HL Deb 01 June 1832 vol 13 cc286-91
The Marquess of Lansdown

, on moving that the Report on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill be brought up stated, that by some accident a Petition, which had been agreed to by the Inhabitants of Calne, had not reached him, or he should now have presented it. The object of that petition was, to show the reasons on which, as the inhabitants of that town conceived, they were entitled to two Representatives. One of these reasons was, that the assessment of property in 1818 amounted to 26,000l., and had been since increasing. They stated, that there would be more electors in Calne than in Chippenham or Marlborough. He felt assured, that if they could lay the whole of their statement before the House, their Lordships would be convinced that the borough of Calne was fully entitled to retain its right to Representation. He, however, conceived, though it was due to the petitioners, that he should bring their claim before their Lordships, that, acting upon the principles of the Bill, it would not be possible to give Calne more than one member, and that no injustice was done to the petitioners. He moved that the Report be received.

On the question, "that the Report be read,"

The Earl of Carnarvon

said, he would take advantage of that last opportunity to reiterate his emphatic disapprobation of the present most pernicious, most revolutionary measure—a measure which was carried through that House by means the most unconstitutional—not through reasoning and fair argument, but by means of a course of proceeding which overthrew the independence of that House, as the only alternative by which the independence of the Crown could be temporarily saved from destruction. He would not, under the present deplorable state of their Lordships' benches, mock what remained of their dignity by dividing the House against the Motion; though he and the supporters of the Bill well knew, if the unbiassed and independent voices of the large majority of its Members could be heard against it, the Bill would long since have been scouted from their Table. How did the noble Earl obtain his temporary and most fatal triumph? Solely because a large majority of the most high-minded and independent of their Lordships preferred staying away altogether, rather than, by their opposition, place his Majesty in a situation which no true lover of his country could consider without dismay. This was the whole secret of the noble Earl's little majorities, and it was right that the country should know it. With this record of his emphatic disapproval of the Bill, he would take leave of it for ever. He would in no way lend himself to the third act of the farce by which their dignity and independence had been, during the last fortnight, disgraced; and he trusted that no noble Lord would be seen in the House on the day of the third reading, save the authors and supporters of a measure which must overthrow all our institutions.

The Earl of Suffolk

could not but admire the voluble self-complacency with which the noble Earl pronounced a measure which had received the unanimous and consistent support of the middle classes of the people of England, including almost all that reflected a moral and intellectual lustre on the British name a farce. Was it a farce which for the first time admitted the people of England to what they were constitutionally entitled—namely, a choice in the election of those who had the making of the laws to which they were bound to yield obedience, and which controlled their lives and property? And was it a farce which made the House of Commons what it ought to be—not the nominees of some ninety borough-proprietors, but the virtual Representatives of the wants, intelligence, and interests of the people? The noble Earl was in error as to the Bill's having been advanced to its present stage without any show of reasoning on the part of its supporters; for unless his ears very much deceived him, noble Lords opposed to the Bill admitted that the case made out in favour of the metropolitan clause was irrefragable and practically convincing. The noble Lords opposite had conceded that the case of the metropolitan districts was fully made out, and the only alarm they felt was prospective as to the influence those districts would in future possess over the two Houses of Parliament. The 10l. clause, too, was conceded in like manner not to be too low a qualification, and that if it were higher, the people would not be represented. These were two of the most important details of the Bill, neither of which had been admitted through secession alone.

The Earl of Carnarvon

repeated, that but for the secession of a large number of noble Lords, those and other clauses would have been rejected by considerable majorities. The noble Earl complained of his designating the measure with reference to its progress through that House, a farce. All he (the Earl of Carnarvon) could say in answer was, that he trusted that he was correct in his designation, and that the farce might not prove in the end to be a woeful tragedy.

Motion agreed to.

Several verbal Amendments were made, and among them one proposed by the Lord Chancellor, that the word "Great," in one of the schedules, should precede instead of follow the word "Bedwin." As it now stood, the schedule ran thus—"Bedwin (Great), Yarmouth." In print that was intelligible enough, but in writing out the Bill, as commas and parentheses were never used, the words might be misapplied, and "Great" might be affixed to "Yarmouth," which would disfranchise Great Yarmouth, though it was by no means their Lordships' intention so to do.

On the question, "that Hedon stand part of schedule A,"

The Marquess of Salisbury

moved, that Hedon be taken out of schedule A, and the franchise be extended to the neighbouring Hundred of Holderness.

Lord Durham

could hardly believe that the noble Marquess seriously intended what he now proposed. Hedon was an insignificant place, and if the proposition were adopted it would have the effect of giving a Member to Holderness, which had none of the required qualifications for such a privilege.

Motion negatived.

Lord Ellenborough

, for the sake of having his objection recorded on the Journals, objected to Appleby being inserted in schedule A. He proposed to remove it out of that schedule.

Motion negatived.

Lord Ellenborough

said, "that Appleby having been inserted in schedule A, Westbury and Midhurst ought both to be introduced into the schedule. He moved, that they be so inserted.

Amendment negatived.

The Marquess of Salisbury

moved the following Amendment—"That from and after the commencement of this Act, all persons possessing the right of voting for Members to serve in Parliament for such boroughs as are disfranchised and included in schedule A, shall continue to enjoy that right, whether the same shall arise from the bona fide possession or occupation of any freehold, leasehold, or other description of property whatsoever, situate within the limits of the said borough, and such right shall for ever continue and remain attached to such property." "That all persons possessing such right to vote shall exercise the same in the election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for such town or borough as shall be nearest to such disfranchised borough wherein the right of voting of such persons arises, and where no such town or borough shall exist within seven miles of such disfranchised borough, as aforesaid, that then and in such case the preserved right of voting shall be exercised for the county in which the said disfranchised borough is situated."

The Marquess of Bute

supported the Motion.

The Duke of Richmond

opposed the Motion, on the ground that, after disfranchising the 40s. freeholders of Ireland, who were independent, the House could not refuse to disfranchise voters who were dependent.

Motion negatived.

Lord Ellenborough

moved that Frome, Huddersfield, Kidderminster, Tynemouth, and South Shields conjoined, Warrington and Whitehaven, should be inserted in the schedule D, after Stroud.—Negatived.

Lord Wharncliffe

moved, that Chatham be struck out of the schedule, as it would be better to unite it with Rochester. He maintained that Chatham would, under the Bill, be a nomination borough in the hands of the Government.

The Earl of Haddington

objected to the Motion, because he had no apprehension that the respectable constituency of Chatham would suffer that place to be converted into a nomination borough.

The Lord Chancellor

denied that Chatham would be under the influence of the present or any succeeding Government; and in proof of this statement referred to the number of 20l. houses in the town, which equalled or exceeded the 10l. houses, and must be presumed to be occupied by independent persons, even supposing the 10l. tenements should turn out to be in the possession of workmen in the Government Dock-yards, which was very far from being the fact.

Lord Durham

said, that Chatham would not be a Government borough under the Bill.

Motion Negatived.

On the question that schedule E stand part of the Bill,

The Earl of Haddington

said, that in the absence of a noble friend, who was prevented by illness from being in his place, he should move a clause which would supersede the necessity of naming in the schedules to the Bill the returning officers for the various newly-created boroughs enumerated therein. The clause he should propose would appoint a municipal body, to consist of a Mayor, six Aldermen, and a Common Council, for each of those towns enfranchised by this Bill, for its purposes, reserving to his Majesty the right of varying or extending their powers by any Charter he thought fit to grant. The noble Earl concluded by moving the insertion of a clause to that effect.

The Lord Chancellor

objected to the insertion, in the present stage of the proceeding of the Bill, of any clause which had not been submitted to the scrutiny of the Committee, particularly a clause of such an important nature as that proposed. The powers conferred by the Bill were for a specific and certain purpose, and the proposition of the noble Earl (which went the length of creating municipal corporations) would interfere, if carried into effect, with other rights and jurisdictions which prevailed throughout the country generally.

Motion negatived, and schedule E agreed to.—The remaining clauses agreed to.—Report received.