The Marquis of Westminster, on presenting a Petition in favour of the Reform Bill, from Dukinfield, in Cheshire, said, he was anxious to repeat his emphatic conviction, that Parliamentary Reform, in the spirit and to the extent of the measure of Ministers, was essential to the very safety and welfare of the country. This had been his conviction in early life, and experience but served to add to its strength and intensity. It was also the conviction of the wisest and honestest Statesmen that it had been his fortune to come in contact with. He was confident that were Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson now living, they would be the advocates of Reform, for they had ever acted upon the principle that no Government could be carried on with general advantage which was opposed to the unanimous feelings of the people, Mr. Pitt, at all events, was an authority which ought to prevail with many of his so-called followers who were opposed to the Bill, for, from the dawn of his political career to the last moment of his existence, he was the 186 champion of Reform in Parliament. It was his conviction, often expressed and often repeated, that no honest man could be Minister under the present system of misrepresentation; and he had been frequently heard to declare, in his most emphatic manner, that neither the Minister, nor even the King on his Throne, could act independently against the boroughmongering oligarchy which pressed upon the energies of the country. It had been said that Mr. Pitt had abandoned his early opinions on this subject. This was an error; for when he (the Marquis of Westminster) was somewhat connected with the Government of Mr. Pitt, and expressed to him his anxiety to bring forward a measure of Parliamentary Reform, Mr. Pitt told him he was as ardent as ever for such a measure, was as convinced as ever of the necessity of it to the welfare, aye, to the salvation of the country, but that it would be hopeless to then contend with the borough oligarchy, which had such an interest in resisting it.
§ Petition laid on the Table.
§ Lord Wharncliffepresented a petition from the Gentry, Clergy, and Inhabitants of the town of Beverley, expressing their opinion that no necessity did, and no necessity could, justify such an important alteration in the Constitution of the country as was about to be introduced by the present Reform Bill; that they were extremely desirous to see some wholesome alterations effected in the representative system of this country, which would be a real amendment of the abuses in it, and which would tend to the safety, honour, and glory of the British dominions. The petitioners concluded by praying their Lordships calmly and deliberately to weigh and consider the present Bill, and not to suffer their determination with regard to it to be swayed by the fear of popular resentment. The noble Lord said, that he was enabled, from his own local knowledge of Beverley, to state, that this petition was signed by a majority of the magistrates, by the members of the learned professions, by the clergy, and by almost all the respectable inhabitants in that place.
The Marquis of Clevelandsaid, the noble Lord opposite had stated that the feeling in favour of this Bill had diminished greatly in the city of Westminster, and he particularly mentioned Bond-street and St. James's-street as districts where the inhabitants were not now, generally speak- 187 ing, friendly to this Bill. Having presented a petition from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Mary-in-the-Strand, in favour of the Bill, he (the Marquis of Cleveland), on hearing this statement from the noble Baron, begun to fear that he either had been imposed upon, or that he had mistaken the prayer of the petitioners. He accordingly made it a point to communicate yesterday with the persons who had intrusted that petition to his care, and he found that he had by no means misunderstood the object of their petition; and he was further informed by them, that nine out of ten of the inhabitants in that and the adjoining parishes were most anxious for the passing of the Reform Bill. He had that morning, too, received a letter on the subject from as opulent and loyal an individual as was to be found in the city of Westminster, and he supposed, that as newspapers and pamphlets were frequently referred to in the course of these debates, he should not be out of order in referring to the contents of this letter. The writer stated, that the parish with which he was connected, that of St. Mary-in-the-Strand, as well as the adjoining parishes of St. Paul, Covent-garden, St. Clement Danes, and St. Martin-in-the-Fields, had all met on Friday last, and agreed to petition that House in favour of the Reform Bill, and that there appeared only one dissentient in those four parishes to the adoption of such petitions. As far as his intercourse with the inhabitants of Bond-street and St. James's-street led him to a knowledge of their opinions, he was enabled to contradict the assertion of the noble Baron that they were indifferent, or opposed to this Bill, and to state that their anxiety was greater than ever for its success.
§ Lord Fevershamwished to state a circumstance which had been mentioned to him within the last two hours by a most respectable inhabitant of Bond-street, in reference to the getting up of a petition which had been presented by a noble Baron (Lord Holland),whom he did not now see in his place, from that street, in favour of the Reform Bill. It was stated to him by that individual, that a person of consideration went about Bond-street the day after the delivery of the speech of his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe), and canvassed in the various shops there for signatures to a Reform petition, and that many of the inhabitants signed it, thinking that it was 188 in favour of Reform generally, instead of this Bill in particular. That was the petition which had been thrust with such breathless haste into the carriage of the noble Lord (Lord Holland) on his way to that House.
§ The Duke of Richmondthought, that conversations of this kind were extremely irregular. He was of opinion that Colonel Webster, who was the person alluded to, had a perfect right to go about and see what was the feeling of the inhabitants of that district, and that no attack should be made upon him for doing so. For his own part, he was sure that the feeling of the great majority of the inhabitants of the city of Westminster was in favour of this Bill; and he was equally certain, that if their Lordships should, on the present occasion, reject this measure (a thing which he would never believe until he saw it done), they would, in a very short time, give their assent to a Bill of a precisely similar description.
§ Lord Wharncliffeimagined that their Lordships had heard enough of Bond-street. He had certainly unfortunately mentioned that street, but it was as a general observation; however, as a gentleman had taken the trouble to get a petition from the inhabitants of that street, he thought that would have the effect of removing any impression which his accidental observation might be supposed to convey. He still maintained the opinion, notwithstanding all he had heard stated, that the feeling in London, though it might be in favour of Reform, was not, in general, in favour of this Bill.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.