REFORM. (Hansard, 13 October 1831)

The Lord Chancellor
presented a Petition from the Royal Burgh of Inverness, signed by 929 persons, in favour of the Reform Bill.

Lord Holland
presented a Petition to the same effect from Deptford, in Kent, signed by 1,300 persons.

§ The Earl of Harrowby
said, he did not rise to oppose the reception of such petitions, but, on the contrary, to express his satisfaction at seeing such petitions presented. Their presentation was a proof that the people did not consider that the late decision of that House shut the door upon all Reform. The fact of such petitions being presented, showed that the people looked on that decision in a proper light, and that they did not take for granted, that all who opposed the specific measure which was then brought forward, did not entertain sentiments favourable to 687 a change in the constitution of the House of Commons to a greater or lesser extent. From what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, in the course of the discussion on the Reform Bill, and from other noble Lords on that side of the House, the inference might be attempted to be drawn, that the opposition of their Lordships was extended to all Reform, and that it was not confined, as it really was, to the specific measure of Reform which they had then to consider. He, at least, was not to be included amongst any individuals, if such there were, who had expressed an opinion against all Reform whatever. In order that there should be no misconception on that point, he would just briefly re-state what he had said in his former address to their Lordships, in the course of the discussion last week, with regard to the extent and species of Reform to which he (the Earl of Harrowby) was willing to give his assent. He then stated, that he felt, that if any change was to be effected in the constitution of the House of Commons, it should be effected only when it was demanded by a large portion of the intelligent community of the country; and when, if such a change were not effected, the Government would not be able to conduct the affairs of the country with efficiency, and for its advantage, happiness, and tranquillity, on account of having lost the confidence of the intelligent part of the public. Believing that they were placed in such circumstances at present, he was not the man to say, that he would oppose any change which in his conscience he believed would not place us in a worse situation than we now were in. He would take the liberty to repeat what he stated last week—that he was friendly to the extension of the franchise to wealthy and populous places, possessing such distinct and important interests that it would be for the good of the country at large that they should obtain a separate Representation. He was for an extension of the franchise in that way, and he begged to say, that he would not be niggardly in carrying that principle into practice. He would further say, that he would be far from objecting to an extension of the constituency in the large counties, and if he was ready to do that, as a consequence he would be ready to agree to the cutting off of a certain number of boroughs on the other side, in order to make room for such 688 new Representatives. He was, in questions of this description, not disposed to act upon a general principle in reference to all individual and particular cases; nevertheless, by diminishing or extinguishing the franchise in places the least considerable in point of wealth and population, he would propose to make room for the additional Representatives from the larger and more wealthy places to be enfranchised. He would not, however, admit any precise limit of population as a standard for the disfranchisement of boroughs. That he looked upon as one of the very objectionable parts of the late Bill. Whatever objections might be urged against making population merely the basis of Representation, there were great objections to making it the criterion and the basis of disfranchisement, and to the disfranchisement upon such a principle, and without any proof of corruption, of a number of boroughs, possessing a great diversity of franchise, rights, and privileges. He objected to the establishment of one uniform kind of franchise, and he objected to the qualification of the voters as being too low, and as being thereby calculated to lead to bribery and corruption. Those were his principal objections to the Bill which his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward. Instead of objecting to the regulations for diminishing the time of elections, and for taking the poll in one day, he, on the contrary, thought that the adoption of such regulations would be most desirable. These were the sentiments which he entertained on this subject. Their Lordships could not be surprised that he was anxious to re-state them, in order to set himself and the body to which he belonged, right with the public on this point, and to do away with the impression, if any such prevailed, that because they had thrown out the late Reform Bill, they were opposed to every species of Reform.

The Earl of Haddington
was anxious to express his entire concurrence in what had fallen from his noble friend who had just sat down. He was not opposed to all Reform, and whenever a measure of Reform should be brought forward, founded upon principles which he should consider consistent with the safety of the established institutions of the country, and of the Constitution itself, he would be most ready to give such a measure the fullest consideration, trusting to see it carried into effect.

Lord Holland
said, that the petition which he had presented was not in favour of Reform generally, but was in favour of that particular Bill which their Lordships had postponed. Glad, however, as he was to hear the sentiments which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) he should not quarrel with that noble Earl's logic, which deduced from the presentation of such a petition, the inference that the people did not think that their Lordships were opposed to Reform, and he was ready to agree in the conclusion to which that noble Earl had come, that the decision of their Lordships the other day, with regard to the Reform Bill, was not final or fatal on that subject. He (Lord Holland) confidently believed and trusted that such a measure as that which had been recently postponed, would, ere long, become the law of the land. As that Bill had been, strictly speaking, only postponed by their Lordships, the presentation of petitions in its favour was not irregular.

The Lord Chancellor
had but one word to say on this subject. He would not go into the subject now, nor would he discuss the question whether the scanty contribution of the noble Earl was one that would be calculated to satisfy the people. He wished merely to state, that the petition which he had presented did not prove any such thing as that which had been assumed by the noble Earl. That petition was from Inverness, and it was not, physically possible that the decision of that House on Saturday last could have been known there time enough to allow of a petition, now presented, to be adopted subsequent to the arrival of the intelligence in that place. The fact was, that this petition was on its way to town last week, and it would have been presented before this to the House if it had reached him sooner.