit by bit, as abuses appeared and the occasion called for it, he would have been pleased. He considered the proposed measure of a revolutionary character, and calculated to disappoint the just expectations of the people. He admitted that the noble Earl opposite was not called upon to defend himself personally against the charge of inconsistency; but if the noble Lord chose, he might find plenty to do in defending some of his friends on that score. Was the measure now proposed what was to be expected from the speech in which his noble friend had announced it, and was the speech a fitting prologue to the plan? It was the greatest of all humbugs to say that Reform would be a panacea for all political evils. His noble friend had said, that there would be little difference between his noble friend and him, and that they only proposed to do the same in a different way; and was his noble friend then aware of the desperate plunge which he was afterwards to take? But he hoped the Commons would modify or alter it, for, as it stood at present, it was the most dangerous that had ever been brought forward. He was favourable to Reform as the occasion called for it; but he did not know that he could ever be persuaded to go to that extent. He hoped that the Bill, if it ever reached their Lordships, would receive considerable modifications in the Committee. He felt that he ought not to have trespassed so long on their Lordships' time at the present moment. ["Hear, hear!" from the Lord Chancellor.] No doubt the noble and learned Lord would like to hear only one side of the question. ["No, no," from the Lord Chancellor.] He should be glad to listen to the noble Lord at another time: he might, perhaps, fall under the lash of the wit of the noble and learned Lord who interrupted him in this irregular way, but he did not think these interruptions at all consistent with their Lordships' rules of proceeding. He should not have said so much, but, after the statement made by the noble Earl opposite, he did not think it proper to allow only one side of the question to be heard.

The Marquis of Lansdown

did not mean to enter upon the important details of the question at the present moment; but it appeared to him, from what had fallen from the noble Earl who had just sat down, that he had forgotten that the subject was brought before the House, not by the noble Earl near him (Earl Grey) but by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden); and his noble friend, in reply to the statement made by the noble Earl opposite, had only acted in accordance with the rule laid down by the noble Lord who had just spoken—that both sides should be heard. With respect to one part of the charge made against Ministers by the noble Lord opposite, of having introduced this measure with breathless haste, he was relieved from the necessity of saying anything, because the Votes of the other House would afford a sufficient answer. This measure was not new to the public, nor new to Parliament. It was announced at the very moment the present Administration was formed. It was introduced into the other House of Parliament three weeks ago, and debated on that occasion for seven days, and after an interval of seven days, was again debated two nights on the second reading. The noble Earl would also find by the Votes, that it was not proposed to consider it in Committee until after the Easter holidays; and yet this was described as passing the Bill in breathless haste, without affording Parliament due opportunity of considering it with attention. But he contended, that this question had been under consideration over and over again; and the more it had been considered, in Parliament, or out of doors, the more he had cause to be convinced that the Bill proposed by Government, or something amounting to it, was the only security against those disorders which the noble Lord deprecated. But let him call on the noble Lord, and others out of doors, who had now at last come to a conviction that some change was necessary in the Representation of the people, to state, previous to the approaching recess, what their schemes of Reform were, so that Parliament and the country might know what it was they proposed to give, under the name of Reform, but without the substance. Let, then, the public judge between their plan and the plan of the present Government, which was founded on the ancient principles of the Constitution of this country; he said the ancient principles of the Constitution, because he knew no other principles but the Representation of the people, founded on the property and knowledge of the country. In the course of ages, and by the mutations of time, considerable changes had been made in the property and knowledge of the country, which it became necessary to meet. The proposed Bill was founded on a desire to connect with the Representation of the people all those accumulations of knowledge in some quarters, and of property in others, which, when left unrepresented, formed the lever on which ambition and treason worked against that Constitution which the noble Lord was so anxious to preserve. The noble Lord had abstained, with the same caution which was observable elsewhere, from explaining what his scheme of Reform was, but still he had given some slight hints of what he would wish to see done. He had told the House that he was for moderate and progressive Reform. The noble Earl said, that his Reform would be a moderate and a gradual Reform, and that it would be a Reform carried on slowly— bit-by-bit, as the occasions arose. But if his noble friend meant that it was to be a Reform by perpetual changes, —constantly keeping alive discussion, and irritation, that was what he must protest against. His Majesty's Ministers had proceeded slowly and deliberately, and with much consideration, as the importance of the subject demanded. But then a scheme was wanted on which Parliament could make its stand, and not one which should leave the subject liable to continual discussion from Session to Session. A measure of Reform was wanted which would unite in its favour the feelings of all classes, and which would afford a reasonable prospect that Parliament could make a stand without the necessity of making continual changes. What the noble Earl's scheme was did not distinctly appear, but the noble Earl said, that he would reform bit by bit. The noble Earl seemed in that to allude to some schemes of Reform of his in this House which he himself produced bit by bit for two years, calling a multitude of witnesses to this House, at a very serious expense, as in the case of the Penryn election; but the noble Earl had his bit-and-bit Reform thrown back on his hands, and he knew what was the opinion of the House about it. The noble Earl's bit-by-bit Reform would be neither more nor less than a source of constant irritation, agitation, and discontent, and that was a scheme of Reform against which he protested. As to the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, it was formed on the basis of the ancient principles of the Constitution, and it was most just and reasonable in its provisions, and well deserved the support of Parliament and of the country. As to the noble Earl's allusions to Corsica and Sicily, he could not but be aware, that the state of society there was very different from what it was here, and that although the measure might not suit either of those places, it by no means followed that it would not suit this country.

The Earl of Carnarvon

explained, that when the noble Marquis opposite supposed him to have imputed haste to the Ministers in their efforts to get the Reform Bill passed through the Lower House, he had erred. What he had complained of was, the short interval that had occurred between the present Ministry taking office, and the production by them of a measure, the effect of which would, he apprehended, be to overthrow the Constitution of the country. The noble Marquis had also complained that he had not himself produced a plan of Reform, if he objected so strongly to that now before the country. He did not intend to do so now, however, and he did not know whether he ever should propose such a plan; but his opinion on this subject was the same at the present time as it ever had been; and that opinion was, that a Reform of a moderate nature, and on a proper occasion, ought and might be introduced with safety to the country. The present extensive and sweeping measure would never prevent the people from progressively increasing in their demands for concessions in their favour, and those demands would ultimately rise to a pitch that would be found subversive of all the existing institutions of this country.

The Lord Chancellor

said, he would not have said a word on the present occa- sion if he had not been personally alluded to by his noble friend. He did not pretend to know the forms of the House, but he always understood that a Member might, in the usual parliamentary manner, express his dissent from what another Peer was stating, as readily as he might express his assent to it. In what he uttered he had intended to intimate, in the broadest possible manner, his total dissent from his noble friend, when he imputed to him a desire to hear the arguments on one side, and not on the other, because it was insinuated that he could not meet them. He could assure his noble friend that he never felt less unable to meet the observations of an antagonist in the whole course of his life than—he spoke it with, all possible respect—he did to meet the extremely shallow, unsubstantial, inconsistent, and contradictory arguments which his noble friend had, contrary to the 19th Standing Order, which declared that no Peer should speak twice on the same question, addressed to the House. If he had felt any apprehension of meeting his noble friend as an antagonist, he should be relieved from all difficulty by the triumphant answer which his observations had received in the judicious, as well as powerful and eloquent speech which had been delivered by the President of the Council. His noble friend, in order to make good his charge that the Government had urged on the measure of Reform with breathless impatience, had been obliged to alter facts, and to cut down time by a good deal more than one-half. His noble friend said, that Ministers had been in office hardly three weeks before they came down to Parliament with this measure. Why, it was more than three months. That period certainly was not a century, but it was double six weeks. Himself and his colleagues came into office on the 22nd of November, and the Bill was introduced on the 1st of March, and it was read a second time on the 22nd of March. The noble Earl had not, of course, the same opportunity of knowing the state of opinion, and the principles of action which prevailed in the country, as the Ministers had from their correspondence from all quarters. But if he had been in office, and had access to that correspondence, he (the Lord Chancellor) was morally certain that the noble Earl would be so far from attacking this plan as revolutionary, that, on the contrary, he would hail it as his strongest support against revolution, and sacrifice his bit-by-bit Reform—a happy name which he had found for his system—on the altar of his country. But if the Ministers had delayed the bringing forward their plan but one month longer, they would, he had no doubt, have been assailed on the opposite ground by those who now chose the side of the breathless haste. He had seen such a disposition in the noble Earl to attack the Ministers, ever since they came into office, that he had no doubt but that such would have been the case. He had opened his fire upon them, not by platoons, but by a pop-pop from his pop-gun. It was a bit-by-bit attack. But had they delayed but for one month more, then the noble Earl would have said, "You made great promises on the subject of Reform when you came into office, but here are four months elapsed since, and not a bit of Reform has been produced." But he had rather meet the attack in this shape than in the other. He had rather be opposed by those who openly and frankly avowed that they wanted no Reform, than by the bit and bit Reformers. He would not enter into a comparison between the present measure and that of the noble Earl's shadowy shape of a Reform— If shape it might be called which shape had none, Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb, Or substance which but shadow seemed, Or each seem'd either. After all, nothing would astonish him more than to find that this scheme of Reform had any existence. [The Earl of Carnarvon: I am not obliged to produce a plan.] Why, then, he was not bound to wait for it. The noble Earl desired them not to go on till he produced his plan, and now he said he would do nothing —he would not even advance step by step, nor bit by bit, and yet he desired them to wait till he had done nothing. But the present measure was complete improvement, which ought to satisfy the country; and, according to all appearances, would satisfy all classes of the community. He had acceded to the measure which had. been proposed by Government, wishing that less might have been done, but convinced that less would not have satisfied the country. He would rather have to deal with the open enemies of Reform—those who declared all improvement to be unnecessary, than with those who pretended to have a plan of their own, but who had been all their lives hostile to Reform. He thought that Parliament might learn a lesson from the fate of the Catholic Question. It would be wise to grant Reform now which would satisfy the people; for, if the time were allowed to pass, there were many chances to one that a plan, not so safe and wholesome, would be forced upon Parliament hereafter. It was not unlikely, too, that that plan would be proposed by the very men who now objected to the present measure, but who would turn round when they saw the storm was raging around them, as they had done upon the Catholic Question, and take credit for doing what they had all their lives been declaring they never would do.

Lord Farnham

observed, that every advocate for the repeal of the legislative union had hailed this measure of Reform as the means by which his object was to be effected, and every one of those advocates had expressed their approbation of the made in which the franchise was to be extended to Ireland.

The Duke of Richmond

said, that he had given his support to the measure proposed by Ministers, because he thought that the people were entitled to have the Representative system improved. He would like to know whether, in the noble Earl's plan of Reform, the rotten boroughs, and Gatton amongst the number, were to be retained? The noble Lord on the second bench (Lord Monson) was much interested in a reply to this question.

Lord Monson

said, that after the pointed manner in which he had been alluded to, he felt it necessary to observe, that if he were convinced that the retention of the close boroughs was detrimental to the true interests of the people, he would be the first man to propose their abolition. He, however, did not entertain such an opinion. He would state his reasons for opposing the Government measure on the proper occasion.

The Petition to lie on the Table.