§ On the Motion of Earl Grey, the House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill.
§ Earl Greyobserved, that as this important question was now in the stage in which it would be necessary for their Lordships to occupy themselves with the details of the measure, he would state the course which it was his intention to pursue with respect to it. In the first place, he should move that the title be postponed. In the second place, he should move that the preamble be postponed. These Motions being merely matters of course, he trusted that no opposition would be made 677 to them. Their Lordships would then come to the consideration of the various clauses of the Bill; and it might be convenient that he should take an early opportunity of stating an alteration which it was his intention to propose in the first clause. In conformity to what was certainly the natural course of proceeding when it was determined to disfranchise a certain number of boroughs, when the new Bill was brought into the House of Commons, the number having been sanctioned by the House, it was provided by the first clause—"that each of the fifty-six boroughs enumerated in the schedule marked A, to this Act annexed, should, from and after the end of the present Parliament cease to return any Member or Members to serve in Parliament." Perhaps, however, there might be some objection to that mode of proceeding in the House of Lords. He understood that there were noble Lords, who, admitting the principle of the disfranchisement, were of opinion that the number of boroughs to be disfranchised should not be fixed until the schedule A had been considered. To obviate such objections, it was his intention when the Committee came to that part of the first clause, in which the number fifty-six was mentioned to propose the omission of the word "fifty-six." The clause would then stand—"That each of the boroughs enumerated in the schedule A should cease to return any Member or Members to serve in Parliament." This seemed to him to be the more regular course of proceeding—a course more congenial to the character of the measure, as well as calculated to obviate the objections made to the construction of the clause as it then stood. At present, however, he should only move that the title of the Bill be postponed.
§ Title postponed accordingly.
§ Earl Grey moved that the Preamble of the Bill be postponed.
§ Preamble postponed.
§ Lord Lyndhurst, so far from being opposed to the noble Earl's Motion, was disposed to carry it further. The noble Earl had intimated his intention to propose an alteration in the first clause of the Bill. He (Lord Lyndhurst) rose for the purpose of proposing the postponement of the consideration of the clause altogether. If he should succeed in persuading their Lordships to agree to that proposition, he intended to follow it up by proposing that 678 the consideration of the clause which immediately followed should also be postponed. His object was, to submit to their Lordships the propriety of taking into consideration those clauses by which certain places not at present represented were to be allowed to send Members to the House of Commons, and to determine what number of places should be enfranchised, before they entered into the consideration of what places should be disfranchised. He begged leave to call their Lordships' attention for a moment to the position in which they were at present placed with respect to the Bill. Their Lordships had decided (and he was bound to respect that decision) that the Bill should be read a second time, and that it should be referred to a Committee. Now, what was the point which their Lordships had decided? Their Lordships had decided in favour of the principle of the Bill. Undoubtedly a question might be raised as to what was fairly to be considered the principle of the Bill. It was a question which might certainly admit of much discussion, much consideration, and much argument. But having on the second reading attended closely to the whole course of the debate, he was bound to state, that it was evident that the noble Lords who voted for the second reading of the Bill intended to establish the principles of the enfranchisement, disfranchisement, and the extension of the elective franchise. He was bound to consider that as the decision of their Lordships; and in his future proceedings with respect to the Bill, he should act uniformly and constantly in conformity to that decision. But although by agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, their Lordships had acknowledged its principles, they had not in the slightest degree fettered themselves as to the extent to which those principles should be carried. They had determined that there should be enfranchisement, disfranchisement, and an extension of the elective franchise, but they were perfectly free with respect to their determination how far those three principles should be carried. Their Lordships would allow him to say, that after all the discussions which had taken place upon this most important question in both Houses of Parliament, and looking at the feeling of the country and the general expectation that had been created, he was bound to state that, after the best consideration which he had been able to give to 679 the subject, and after having consulted with others respecting it, he was not himself disposed, nor did he believe that any of the noble Lords with whom he acted were disposed, to propose such alterations in the measure as, if they were adopted, would ultimately render the character of the Bill such as not to be satisfactory—he would not say to the Radical party—but to all the intelligent classes of the community; or such as ought not to be satisfactory to the noble Earl himself. With respect to the manner and tone in which this important measure was to be considered, as far as he himself was concerned, and he was sure that he might add as far as those noble Lords with whom he acted on the occasion were concerned, it would be a manner and tone of temper, candour, and conciliation. He was persuaded that this tone and manner would be met by a correspondent tone and manner on the other side of the House. He relied on this on the part of the noble Earl, from his knowledge of that noble Earl's general character. It might be said in that House, as it had been said out of that House, that those who opposed the Bill were actuated by a spirit of personality and party. For himself he disclaimed being actuated by any such spirit. Independently of this question the noble Lords on his side of the House had, from time to time, felt it their duty to comment on other measures of his Majesty's Government during the period at which the noble Earl opposite had been at the head of that Government. But he would confidently say, from his knowledge of those noble Lords, that at no period of the history of the country during the last hundred years, had an opposition to Government been carried on less in the spirit of party and personal feeling. He would confidently say, from his own knowledge, that there never had been an opposition to Government possessing less of the concert and co-operation which usually characterised a party. With respect to the particular measure under their Lordships' consideration, the opposition to it had been occasioned by no party or personal feeling. He—and the observation was equally applicable to many other of their Lordships—had opposed the principle of the Bill, because, having endeavoured to inform his mind upon the subject, he had arrived at the conviction, that if the Bill were passed in the shape in which it had been sent up by the House 680 of Commons, the effect would be the destruction of the rights and just authority of the House of Lords and of the Crown. That was his conscientious opinion; and he would dare any man to say that it was not so. Such being the case, what could he do but oppose the Bill? How could he act otherwise? It was on his thorough conviction of the mischievous effects which would result from the adoption of the measure. What he now meant to propose was the postponement of the first and second, or disfranchising clauses, until after their Lordships had considered the enfranchising clauses, conferring the right of Representation on places by which it had not hitherto been enjoyed. He begged that he might not be misapprehended. What he proposed was simply the postponement of the clauses. His proposition did not involve any pre judgment of the question. If he might use the language of his profession, he simply desired to postpone the clauses "without prejudice" to their being subsequently and fully considered. He would briefly state to their Lordships the grounds on which he proposed this postponement. He considered that a Bill of this description ought to be essentially a Bill of enfranchisement. That doctrine he had always held. When he first addressed their Lordships on the subject he had said so, and had then objected to the Bill because it bore the appearance of a bill of disfranchisement instead of enfranchisement. The Reform measure ought to be a Bill of enfranchisement; and disfranchisement ought to be only the consequence of that enfranchisement. He knew no other principle on which such a bill ought to proceed. If it were considered necessary for the benefit of the State to enfranchise a great many large towns, it might be considered necessary to disfranchise a number of other places. On that point he would give no opinion. But he confidently maintained that the enfranchisement must be the measure of disfranchisement. The particular cases of disfranchisement must be decided on their merits, and after inquiry; but with reference to the general question, the question of disfranchisement must depend on the necessity created for it by the extent of the enfranchisement. They must know the extent of the enfranchisement before they could proceed with propriety to consider the extent of the disfranchisement. The Amendment, there- 681 fore, which the noble Earl had signified his intention of moving in the first clause although a very important Amendment, did not meet the object which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had in view. The Amendment to be proposed by the noble Earl was, to leave out the words "fifty-six," thereby substituting simply the boroughs specified in the Schedule. But that was to disfranchise before they enfranchised. If the noble Earl did not mean to propose the immediate adoption of the clause, he (Lord Lyndhurst) would not press his proposition. If the noble Earl, after the omission of the words "fifty-six" in the clause, did not mean to move that the clause be embodied in the Bill, he (Lord Lyndhurst) would not persevere in his proposition. But as that did not appear to be the noble Earl's intention, he (Lord Lyndhurst must proceed. The course which he recommended would be far more gracious to the whole community than the course recommended by the noble Earl. The course which he recommended was to begin by enfranchising, to begin by conferring rights and privileges, to begin by granting boons and favours; whereas, the course recommended by the noble Earl was to begin by disfranchising, to begin by depriving a portion of the community of the rights and privileges which they at present enjoyed. The power of returning Members to the Commons House of Parliament was admitted in the preamble of the Bill to be a right and a privilege. But it was not in the preamble of the Bill alone that it was so described. One of the most eminent lawyers that had ever lived—a Whig too in politics—he meant Lord Chief Justice Holt, had termed the power of returning Members to the Commons House of Parliament "a transcendent right, of which no tribunal could deprive the people;" and all the other eminent men who had adorned that and the other House of Parliament, down to the present time, had been of the same opinion. There was another consideration which pressed upon his mind, and which he begged leave to state to their Lordships. If they adopted the course which he recommended, they would disfranchise as a matter of necessity; if they adopted the course recommended by the noble Lords opposite, they would disfranchise certain boroughs because they were blots on the Constitution—they would abate them as nuisances. Now, would any 682 noble Lord, having the character of a statesman, say, that the course which he recommended was not the more conciliatory and healing? When the tone and temper which had been manifested out of doors on this subject, at meetings and in writings, were considered—when it was known, that the House of Commons had been called a borough mongering Parliament, and that it was asked, what obligation there was to obey the laws which had been passed by such a Parliament, or to pay the debt which a corrupt House of Commons had accumulated, their Lordships ought surely to pause, before, by any proceeding of theirs, they gave a sanction to such doctrines. The Lord Privy Seal had that evening presented a petition from the Northern National Union. He (Lord Lyndhurst) would take the liberty of reading the language which had been used by the individual who had moved the first Resolution at a recent meeting of the Northern Political Union; and would then put it to their Lordships, whether they would do anything that should give an apparent sanction to the doctrine maintained. "Let us get our Reformed Parliament," said the speaker—'our House of Delegates,' (he thanked the Duke for teaching him that word)—and we shall soon manage our 'delegation' so as to do good to ourselves." After some other observations, with which he would not trouble their Lordships, the speaker proceeded:—"He next came to that pretty affair, the eight hundred millions of debt. Upon that head, he would speak with sincerity, and brave obloquy, which he knew he should get in some quarters. Who borrowed this money [a voice: 'I got none of it']? He dared say, his friend told the truth, for the English boroughmongers borrowed it. And for what? To put down Reform at home and freedom abroad—to perpetuate their own profitable abuses. Had they any right to saddle us and our children with this debt? He denied it flatly and in toto; he abjured the whole loan system. A nation had de facto only a life-interest in the soil and property; they could not alienate or will it away. They could not sell the country in a lump and spend the money. Now, a man with a life-interest only cannot mortgage, nor burthen the heir: this is the law of nature and civilization also. But if this was as he said, could they mortgage the blood and bones, the minds and bodies of their 683 descendants? Monstrous idea! and yet this had been attempted by them; for, before a shilling of profit or maintenance could be obtained by farmer, merchant, or manufacturer, he must first work out his share of the taxes to pay the interest of the "Debt," as it was called: this could not continue. He was for no unmerciful dispensation to the fundholders; they were innocent, and ought to be paid, as far as all disposable public property could pay them; for the rest, some sort of compromise must be made—and by a Reformed Parliament, in time, it would be made—the thing was inevitable, and time would prove it so." Nor was this a solitary specimen of the doctrine. But was it a doctrine to which their Lordships would give their sanction? Such, however, would be the result of adopting the course recommended by the noble Lords opposite. Let them enfranchise first, and afterwards disfranchise, if necessary, and only to the extent of the necessity. Such, he would take upon himself to say, had been the course recommended by all the eminent Reformers who had previously proposed to amend the constitution of Parliament. Their system had been, either that there should be no disfranchisement at all; or, if there were any, that it should be only the consequence of enfranchisement. When Lord Chatham brought forward his measure of Reform above seventy years ago, disfranchisement made no part of it. His plan was to add 100 Members to the House of Commons, to be elected by counties and great towns. What were Mr. Pitt's plans? In 1783, Mr. Pitt proposed, like his father, to add 100 Members to the House of Commons; but, unaccompanied by disfranchisement, except when it could be proved that any borough had conducted itself improperly, and had thereby forfeited its right to the elective franchise; in which case the inhabitants of that borough were to sink into the general mass. In 1785, Mr. Pitt brought forward another and a more important plan of Reform, the object of which was, to add seventy-two Members to the House of Commons. Enfranchisement was thus the principle of the measure, although it comprehended disfranchisement in a qualified way, a sum of money being to be set apart for the purchase by the nation of boroughs. That disfranchisement, however, was to be the consequence of enfranchisement. Among other 684 places, Sheffield and Birmingham were to have Members. When Mr. Flood brought forward his plan of Reform, it was, like that of Lord Chatham, to add 100 Members to the House of Commons; but disfranchisement formed no part of his measure. He next came to the plan proposed by the noble Earl (Grey) opposite, in 1797, the main feature of which was the great increase of the Members returned by counties. On the general merits of that plan, it was not necessary for him to make any observation, nor was he disposed to do so, after what had been observed, with respect to it by the noble Earl himself—"that much of it was to be ascribed to the heat and inexperience of' youth." That brought him to the plan introduced some years ago by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), who was the ostensible mover of the Bill now on their Lordships' Table, as well as of that which had preceded it in a former Session. The plan introduced by the noble Lord was in the shape of four Resolutions, the second of which declared it expedient to give Representatives to the large towns then unrepresented; but the third Resolution recommended the appointment of a Committee to consider how that enfranchisement might be best effected, without any inconvenient addition to the number of Members in the House of Commons. It was not, he thought, too much for him to infer from this proposition, that the noble Lord looked upon enfranchisement as the principle and end of his plan, and that he considered disfranchisement as the means. He did not mean to impute any inconsistency to the noble Lord, for whom he had a very high respect, but he could not avoid noticing the language of the noble Lord on that occasion. His words were—"Let us first agree as to what towns should be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of disfranchisement—what alterations it may be necessary to propose." But this hostility to disfranchise, or the principle of regarding it only as a means, not as an end or object of Reform, was not confined to the noble Lord whose name he had mentioned. He thought that, in the speeches, as well as in the writings, of his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor), the same principle was adhered to. His noble and learned friend had, he conceived, given sufficient evidence, that he also looked upon enfran- 685 chisement as the great end of Reform, and that, if he regarded disfranchisement at all, it was to be only as a means. In a celebrated letter which his noble and learned friend had written, he had made use of these words: "Above all things let us have no disfranchisement." He did not mean to charge his noble and learned friend with inconsistency in this respect; but he was anxious to quote him as a very high authority for the course which he (Lord Lyndhurst) pointed out. He thought it would be allowed that he had shown good authority for his assertion, that, in the various propositions which had been made for Reform, enfranchisement was the principle, and disfranchisement only the consequence. Their Lordships would also allow him to say, that the course which he recommended was in the spirit of the ancient Royal prerogative. Anciently, the King, by his prerogative, had the right to issue his precepts to places not heretofore represented. That was a right which enabled the Crown from time to time to adapt the Representation to the changes of the period, and to avert the mischievous consequences which might have resulted from its being stationary. This prerogative remained down to the time of King Charles 2nd, who, as was well known, had sent a writ to the town of Newark—if, he repeated, that prerogative still existed in the Crown, there could be no difficulty in adjusting the principle of enfranchisement. But that prerogative no longer existed, and, at no time, was the power of disfranchisement recognized by law as belonging to the Monarch. He knew it had been held, that the Crown had the power of withholding writs from places which had gone to decay, but this power had been most formally disavowed, first by a Committee of the House of Commons; afterwards by the decision of the Judges of the land, and, eventually, by Parliament itself. In the reign of James 1st, four boroughs complained to the House, that precepts had not been sent to them, to return Members as usual in the case of a new election. The House appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter, and the Committee, which, as their Lordships knew, numbered Selden and Sir Edward Coke amongst its members, decided, that the precepts could not be legally refused them. The matter was afterwards referred to the Chief Justices of the Courts, and the decision of the Committee was confirmed; 686 and it was, as he had said, subsequently confirmed by Parliament itself, and the precepts were issued. The town of Winchester and Pomfret were instances of the same kind, in the same reign. He (Lord Lyndhurst) must contend, then, that the power of the Crown not extending now to the issuing or withholding writs from places which sent Members to Parliament being admitted, and that the plan of ail the great Reformers, from the time of Lord Chatham to the present day, having been formed, as he had shown, on the principle of enfranchisement as an end, and disfranchisement as a means, he was acting in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, and in conformity with even the practice of modern Reformers, in proposing that their Lordships should first consider the question of how far they were disposed to carry the enfranchising principle, before they took into consideration the question of disfranchisement. Having stated the arguments which occurred to him on this point, he could assure their Lordships, that, in taking this course, he did not mean to prejudice the question of disfranchisement, for their Lordships could afterwards measure the extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should feel disposed to carry the principle of enfranchisement. He would now, therefore, move, that the first and second clauses of the Bill be postponed.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he was sure that his noble and learned friend could not have distinctly heard what fell from his noble friend (Earl Grey) near him, from the construction he had put upon his observations as to the course he proposed with respect to the first clause. His noble friend proposed, as a course which was likely to be more convenient to their Lordships, that the words "fifty-six" should be omitted from the first clause, because, as his noble friend had observed, it might be not agreeable to many of their Lordships to be tied down in the first instance to the disfranchisement of so many boroughs, but his noble friend had never meant or said, that it was not his intention to propose the disfranchisement of that number of boroughs. On the contrary, he had most distinctly and emphatically added, that it was his intention to propose the disfranchisement of those boroughs—that was, that each of them should seriatim be inserted in schedule A. He was anxious to set his noble and 687 learned friend right on this point, lest, by possibility, it could be supposed that his noble friend near him, or he, or any of his noble colleagues, could, for one moment, think of going back one atom from what they considered the essential principles of the Bill. The course which his noble friend proposed, was for the sake of the convenience of their Lordships, for he admitted that there would be an inconvenience attending the clause if it were proposed at once that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised. Therefore it was, that his noble friend proposed to omit those words from the clause, but with the certain intention of proposing each one of the fifty-six boroughs to be inserted in it as they went on. He was fully disposed to give his noble and learned friend credit for the disclaimer he had made of want of candour, or of the existence of any factious party spirit in the proposition he now made; but, if he were to judge of him by the party with which he was acting, and to which party his noble and learned friend had most marvellously, as it appeared to him, assigned the absence of all factious or party motives—if he were to weigh all that they had lately done with respect to this Bill, and to the Government by which it was introduced, he should not be disposed to give his noble friend that credit for candour and fairness which he then most unfeignedly did. He was unwilling to go back to all the proceedings of that party; but without going further back than that most unfactious and most candid course, which that party took on the occasion of the system of education lately adopted in Ireland, he must say, that, when he recollected the various castes and degrees of party who were united on that question, for the purpose of showing, no doubt, their very good will to Government—when he recollected the strange union which was then made to assert a principle different from that on which Government acted—they might be right—they might have considered that they were taking a right course as conscientiously as he believed that they were wrong—but when he recollected the union formed on that occasion, of men who could not agree on any one point, but that in the plan they were pursuing they were opposed to the Government—when he recollected these circumstances, he must own, that, if he were to measure his noble and learned 688 friend's candour by that of those with whom he acted, he should not be disposed to give him as much credit for that quality as he should willingly do if he were to consider him in his individual character, and distinct from party association. Considering, then, this Motion—considering by whom it was proposed, and by whom it, was likely to be supported, he could look upon it in no other light than as proposing to negative the most important part of the Bill. If his noble and learned friend, instead of wrapping himself in generalities, would only say, that there was any important part of the Bill with which he would agree—if he would even now say, that he did not object to the principle of schedules A and B, but that he would rather that schedules C and D should be taken first—then he could understand the ground of his objection, and might be disposed to accede to it, (though he should still think that the taking the clauses in their order in the Bill would be the more desirable coarse.) If even his noble and learned friend would point out that there was something for which they ought to wait before they proceeded to the discussion of that clause, some information which they had not yet obtained, but which might be forthcoming at a later period of the discussion, he should not think his Motion unreasonable; but when his noble and learned friend left them in the dark as to all that, and as to his own intentions and those of the party with which he acted, with respect to those clauses, at a future period, he must think that the proposition was made only to get rid of the clause altogether, and, therefore, it should have his most decided opposition. His noble and learned friend had, in order to induce their Lordships to agree with him in this Motion, taken rather a strange course, if his object were only the mere postponement, and not the total, defeat of the clause. He had alluded to opinions which were expressed elsewhere, and his noble and learned friend had read and commented upon a speech delivered at a public meeting somewhere in the north. He did not think it worth while to follow his noble and learned friend into any examination of that speech, for he did not think it fair to pick out words from a speech at a public meeting out of doors; indeed, he should think it hardly fair to do so to a speech delivered in any place, he would not ex- 689 cept even the two highest and most important scenes of public discussion, the two Houses of Parliament. If he were disposed to make selections for the sake of comment on the speeches delivered in either of those Houses, or in the acts of the Houses themselves, he should be at no loss to find abundant subjects for remark, and that, too, not in the way of any cordial approbation. For instance, he had heard in one House of Parliament of a proposition made—aye, and carried, too—and carried by a large majority, a majority of which, as expressing the sense of the then Representatives of the people, he was bound to speak with all due respect; but he had heard of a proposition moved in that House, and carried by that majority, which, in gross absurdity, was not exceeded by any of the wildest or most extravagant which he had ever heard made out of doors—a proposition not only against the abundant evidence of the experience of that day, but against common arithmetic. Had not Members of the House of Commons actually proceeded to the extremity of voting, in spite of the evidence of their senses, that a one-pound note and one shilling was equal in value to one guinea in gold, for the express purpose of making it a misdemeanour to give more than twenty-one shillings for a guinea, at a time when a guinea was worth, and invariably sold, for twenty-eight shillings? He mentioned this circumstance only to show how unsafe it was for his noble and learned friend to come to any conclusion upon such grounds. The objects of the various motions made at different times by various friends of Parliamentary Reform, had been brought under their Lordships' notice, and in those instances certainly enfranchisement was the main object. Yet there was one great measure of Parliamentary Reform which had not been alluded to, and in which the main, the sole principle, was disfranchisement, and not enfranchisement. He referred to the union with Ireland, in which, out of 300 Members, 200 were disfranchised. Still he would admit, generally speaking, that those measures began with enfranchisement. His own authority had been quoted; but, he would ask, did two-and-twenty years make no difference? Did two-and-twenty years produce no important changes in the circumstances of the nation, and in the character and condition of the people? He had known the 690 lapse of two-and-twenty weeks effect a most important change in the opinions, of not a few, but of a majority of the Members of that House, on a question of constitutional policy of the most vital character. The circumstances which had occurred in the course of two-and-twenty weeks were of such a nature as to withdraw from the ranks of the opponents of that measure a large proportion of those who formerly voted against it, and to enrol them under the banners of its friends and supporters. Did he mention this in disparagement of those individuals, his noble and learned friend among the rest? On the contrary, he invoked their high authority—as his noble and learned friend opposite had said of himself—to prove that Statesmen ought to act according to the circumstances of the times in which they were placed. The principle of this Bill was, in the first instance, the expediency of taking away the power of voting for the Representation in Parliament from inconsiderable places. This was the foundation and basis of the Bill—then the grant of Representation to towns which had risen to importance—the addition to the Knights of the Shire—and the diminution of the expense of elections; but a more prominent feature was, the taking away those parts of our parliamentary system, the abuse of which had been found to be intolerable. It had been said by his noble and learned friend, that the House ought to begin at what he considered to be the right end; and, as soon as they had settled how many boroughs they would enfranchise, they could then settle how many they would disfranchise, to make up the number. This left them in uncertainty as to the main and fundamental part of the measure; for which reason he could not agree to it. But who were they who supported this Motion? Did that consideration indicate that nothing more was meant than an alteration in respect of form and order? No such thing. All who were against the Bill for any reason—all who had any fundamental objection to it—he had no manner of doubt his noble and learned friend expected to support him in his proposition. If the only object were to take away a little here, and to give up a little there, without impairing the principle of the Bill, such a proposition might deserve consideration; but it was impossible to shut one's eyes to what was passing—it was impossible not 691 to have a full and intimate persuasion that this Motion was—he would not say framed, by his noble friend, or devised, or brought forward, by him for the purpose of catching the votes of those who were against the Bill; but that its tendency and the great objection against it was, that it would endanger, if not altogether destroy, the fundamental principles of the Bill, he had no manner of doubt. And, then, from whom did this proposition come? His noble and learned friend frankly, and in a manly manner, avowed his hostility to the Bill. He repeated the declaration of his hostility which he had made on the second reading, saying that it would unsettle the Constitution—that it would destroy the balance of the powers in the State, and that he regarded it as tending to subvert the Constitution, and that, in short, it was so ruinous, that he would enter into no consideration of the detail, for he would oppose the whole. He would, he admitted now, be disposed to see how far the principle of enfranchisement would go; and were they, he would ask, were those who were favourable to the principles as well as to the detail of the Bill, to wait and hazard the safety of that principle until they saw to what degree of enfranchisement the noble and learned Lord and his friends would go, that they might then ascertain how far they should be permitted to carry the principle of disfranchisement? For his part he confessed, that, in the prospect which his noble and learned friend held out, his hopes of gaining anything to the Bill, by acceding to the Motion, were very weak indeed. The attack, for attack it was, was made on that part of the Bill which he most valued, and which those opposed to all Reform most dreaded, for the great hatred was directed against schedule A; and, if that should be put in jeopardy, or defeated, he could easily guess how it would fare with schedule B and the rest. But if, as his noble and learned friend intimated, schedule A could be considered after the other parts of the Bill, and, if there was to be no objection to it, why might it not as well be agreed to in the first instance? The other plans of Reform to which his noble and learned friend had alluded had been brought in, it should be remembered, for the first time, and proposed in unreforming Houses of Parliament; but the plan now before the Houses was brought into a House of Par- 692 liament disposed to admit the principle of Reform, and that this Bill had twice received the sanction by a large majority of one House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, and feeling that his noble and learned friend had made no case for the necessity or expediency of the course he had poposed, he should feel it his duty to give his direct and decided opposition.
§ The Earl of Harrowbywas always sorry when it fell to his lot to follow the noble and learned Lord, whose eloquence placed all who were so circumstanced under peculiar difficulties. He had, however, but few observations to make, and his difficulty was the less, inasmuch as the noble and learned Lord, with all the ability he possessed, had not been able to bring forward arguments against the proposition which had been made. In declaring his concurrence in the proposition, he begged that he might not be included by the noble and learned Lord amongst those who, in desiring the postponement of this clause, meant at all in the smallest degree to object to the clause itself, or to the extent to which it was carried, if, after full consideration, it should appear advisable to carry it to its present extent. He was one of those who had represented and urged, until he had brought odium upon himself, the propriety of supporting his Majesty's Government in their present measure. He had not abandoned his opinion as to the propriety of that course; but he did not think it was at all indispensable that, for the purpose of supporting the Government in the general measure, it was necessary that the decision of the disfranchisement principle should precede the discussion of the enfranchising clauses. His opinion was in accordance with that of his noble and learned friend, that the present arrangement should be reversed. He was glad to hear the announcement of the noble Earl opposite on the subject of the number of fifty-six boroughs, but he would put it to the fair consideration of all, whether the determination to propose them one by one, and to adhere to such propositions, was not in substance precisely the same? All that they could agree upon was to disfranchise that number, and those boroughs which it might appear just, expedient, or necessary to disfranchise. He (the Earl of Harrowby) did not object to the number of fifty-six as too great. If it were better 693 for the public he would propose the disfranchisement of sixty boroughs instead of fifty-six. But he wished their Lordships to take into consideration not how many boroughs should be disfranchised, but whether disfranchisement ought not naturally and properly to follow enfranchisement. For this purpose it was only necessary to change the order of the words, and that really was the principal change effected by the arrangement. Having said so much, he knew not that it was necessary for him further to occupy the time of the House. The noble and learned Lord opposite seemed to think that he must be hostile to the Bill, if he supported this Motion. He begged to remind their Lordships how strongly he had urged the second reading of the Bill, in answer to this suspicion. As to the views of the noble Mover, or of those who might support him, he did not pretend to speak; but even supposing them to be of a nature hostile to the measure, he did not know that that consideration ought to decide them in doing what they considered wrong. The principle of enfranchisement always had stood first in measures of Reform: it always ought to stand first. That, fairly, was the whole proposition of the noble and learned Lord—and to that proposition he hoped they would accede. Before he sat down, he must express the pleasure he felt in perceiving the absence of ill temper and party rancour in the manner of conducting the debates upon this vital quession. Having mixed himself up in their debates this Session, he should follow this excellent example; and he conjured all their Lordships to do the same. This was not a question in which private interests or petty party feelings should be allowed to mix. The great interests of the country were in their hands, and all that was required was, that they should keep a steady eye upon those interests, and not permit their minds to be swayed by any other consideration. Thus, and thus only, would they be able to bring to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion this great question, which, so long as it remained unsettled, paralyzed every effort that was made to secure the internal peace and prosperity of the country.
§ Lord Bexleybegged to say, in reference to some remarks which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord who had spoken last but one, that the Resolution of the Rouse of Commons was not a 694 one-pound note and one shilling were equivalent to a guinea, but that the public estimation rendered them equivalent. The materials were not to be tried by their intrinsic value—by weighing gold against paper, but by showing that, in the opinions of men, and in the ordinary transactions of life, they were of equal value. He knew no better test of public opinion than the verdict of a Jury, on the oath of twelve honest and independent men. It did so happen that about the time to which the noble and learned Lord referred, that very question came under the consideration of a Jury. An action was brought against a party, who tendered in payment a twenty-shilling note and a shilling, which the plaintiff refused to receive. The question was tried at the Assizes at Croydon, and the Jury found a verdict for the defendant; but the Judge informed them that they were not justified in returning such a verdict, as the law did not recognize the payment tendered. The Jury retired to reconsider their verdict, and came into Court again with a verdict for the defendant; and it was with great difficulty that, on the third time, and under the immediate direction of the Judge, they were prevailed upon to give a verdict, pronouncing the paper money not to be equivalent to gold. With regard to the question before their Lordships, after what had been said by the noble and learned Lord who spoke first at that side of the House, and by the noble Earl who had spoken last, he should trouble their Lordships with but few words. His reasons for supporting the Motion of his noble and learned friend were—first, that the great and crying grievance which was always brought forward by those who called for Reform was, that the great commercial towns were left unrepresented. To that his noble and learned friend proposed to call the attention of the House, and he agreed in thinking that it was the first grievance which ought to be attended to. Their Lordships could then consider in what mode it could be remedied with the least possible infringement of private rights. His second reason was, that he conceived they ought not to carry the remedy beyond the disease, and that they ought to limit the disfranchisement to that which was required by the enfranchisement; and it might be a question whether any disfranchisement at all, in the strict sense of the term, would be necessary; because he conceived that 695 means might be found, by a classification of the boroughs, to prevent the destruction of the rights of any. If that could be done, it would be a great step to reconcile many to the Bill. Such an adjustment, on the principle of enfranchisement and classification of boroughs, would be that which he thought ought best to satisfy the public mind.
The Earl of Radnorlooked upon the question which had been raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite as a question of very serious importance. The noble Earl, who had spoken last but one, had wished to prove that it was a question of no consequence whether the words "fifty-six" were left in the clause, or whether the names of the boroughs to be inserted in schedule A were voted separately, as his noble friend near him (Earl Grey) had proposed. Now, it appeared to him to be a matter of great consequence which course was adopted, and he would shortly tell their Lordships why. Those persons who advised the postponement of this clause were altogether the enemies of disfranchisement ["No"]. He said, yes. The noble and learned Lord, who proposed the Amendment, had frankly avowed his enmity to the Bill, and though he had stated that he should act in the Committee with the utmost fairness by the Bill, he (the Earl of Radnor) could not help feeling that the noble and learned Lord's wish to reject the Bill in toto might bias his judgment in considering its clauses. The noble Earl who had spoken second on this question had avowed himself a friend to the system of nomination boroughs. He had even told their Lordships that evening, that he did not give up one iota of the opinions which he had formerly entertained respecting their utility and advantage; and the noble Baron who had just sat down had declared it to be his opinion that if this Amendment were carried disfranchisement might be done away with altogether. The postponement, then, of this clause meant nothing else than the throwing out the clause for the disfranchisement of what some writers had not hesitated to call the shameful parts of the Constitution. He looked upon that clause as the most important clause in the Bill. Some noble Lords were of a different opinion, and maintained that the 10l. qualification clause was that which the people were most desirous of seeing part and parcel a the Bill. He believed quite the 696 reverse. He admitted that there had been more talk lately about the 10l. clause than about the disfranchisement clause; but the reason was obvious—it was generally supposed that the nomination boroughs would be given up without a word by all parties. What was it, he would ask, which more than anything else had reconciled the country to this Reform Bill? The extent to which it carried the disfranchisement of the nomination boroughs. When the people first received the Bill with that enthusiasm of which no man now ventured to dispute the existence, it was not because they had considered the mode of enfranchisement which it proposed, but because they discovered that it made a great disfranchisement. He, therefore, concluded that the disfranchisement clause was the main clause of the Bill, and one which most interested the popular will of the country. Considering the quarter from which the proposition for postponement came, he could not look upon it as anything else than a mode of getting rid, by a side wind, of disfranchisement altogether. The noble Earl said, that there was no essential difference between the proposition of his noble and learned friend, and the Amendment upon it proposed by the noble and learned Lord opposite. He would call the attention of their Lordships to the point in which the difference between them was to be found. If their Lordships laid it down as a principle in the first instance that fifty-six boroughs were to be disfranchised, they must then look out for the different boroughs which are to form part of those fifty-six; but if they left out the words fifty-six, they would be at liberty to look out for nomination boroughs, and if they found fifty-six boroughs or even more deserving disfranchisement, they could put them at once into schedule A. The difference between the two propositions was thus nothing more than the mere difference between cause and effect. With respect to the necessity of disfranchising these nomination boroughs, he had recently had an opportunity of informing himself of the opinions which the people of England entertained upon that subject. He had recently been in Lancashire, and in travelling along the rail-road between Liverpool and Manchester, he had passed close by the decayed and insignificant borough of Newton. He had been told that it was impossible to form a conception of the 697 effect which the existence of that borough of Newton so close to the rail-road had produced upon the minds of those who had travelled along it from the opulent and populous town of Liverpool, which was partially represented to the still more opulent and populous town of Manchester, which was totally unrepresented. The feeling as to the necessity of disfranchising such wretched and contemptible places as Newton was gaining strength daily amid the hardy and intelligent people of the north; and if they had talked lately more of the 10l. qualification clause than they had of the disfranchisement clause, it was, he repeated, because they supposed it was agreed on all hands that an extensive disfranchisement should take place. If their Lordships were disposed to make this Bill available to any good purpose, they must put a negative on the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the only argument in the speech of the noble Lord who spoke last, consisted entirely in the objection that the Motion came from those who opposed the second reading of the Bill, and the inference that, therefore, it must have been made for party purposes. He would not follow the noble Earl upon this subject, or make any inquiry into what had been the conduct of those with whom he had the honour to act, with a view to comparing it to the conduct of a noble and learned Lord, when in another place, upon former occasions, respecting the making of public measures subservient to party considerations. He would not enter into comparisons of that sort, but he would say this—that, if ever there was a measure before Parliament the opponents of which were not liable to the imputation of party motives for their conduct, it was the measure then before their Lordships. If ever there was a set of men acting together upon common principles, whose conduct rendered them exempt from the possibility of such an insinuation, it was those men with whom he had had the honour to act during the two last Sessions of Parliament. It had been asserted by the noble Earl that this Motion had been made because they were the enemies of the Bill. For his own part he unquestionably was the decided enemy of the Bill. He was its enemy because he was convinced in his conscience that, let their Lordships do what they would with it, it never could be 698 made anything but an evil to the country. This was his opinion of the principles of the Bill, and he would do all in his power to avert the evil which was impending over his country from its adoption, being convinced that, under it, the Government never could be carried on. But when those principles had been adopted by their Lordships, by reading the Bill a second time, he considered that it then became his duty, as an honest Member of Parliament, to come down and consider the Bill according to the principles, bad or good, upon which it had been brought in, and do what was in his power to make it as good a Bill for the country as possible, consistent with those principles. With this view he had listened to what had fallen from noble Lords, and he must say, that he had not heard one word of argument against the Motion of his noble and learned friend. It had been shown by his noble and learned friend, that according to the first principles of the Constitution, and according to all its practice, the point first to be considered by their Lordships was, that of enfranchisement; and having affirmed that, then it would be for them to consider whether, and in what manner, disfranchisement should follow; but his noble and learned friend had shown that, according to all precedent in all the sound and recorded practice of the Constitution, the principle of enfranchisement had had precedence whenever any alteration was to be made. To that no answer had been made. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had followed his noble and learned friend, and if any man had been able to answer him, it would have been the noble and learned Lord. Yet the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said not one word upon that part of the subject. It was then in order that they should proceed according to the examples set before them by the Constitution, that his noble and learned friend had made this Motion. That was their object, and no dirty view of party interest, or intention to get rid of the Bill, which one noble Lord had appeared to insinuate. The question they now had before them was, whether or not they should go to a vote at once, declaring that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised by one clause, and thirty other boroughs by another clause, without knowing what they were to do in the way of enfranchisement; without first knowing what extent of en- 699 franchisement would be required, or in fact, being acquainted with any one of the details of the Bill. And why was this? Why, because certain persons thought proper to tell them that these boroughs were nomination boroughs. Now, he confessed he could not perfectly understand with what consistency they could be asked to do this upon such a ground. He wanted to know, when these persons talked of destroying nomination boroughs, whether no nomination boroughs were to remain under the Bill? It was well known that there would. Nay, he was prepared to prove, at the Bar of their Lordships' House, that a new nomination borough would be created by the Bill as it now stood. He repeated that he had no other object in supporting the Motion of his noble and learned friend, than that the House should go regularly into the consideration of the Bill according to its principles, which had been affirmed by their Lordships. For, although he avowed himself the enemy of the Bill, and although he would, upon the proper occasion, again oppose its principles, as he had opposed them before, yet no man should be enabled to say of him that he had been found in the Committee doing otherwise than fairly attempting to make the Bill as little injurious as possible, consistently with the maintenance of those principles.
Lord Hollandwas very anxious, he said, to endeavour to assign a few of the many reasons which induced him to give his vote against the Amendment which had been so ingeniously put forward by the noble and learned Lord opposite. He felt a strong desire to address their Lordships on the present occasion, though he confessed that, from personal reasons with which it was immaterial to trouble their Lordships, but of which personal indisposition was one, he was not sure that he should be able to go through the task which he had voluntarily imposed upon himself. He was anxious, he repeated, to address their Lordships from the perfect persuasion that the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, was one which, if unfortunately it should be adopted by a majority of their Lordships, would entirely do away with the great good which they had recently effected by giving their assent to the second reading of this Bill. Of this point he was thoroughly persuaded, that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord was inconsistent 700 with the past decision of their Lordships [cries of "No"]. He did not say this unadvisedly, and though they might not be satisfactory to their Lordships, he would state the reasons, such as they were, which had induced him to come to that conclusion. He thought, then, that this Amendment was inconsistent with the recent decision of their Lordships—that it was irreconcileable with all reasonable and constitutional principle—and that it was fraught with the greatest evils, as it was calculated to disappoint the expectations of the Commons of England, taking that term either in its confined sense of the House of Commons, or, in the more enlarged and liberal sense of the Constitution—namely, that of the people of England. When he said that the Motion now under consideration was inconsistent with the former decision of their Lordships, he did not wish to be understood as imputing motives to any man. He did not mean to say, that the noble Duke who supported the Amendment, or the noble and learned Lord who proposed it, considered that they were doing anything contrary to what they considered the principle of the Bill, but, in his view of the question, the postponement of the disfranchisement clause, would be tantamount to a vote against the principle of the Bill. It was not what the noble Duke or the noble and learned Lord considered; the question was, what did the framers of the Bill, and what did the House of Commons, consider its principle? They considered that one great principle of the Bill stood upon those clauses against which the noble and learned Lord had directed his ingenious and powerful mind. The noble and learned Lord said, "Let disfranchisement be the consequence of enfranchisement, and then you will be acting constitutionally, and according to all precedent." Comical precedents, indeed, they would be which had always been rejected, and yet none but such precedents could the noble and learned Lord quote. "But," continued the noble and learned Lord, "if you act thus, you will be acting reasonably;" and then he held out to the House a distant hope that he would agree with it in voting for the principle of the Bill. He (Lord Holland) would contend that the precedence of disfranchisement to enfranchisement was one of the principles of the Bill—nay, more, that it was that very principle which had rendered the Bill so palatable to the peo- 701 ple, and had made it effectual for two great and magnificent objects which the Bill contemplated. One of them was of a temporary character, and yet of great urgency and importance, for it was nothing less than the reconciliation of the people to the ancient and noble institutions of their country. The other was the revision, correction, and improvement, of the ancient principle and practice of the Constitution, by rendering it the true conservative body of the rights and liberties of the people. That was the character it had always received from all the most eminent of our Statesmen who were now no more. It was a restoration of the ancient Constitution of the country, and had been so considered by men as great and as wise as any of those who stood forward and opposed the present measure. The principles of this measure had been sanctioned by the collective wisdom of many great men, now no more, but who were now admitted to be authorities on every public question on which they had left any opinion. In considering the Motion now before their Lordships, he felt it his duty to look to the intention with which that Motion had been brought forward, as to its effect and tendency. It was very possible that the Motion was not brought forward with what the noble Duke called "the dirty view" of getting rid of the Bill. He was sure that the noble Duke's noble mind would not harbour such a view; but when a person had strong impressions on any question, it was hard to place reliance on his judgment in relation to that particular question. The noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord said, "We do not now oppose the principle of the Bill; our intention is to give it effect." But then it was to be recollected that the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord had stated that the principle of the Bill was repugnant to their feelings, and that they detested it. He asked the noble and learned Lord who brought forward this Motion, whether he would consult a person as to the mode of doing anything who did not wish it to be done? Such a frame of mind as the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord had on this question would naturally prevent them from forming a calm and impartial judgment on the best means of considering it. The principles of the Bill were disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of the suffrage. Of 702 these main objects of the Bill, the first was perhaps, the most important of all. He did not mean to disparage the other great principles. To every tittle of the other clauses of the Bill he should show, by his vote, that he was as strong a friend as any other noble Lord; but if they took the gem out of its head—if they even hesitated—they would deteriorate the measure, and take from it what would materially affect the value of the boon. What he had heard in the course of the debate on this question, he declared had excited the greatest surprise in his mind. The disfranchisement clauses were objected to because the rotten boroughs were said to have produced such advantages to the Constitution of the country. The arguments on this subject were in many instances most ingenious, but they were at once visionary and speculative, and opposed to fact and practice. The noble and learned Lord declared, that he entertained a great hostility to disfranchisement, unless the delinquency of those who exercised the franchise could be proved, or that a strong case of necessity was made out. The noble and learned Lord, however, was a party to a measure of disfranchisement much more extensive than the present, to a measure which disfranchised "at one fell swoop" three times the number of persons disfranchised by this Bill. The rights of those persons did not rest merely upon Acts of Parliament, but also on the common laws of the land, from which most of our political advantages had sprung; and he had voted most reluctantly, he confessed, for the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders. That measure, which he supported because, as a whole, he thought the measure then proposed advantageous, had been justified on the ground that it increased the Protestant and diminished the Catholic interest in Ireland. The measure which the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues proposed, however, not only disfranchised Catholics, but Protestants; and it was most unjust, because many of those Protestant 40s. freeholders who were disfranchised had purchased the property out of which they voted from the Crown, and paid an additional value to the Government for the land, because it gave them a right to vote. Yet those persons were deprived of the franchise without being heard at the Bar, or their claims for a moment 703 considered. He had never heard the noble Duke opposite speak with more effect or with more talent than he did when the question relating to the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders was debated. The noble Duke had a difficult question to handle, but he handled it with the hand of a master. The noble Duke said, in effect, "You may talk as you like of the rights of the 40s. freeholders, but they are persons so circumstanced that they cannot exercise their franchise, but are dependent on others, which is not according to the intention of the Constitution." Apply that language to these boroughs, and ask yourselves whether, if the bogtrotter with his 40s. freehold is to be deprived of his suffrages on account of his dependence on his landlord and his priest, it is right for you to say, "We will not take away the franchise from the electors of St. Mawes, because they belong to, and are dependent upon, a great lord." Whilst on this subject, he could not refrain from observing, that their lordships had been harshly treated, not only by the friends but also by the enemies, of this Bill. It had been said, that the interests of their lordships were affected by it. He had often asked the question, how were they affected by it? He had asked that question in public—he had asked it, too, in private. He had got no answer to it in public, but he had sometimes heard an answer to it in private. Now, if the answer which he had heard given to it in private had been repeated in either house of Parliament twenty or thirty years ago, when he first came into Parliament, he believed that the man who uttered it would have been called to order, and would have had a good chance of being also sent to the Tower! Good God! could any man at this time of day be so foolish as to maintain the idea that the rotten boroughs were created for the purpose of enabling some of their Lordships to maintain an interest in the other House of Parliament? Dr. Paley was, he believed, the first writer of distinction who had broached this doctrine, and a doctrine more fallacious in principle, and more injurious in practice, could hardly be devised by the art of man. There was no borough attached either to the title or to the princely possession of any of their lordships; there was no borough which belonged to that House as a House; it was true that the boroughs had produced an effect upon that House; and perhaps one 704 of the greatest evils of the borough system was, that it had produced a stronger effect upon that House than it had even produced upon the other House of Parliament. To borrow a phrase from one of the many able and eloquent speeches which his noble friend on the woolsack had made on this subject, he would say that "the corruption of the borough was often the generation of the Peer." But did the noble Lords opposite, who expressed such generous and chivalrous sentiments respecting the dignity of that august assembly which he was then addressing—did those noble lords mean to assert that it was right that the Aristocracy should be the gaudy insects generated by the filth and ordure of the rotten boroughs? He was prepared to show, at a fitting season, from the records of history, that the effect which the rotten boroughs had produced in this way upon the House of Lords, was far greater than the effect which it had produced in giving Members of the House of Lords an influence over the other House of Parliament. He contended that the principles of the Bill—at least what the House of Commons understood by its principles, and what he himself had understood by them when he gave his vote for the second reading of this Bill—he contended that the principles of this Bill were disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of the suffrage; and that one of its subsidiary principles was, the order in which its three great principles stood. For his own part, he considered disfranchisement as a principle absolutely necessary to gratify the wants of the people. "But," said the noble and learned Lord, "look at all the former schemes which have been propounded for a Reform in Parliament, and you will find that they are all founded on enfranchisement as a first principle, and on disfranchisement as a second." On this point he had already referred the noble and learned Lord to his own measure for disfranchising the 40s. freeholders; and he would now refer the noble and learned Lord to a measure of his great political idol, Mr. Pitt—he meant the Act of Union. He was not, he admitted, a fit expounder of Mr. Pitt's principles. Though not partial to his memory, he could not help observing, after a lapse of twenty years, that the memory of that statesman had received more injury from the hands of his friends than it had ever received from the hands of his enemies. He recollected well the 705 time when Protestant ascendancy toasts were identified with the memory of Mr. Pitt in every Pitt club in the land, though it was well known that Mr. Pitt was no friend of that vulgar bigotry which sheltered its intolerance and its love of temporalities, under an hypocritical devotion to the religious principles of the Church of Ireland. He recollected well the tricks which were played off by some, not undistinguished performers on the political stage, to propagate and continue that delusion; and, therefore, he was not surprised at hearing Mr. Pitt represented as hostile to the principles of this Bill, because in his plan of Reform he had proposed enfranchisement as a first step, and had then proposed as a second to buy off the opponents of disfranchisement by giving them a compensation for the property they might lose in the disfranchised boroughs. The noble and learned Lord could not have read the speeches of Mr. Pitt very lately; he was, however, old enough to have heard them; and he might perhaps recollect that Mr. Pitt said, "This is the weak part of my measure, and one from which I naturally recoiled: I perfectly agree with my noble relation"—he forgot whether it was the late Lord Camelford or the present Mr. Banks, who opposed himself to every thing of that sort—"I perfectly, agree," continued Mr. Pitt, "with my noble relative that you ought not to pay men for any loss they may sustain when deprived of the means of corruption; but I introduced this provision into my measure, because I could not hope to carry my measure without it." And why did Mr. Pitt employ that language? Because he was convinced that those who had an interest in these rotten boroughs would not be prevailed upon to support his measure of disfranchisement without some compensation. Now, he would ask the noble and learned Lord whether that was the argument which he was now inclined to address to their lordships? Did he mean to say to their lordships, "I am so friendly to your Bill—I delight so much in the moderate and deliberate manner in which you have brought it forward—I am so anxious a well-wisher to his Majesty's present Government, that I give you disinterestedly this advice—don't try your hands at disfranchisement, for disfranchisement you will not carry; but get rid of your disfranchisement clause, and then I will assist you in passing the rest of your Bill." The answer to such language would 706 be very short, and was to be found in the vote of the House of Commons. One word more and he had done. He had for many years past taken an active part in the debates of their Lordships, but he had never had a seat in the House of Commons. Any delight, therefore, which he had ever received from the part which he had taken in politics must have been received within the walls which then enclosed him. Their Lordships would, perhaps, on that account, the more readily believe, that he had no wish to undervalue their dignity; but still he could not help asking their Lordships whether the present was one of the subjects on which it was prudent—no, he would not use that expression, because it appealed to a feeling which did not perhaps exist among their Lordships, but on which it was safe or even decorous—for their Lordships to tamper with the wishes of the Commons of England? He called upon their Lordships to place themselves for one moment in the situation of the House of Commons. He implored them to recollect that this Bill, and that this part of it especially, was intended to purify the representation of that House of Parliament, and to rid it of the filth and ordure under which it had been so long suffering. [Hear, hear.] He begged leave to inform the noble and learned Lord opposite, who cried hear, that he had not borrowed that phrase, offensive as it might be to his fastidious ears, from the vocabulary of the Northern Political Union. No, the noble Lord would find it in the speeches of Sir George Savile, of Lord Chatham, and of some others of the greatest statesmen who had ever adorned and benefited this country. The Commons of England were bent upon purifying their own assembly, finding it necessary to carry off the filth, and ordure, and corruption, in a parliamentary way, and so doing it was a satisfactory answer to the idle skit of the noble Duke, that this Bill was either revolutionary or a revolution. A revolution! Who ever heard of a revolution that for two years was under consideration, or that was accomplished at last in a Committee? When he heard this language about revolution used within the walls of their Lordships' House, he could hardly help fancying that he was transported to Mr. Irving's place of worship, and was listening to a rhapsody in the unknown tongues. This Bill had been brought up to their Lordships from the Commons, after undergoing a deliberate 707 consideration in that House for the last two, or rather three, Sessions. It affected the privileges, the existence, and the purity of that body. Men of honour might say, "You take that view of this Bill; but you are calling upon us to do that which we conceive to be unjust, and which we, therefore, cannot do." Now, there was a quarter from which this argument would not come with a very good grace; for he recollected certain circumstances inducing certain men to do that which they considered wrong before it was done, and were not prepared to defend, now that it was done. He would, however, admit that the plea which he had just advanced would have been sufficient to justify any noble Lord in not supporting the principle of the Bill upon its second reading. But he asked their Lordships, whether, after they had sanctioned the view taken of the Bill by the House of Commons, by agreeing to the second reading, they deemed that it would be wise, prudent, or decorous, unless a strong case of necessity were made out, to tamper with that which the House of Commons, and, what was perhaps more material, the people of England, considered as the principle of the Bill? He again repeated, that, in considering this Amendment, he was bound to look at its tendency and effect, rather than at its professions. The noble and learned Lord had told them that he bowed with deference to the decision of the House on the second reading; and yet what course was he now pursuing? The whole of his argument was directed against the principle of disfranchisement. "I will admit," said he, "of disfranchisement as a consequence of enfranchisement, but as a principle, I abjure, abominate, and detest it." But what said the Bill which their Lordships had now read a second time? That disfranchisement was the principle of the Bill; and that enfranchisement, if it were not a consequence of, was at least subsequent to, disfranchisement. The noble and learned Lord, however, called upon the House to postpone disfranchisement. Postpone disfranchisement! The request was, in sooth, a very modest proposal. A noble Earl, who had taken a part in the discussion, and whose conduct he did not very strongly approve, had said—"This is a very simple matter, and it makes very little difference whether you enfranchise first, and disfranchise afterwards, or vice versâ." He had said enough to prove that he did not think 708 it a very simple matter. Was it a simple matter, he would ask, either in the feelings of the people, or in the effect which it would produce upon them? Did their Lordships think that, those who were attached to the Bill and looked forward with an earnest and ardent desire to its ultimate success would consider the postponement of the disfranchisement as a trifling matter? He shrewdly suspected they would not. They would feel that the postponement of that clause proved the existence of a strong feeling of hostility in the House against the principle of the Bill. But what said the noble Baron (Lord Bexley), who had risen to reply to his noble and learned friend's observations on the subject of the currency, and of whose speech he had unfortunately heard nothing but a few disjointed fragments? He used as an argument, which was good to those to whom he addressed it—namely, the enemies of the Bill—he used as an argument this extraordinary assertion, "I think that if you postpone this clause, there is great probability that there will be no disfranchisement at all;" and then the noble Baron expressed a hope that some trick might be performed—some adjustment or classification of boroughs might be devised—which would do away with disfranchisement altogether. After such a declaration, coming with so much frankness from such a quarter, could he entertain a moment's doubt that the object of those who proposed the postponement of this clause was either to get rid of it entirely, or to maim and mutilate the Bill in such a manner as would render it the scorn and not the delight of the people? If such were the intention of the opponents of the Bill not even avowed to themselves—if such be the secret wish of their hearts—the best mode of accomplishing it is that which they have proposed—to enfranchise first, and to disfranchise afterwards. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord was neither more nor less than this:—"Postpone your conclusion, and I'll give you any premises you may desire; but then, when I have done that, I'll make your conclusion as trifling and insignificant as possible." He acquitted the noble Duke most fully of any dirty views in supporting this Amendment: but this he was compelled by a sense of duty to say, that, whether it were a dirty way or a clean way, the present was the most effectual way to defeat this Bill; and so considering it, he felt it 709 necessary to give his decided vote against the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, he should support the Amendment, but he could not agree in some of the observations of the noble and learned Lord. He must avow his decided hostility to the Bill in every shape or stage; and he, therefore, thought it of little consequence whether they proceeded to consider the enfranchising or the disfranchising clauses. The Bill was calculated to produce revolution, and, therefore, he was determined to oppose it. He knew this declaration would subject him to much hostility, and many reflections from those who thought differently; but he felt it his duty to express the opinions he entertained, and to act up to them fairly and conscientiously. With respect to the nomination boroughs, he would say this, however, that he was quite ready to adopt any plan and to go along with any proposal which would have the effect of tying down the patron in the exercise of the power of interference or dictation, and in purifying the system so as to leave the person nominated the full and free exercise of his discretion. He was ready to adopt any regulations, to make that part of the system less objectionable short of abolishing the small boroughs altogether. He objected also strongly to that part of the Bill which deprived freemen of their rights, and without necessity changed the whole constituency of the country. He must at the same time declare that he had no objection to the enfranchisement of the large towns which had risen into importance by the increase of commerce and manufactures.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that although a difference of opinion might prevail with respect to the correctness of the opinions entertained by the noble Duke who had just addressed the House, there was no noble Lord who would not be disposed upon this occasion, as upon all others, to do justice to the candour and manliness with which the noble Duke had avowed his sentiments. For his own part he entertained as much apprehension with respect to the measure—however it might be altered consistently with its fixed principles—as much apprehension as the noble Duke did. Nothing which he had heard, nothing which he had read, had produced the least change in the opinion which he originally entertained as to the 710 changes which would necessarily be consequent upon the passing of the Bill. At the same time it was impossible for him not to see that the position in which the question stood was most materially altered by the dissolution of Parliament, which was acquiesced in by his Majesty. He had also, on a former occasion, taken the liberty to impress upon their Lordships' minds, how much more the position of the question would be altered if their Lordships should consent to read the Bill a second time. The question was now presented to their Lordships under circumstances different from those in which it had before stood. The principle of the Bill had received the sanction, not only of the House of Commons, but of the House of Lords, in the independent exercise of their functions, not having—he thanked God, for the honour of those who were in his Majesty's councils, and for the permanent safety of the Constitution—their numbers swelled by persons sent amongst them for the sole purpose of passing this measure. The Bill had been read a second time by the sanction of an independent majority of the House, which carried with it greater authority than a majority obtained under other circumstances could possibly have possessed. He stood controlled by that vote. He had resisted to the last, but after that vote he felt bound as a Peer of Parliament to consider the Bill in Committee, to examine and sift its clauses, with a view to the adoption of a salutary measure of Reform, and one which it might be safe for their Lordships to pass, but reserving to himself the right when the Report was brought up, of considering the question, whether it would be right to run the risk of rejecting the whole measure, should he find that it came out of the Committee in such a state, that he could not conscientiously give it his assent. Having thus recognised the principles of the Bill, he would propose nothing, support nothing, inconsistent with the principle, and he would even go further—he would support no proposition which went materially to alter the principle to which the House stood pledged. He felt it his duty to give the principle already agreed on the most extensive application, reserving only that right he claimed of rejecting the whole Bill when amended, as amended he knew it must be, should he find it more safe to run the hazard of rejecting it than to pass it. The 711 question which had been submitted to the House that evening was one of great importance, not so much with respect to the Bill as with respect to the past and the future. To agree to the disfranchising clause in the manner proposed by Ministers was an invasion of private rights, and would form a precedent for an attack upon property of every description. He would never consent to such a course of proceeding. The noble Baron had warned their Lordships of the consequences of disappointing the expectations of the people; but it was his duty and their Lordships' duty not to yield to such representations, but to resist even the wishes of the people if they believed they could not be granted without detriment to the country. No man was more anxious than he was to preserve that good humour and proper understanding between all classes on which the noble Baron had dilated; but the noble Lord was not satisfied with the essentials, and contended that the people should also have them in that form which must eventually shake all the foundations of society and destroy everything that was valuable in existing institutions. He, therefore, supported the principle advanced by his noble and learned friend, that disfranchisement was contrary to the practice of the Constitution, and should only be resorted to in cases where a commanding reason required it. He regretted much that the speech of the noble Baron had not been made on the second reacting of the Bill, and he rejoiced that it was not made at the time of the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders of Ireland, because it was much to be feared, that if the noble Lord had spoken such a speech, that measure to which the noble Baron had then given his warmest support never could have passed. That bill for the disfranchisement of the freeholders was necessary as a safeguard, and as a consequence of other measures. That bill was a consequence, but not a cause. The present Bill came before the House under very different circumstances. He was prepared to deal with the present Bill in perfect good faith, and to support its provisions as far as they could be supported with any chance of carrying on the Government of the country under their operation. With that view he for one was ready to propose, if the present Motion was carried, that they should at once proceed to consider the places that were entitled to be enfranchised. He could 712 assure the noble Lords opposite, that his endeavours would be directed to make the Bill a safe Bill. He would also assure them, that there was nothing insidious in the Motion, and nothing insidious in the intentions of his noble and learned friend; and he would vote for that Motion because the principle was valuable as a protection for those rights which had been conferred in past times, and a safeguard for those the Parliament might hereafter confer.
The Earl of Winchilseawould give his support to the Amendment. He was not aware, when he entered the House, that such an Amendment was to be made. He would support it, however, because it was consonant to the views which he had always entertained, and because it was more consonant to the principles of the Constitution and the prerogatives of the Crown than first proceeding by the measure of disfranchisement. It was more agreeable also to the existing rights of the people, none of whom he would ever disfranchise but from some strong case of necessity. On this ground he had opposed the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders. He wished to say, that in giving his support to the Amendment, he was not opposed to the Bill; for, in acknowledging the principle of enfranchisement, as he would never consent to augment the number of the House of Commons, he did, in fact, consent to the principle of disfranchisement. He was ready to give Members to the great interests which had grown up in our large towns, and he was ready to take away the franchise to make room for them, but he never could consent to disfranchise any one, except from a clear case of necessity; and he could not consent to disfranchise any one borough, till he knew what number he should be compelled to disfranchise.
§ Lord Wharncliffecould assure the noble Lords opposite, that there was no disposition on that (the Opposition) side of the House, to be niggardly with the amount of disfranchisement. The noble Duke (Newcastle) said, that he would give his support to the Amendment in order that the Bill might not pass, but that was not his view. The noble Baron (Holland) had argued the question unfairly, and he could assure the noble Baron that in voting for the postponement he did not mean to stop disfranchisement altogether. To begin with disfranchisement was, he thought, introducing a dangerous principle into the 713 Bill. The question was not to postpone disfranchisement altogether, but only first to see what enfranchisement was necessary, and afterwards make disfranchisement accordingly. After what had passed he could not do anything to violate the pledge he had given, and he was prepared to go the whole length of schedule A. He wished, however, to have such a plan as he could defend in his conscience, and defend in the face of the country. He wished to know how he could say what number of boroughs ought to be disfranchised till he saw what number of places were to be enfranchised? It might be that the same schedule A would be required; but before he consented to such an extensive disfranchisement, he wished to see the obligation to go so far from the extent of the enfranchisement. It might be that the disfranchisement should go further than that schedule, for he admitted that it was necessary, even in disfranchisement, to give satisfaction to the public mind. He entreated the noble Earl (Grey) to meet the views of those on that side of the House cordially, for he was satisfied, if the noble Earl did that, and did not stand upon the points and unessentials of the Bill, that the noble Earl would be able to effect what the noble Earl called the good, and which others called the evil of the Bill; he was satisfied, he said, if the noble Earl would only receive the proposition with cordiality, that he would have it in his power to pass the Bill, and form such a system of Representation as would give satisfaction to the people. The proposition was, to postpone the first clause till after the third clause was read, which would not defeat the principle of the Bill. It was not intended to defeat the principle of the Bill; and he did not and would not concur in any proposition to mutilate or defeat the Bill. In his opinion the proposition went to make the Bill safe. It was sufficient for the purposes of Reform that enfranchisement should precede disfranchisement. If the Amendment succeeded he should vote, he believed, for the whole of schedule A, and would not give his consent to any Amendment which would reduce the amount of disfranchisement.
§ The Earl of Harewoodmeant to give his support to the proposition of his noble and learned friend. He wished to exonerate himself from being a party to any project or indirect contrivance to defeat the 714 Bill. If the proposition contained in it anything which he did not understand, or anything sinister, he would not support it. He wished that more time were allowed to promulgate what was meant to be proposed if the proposition were successful; and if that were the case he was sure that all feelings of acrimony on the other (the Ministerial) side would be done away. He thought if the Amendments to be proposed were seen and known they would remove all the objections which the noble Lords opposite might have to the Amendment. He had no idea that the object was to get rid of schedule A, and if it were, he certainly would not join in any such object. He believed that the plan of enfranchisement to be proposed would include all schedule A, and perhaps more, and he had no predisposition to defeat that schedule. There might be some variations, perhaps, in the places to be disfranchised, but, he believed, if the enfranchisement were first agreed to, the places to be disfranchised would be identical with those places in schedule A. There were difficulties about the question which the plan proposed by the noble and learned Lord might get rid of. If the noble Earl (Grey) did not look on the proposition in a hostile light, much might be done to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the whole question.
§ Earl Greydisclaimed all intention to impute any improper motives to any noble Lords; and he trusted that his conduct had been such, throughout the debates on this long and arduous subject, as to obtain him credit with the House, that in making the disclaimer, he was sincere in not attributing any sinister or indirect objects, or any insidious intentions to the noble and learned Lord who proposed, or to those noble Lords who meant to support the proposition. His noble friend had said, that he did not intend to defeat the measure; but the tendency and effect of the Motion, if ever a motion was calculated to have such an effect, would be to defeat the Bill. He hoped noble Lords present would not deceive themselves; but he must say, that if the Motion were successful, it would be fatal to the whole Bill. He had been willing to lend himself to any fair proposition; and, he certainly, like the noble Earl must lament that a proposition had been made which was so much against the Bill. He was pledged to the measure, not only from his conscientious conviction 715 that its principles were sound, but also because those principles had received the approbation of the country. The principles to which he was pledged were disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of the qualification. On the two first he was ready to listen to any objection which should be made as to the details, or as to the justice of selecting particular places; but he could not consent to any reduction in the extent of either the proposed disfranchisement or enfranchisement. The third great principle which he knew had met the views and expectations of the public, which were most anxiously directed to the qualification, that principle he had satisfied himself, after much consideration, and he expected to be able to satisfy their Lordships if ever they came to that question—he had satisfied himself that in taking the 10l. qualification, he had not taken it on too low a scale. He was sure that in raising that qualification they would disappoint a great number of his Majesty's subjects, who had as fair a claim to take part in choosing Representatives as any persons in the country. To the principles, therefore, of the 10l. qualification, he felt himself irrecoverably pledged, and he could admit of no alteration in that, other than such as might secure it from abuse; but to any alteration which, under the pretence of regulating it, should have the effect of taming or raising that qualification, he could not consent. He thought it necessary to say thus much, to show to what extent he was pledged. With respect to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, he must say, that he did not impute to the noble and learned Lord any improper motives. He could say for himself—and, he believed, the noble Duke opposite (Wellington) would confirm the assertion—that he had never engaged in any factious opposition, but on some occasions he had given the noble Duke a cordial, and, he believed, a not inefficient support. He had no reason, therefore, to impute to others anything like faction; but if, from any circumstances, he should have been inclined to impute any such motives, the character and situation of the noble and learned Lord who brought forward the Motion would not allow him to do so, for he could never believe that a person who held the high situation of one of the Judges of the land could ever make himself the low instrument of party, and he therefore gave the noble and learned 716 Lord credit for his disclaimer. The Amendment was by some persons spoken of as being of little consequence, and relating only to a question of form. He did not consider it in that light. It appeared to him to be a question of the first consequence. If it did not entirely subvert the principle of the Bill, it materially affected it, and, therefore, it was quite impossible that he could accede to it. He could not understand upon what ground it was contended that it was necessary to enfranchise before disfranchising. The noble Duke said that no answer had been given to the noble and learned Lord's proposition—that according to the analogy of the law, the practice of former times, and the principles of the Constitution, that was the course which ought to be pursued. He was at a loss to understand how the noble and learned Lord made out that proposition. The noble Baron asked how they were to learn the necessary extent of disfranchisement till they had determined the enfranchisement. He might ask how they were to know to what extent enfranchisement could be carried till they had determined the extent of the disfranchisement. The noble Duke (Newcastle) who had stated his intention of opposing the Bill, acted openly and fairly. Another noble Lord (the Earl of Harewood) had said that he hoped they might get out of their difficulties, and that there was another plan of Reform. That plan admitted that enfranchisement was necessary; and the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) supposed that the enfranchisement would be so great as to make it necessary to disfranchise the whole of schedule A, or that he should be prepared to vote for that when he had satisfied himself that it was necessary. For his part, he thought that disfranchisement should go first, and that the Ministers had proceeded on the most natural course. The noble Lord said, that to begin with disfranchisement justified the cry which had been got up against nomination boroughs—undoubtedly it did; and upon what other ground could they be disfranchised, after the other places should be enfranchised, but on the ground that they were places unfit to return Members to Parliament? Unless they were not held to be so sacred as not to be touched, how were any places to be enfranchised? The nomination boroughs must be disfranchised on the noble Lord's plan as well as by the Bill. Let their Lordships not suppose 717 that the slur on these boroughs was now cast for the first time. Had they not heard of these boroughs for the last, century? Had not several great men, who were the steady friends and staunch supporters of the Crown—he would not say the Monarchy and the Constitution—but had not men who were staunch supporters of the Crown stigmatized these rotten boroughs, and described them as sores and ulcers which must be extirpated, before the Constitution could be restored to health and vigour. It was childish to say otherwise, and he could never admit that the Bill was the first occasion for casting imputations on these rotten boroughs, In his opinion these boroughs ought not to have Representatives in Parliament, and they ought to be taken away to make room for large and important towns. On that principle it was right to begin with them. Looking to notorious facts, and finding it was impossible to give these boroughs such constituencies as would entitle them to a share in the Representation, he must say that it was wise to disfranchise them. He had proposed to omit the words "fifty-six," that they might not be tied down to that number; and to consider all the boroughs seriatim, and decide on disfranchising them according to their respective merits. The noble Baron (Wharncliffe) took a different view, and invited the Ministers to throw themselves into his arms, and had referred to the disposition which the noble Lords opposite entertained to support the Bill. The noble Earl, too (Harewood), had regretted that the proposition was not such as to satisfy the feelings of the supporters of the Bill. If he saw any disposition to make such propositions as he could accede to, nobody would be more ready than he should to meet the noble Lord, always recollecting that he could not sacrifice the great principles of the Bill to which he was irrevocably pledged. But what reason had he to expect any approximation from the arguments and expressions of the noble Lords? The noble Lord who introduced the Amendment stated, that he remained of the same opinion he had before expressed, that the Bill was incompatible with the existence of the Government, and would destroy the Constitution. Was this, then, the Bill to which the noble and learned Lord could give his consent? The noble Baron, too (Ellenborough), had fairly professed his opposition to the Bill. He said, 718 he would make it as good as he could; but the noble Baron reserved to himself the right of voting against the Bill after it was made as perfect as possible. The noble Duke spoke of taking all the mischief out of it he could, but said, he knew that, ultimately, it would be a most defective measure. How then, with these sentiments—with these opinions—(those who had voted against the Bill, declaring that they would vote against it hereafter) could he act as he had been invited to act? It was not possible that he could trust the measure in their hands with any hope that it could be brought to such a conclusion as would satisfy his conscience, and the just expectations of the public. When opinions were so divergent, union was impossible, When the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) said, that he might confide in the support of noble Lords opposite if the alterations were made, he must say, that the hopes which the noble Baron held out to him were so small, that it was not possible for him to act as the noble Baron wished, consistently with his duty. Certainly, to the proposition made he gave his most decided opposition, and he hoped that noble Lords would not deceive themselves by supposing that, if they acceded to the Motion, it would be possible to carry the Bill successfully through. "Should the Amendment be carried (said the noble Earl), it will be necessary for me to consider what course I shall take. More I will not say, than what, on a former occasion, was stated by the noble Earl on the other side, and it was not denied by any other person that this Bill had found support in public opinion. Noble Lords deceive themselves, if they suppose that opinion in favour of this Bill is relaxed; and, certainly, I dread the effect of the House of Lords opposing itself as an insurmountable barrier to what the people think necessary for the good government of the country and a sufficient representation." More he would not say than that to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord he meant to give his most determined opposition.
The Earl of Carnarvonaddressed their Lordships, but was very imperfectly heard below the Bar. He said that, anxious as he was that the vote of that night should be come to without any thing like difference or dispute, be could not be content to give a silent vote, after the speech which he had just heard. The noble Earl had spoken of the Motion of his noble and learned 719 friend as one of vital consequence to the Bill, and he had menaced their Lordships if they should adopt that Motion. That was an extraordinary proceeding, but it was not more extraordinary than the course of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who rose to answer the arguments with which his noble and learned friend had supported his Motion. The noble and learned Lord had commenced his speech by deprecating all departure from the matter specially before the Committee; and he had declared it to be his intention to pursue it in a direct line, to adhere rigidly to it, and to confine his remarks strictly to the proposition before the Committee. Such was the declaration of the noble and learned Lord, and yet the very first step he had taken in the direct line was, to involve himself in all the labyrinths of the Irish Education Resolutions. The noble and learned Lord, plunging into that intricate question, inferred that every noble Lord who disapproved of the conduct of the Government respecting it was biassed upon the present Question, and unfit to act impartially in the Committee. The conclusion appeared to him a strange one, but whether sound or not, he was exempt from its operation; for, on the Resolutions respecting education in Ireland he had not voted at all. He felt the subject to be an extremely difficult one, and he had preferred withholding the expression of any opinion respecting the Resolutions. If, therefore, the conduct of noble Lords with respect to these Resolutions was to be the test of their impartiality, he must be accounted impartial. But that strange criterion did not satisfy the noble and learned Lord: he proceeded to another topic still more curious. He had adverted to an extraordinary vote once come to by one of the Houses of Parliament, to the effect that the bank note, which in reality was of the value of 15s., was of the value of 21s., and he had said, that the proposition of the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) was to the like effect: how the similitude was to be made out he was at a loss to conceive; but he did see that if he proceeded in the measure proposed by the Government he might indeed vote that 15s. was equal to 1l. 1s. When he opposed the second reading of the Bill he declared that, if their Lordships should be of opinion that the Bill should be read a second time, and should go into Committee, he would enter 720 that Committee with a sincere desire fairly and honestly to consider it, and with no party view, or wish, or intention, to destroy or annihilate it. To that declaration he adhered. He did not wish to destroy the Bill, but he wished to canvass its provisions honestly and fairly, and with a view to rendering the Bill as little injurious as, under all the circumstances, he could hope to see it rendered. The noble Earl, however, seemed not to be inclined to let any such course be followed. The noble Earl said, that the Motion, if adopted, would annihilate the Bill. He denied that it could, by possibility, have any such effect, unless the noble Earl, afraid of his own creation, wished to shrink from the Bill. If the noble Earl sincerely wished to forward the Bill, he could assure him that the Motion of his noble and learned friend was well calculated to effect that object: enfranchise as far as necessary first, and then disfranchise as far as necessary: that was the reasonable and proper course. If the enfranchisement proposed by the Bill was necessary, then the disfranchisement must, of course, follow. By taking the course proposed, therefore, the noble Earl would take the best possible course for securing the passing of the whole of the first clause. They were told that the great principle of the measuse was, the taking away of the inconsiderable boroughs from the representation. Which were the inconsiderable boroughs? How were they to know them? In the first Bill, both schedules A and B were very different from what they were at present. Those who had discussed the subject in the Cabinet continually differed, and if they were frequently changing their minds, how could it be supposed that those of their Lordships who had now come to deal with the subject for the first time, should be able, at once, to vote that fifty-six boroughs were inconsiderable? ["No, no."] What did noble Lords mean? Did they object to the particular way in which he put the case? The noble Earl would put the fifty-five boroughs seriatim, and then he would put the fifty-six, and upon each and all he would tell their Lordships that they were dealing with the principle of the Bill, and there must be no alteration. He, therefore, repeated his assertion, and he was astonished that it should be objected to, after noble Lords on the other side had protested against the form of words being objected to. But, was there any thing novel or extra-ordinary in the proposition of his noble and 721 learned friend? No such thing: it was in strict accordance with the plan of proceeding proposed by all former Reformers, and by the noble Earl among the rest, and it should certainly have his support. But the noble Earl now said, that so to proceed would be to annihilate the Bill—that disfranchisement must go before enfranchisement—that the effect must precede the cause. Still he was of opinion the effect ought to follow the cause, and that, therefore, the enfranchisement ought to go before the disfranchisement. Then the noble Earl was willing enough that they should examine the Bill, amend, and alter it. But, said the noble Earl, you must not touch the disfranchising clauses, the enfranchising clauses, or the qualification clauses. Why, then, for what had they gone into Committee? If all the important points of the Bill were to be held inviolate, what were they in Committee for? It was like an Attorney, after a man had quarrelled with him respecting his Bill of costs, saying, "Oh, you may tax my bill, you may examine it, you may alter the details, but you must not attack, alter, or change the pounds, shillings, and pence, for if you do either alter or change them you will annihilate my Bill." If he believed that, in voting for the proposition of his noble and learned friend, he should take a step likely to destroy the Bill, he would not do so. He deplored greatly that the Bill had ever been brought forward, and he viewed the situation in which the country was placed with deep regret and alarm, but he would disdain to defeat the measure by any trick, or unworthy or dishonourable means. He had always pursued one line of conduct on questions of Reform, and that conduct was consistent with the vote he should give that night. Even after he had, at great pains and with much labour, pursued a borough through repeated and habitual bribery, he had not proposed to disfranchise that borough, but to extend the franchise; and, when he did so, did the advocates of the present Bill call upon him to give up his Motion? No. He persevered in his Motion; but some thought he went too far; and those great Reformers, who were now ready to sweep away all kinds of existing franchises, left him to fight the battle by himself. The noble Earl spoke of this Bill being in consonance with the Constitution, in as far as it referred to the Representative part of the system. Why 722 there was not a single franchise it would not alter. The sacred common law franchise it would destroy, and yet the Bill was not to be touched. To that he could not consent, but still less would he consent, by any trick, to defeat and destroy the measure. He repeated, that he deplored the situation in which the country was placed, but he would never consent, should such a thing be proposed, to have recourse to trickery to destroy the Bill. He was confident that no trick, no unfairness, was intended—or, if there were, it was intended by the noble Earl from a desire to slip out of the dilemma into which he had fallen, and to throw the blame upon those who were anxious, not to destroy the Bill, but to render it as little injurious as possible. He could not see upon what rational fair ground the proposition of his noble and learned friend could be objected to. He contended, that it was analogous to all previous proceedings, and that the course proposed by the noble Earl was in direct opposition to all previous and approved plans. If the proposition of his noble and learned friend was adopted, then, indeed, the country might be saved from revolution and from anarchy; but if the inverted plan of proceeding advocated by the noble Earl was followed, he feared the worst consequences. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Holland) had talked of a revolution in Committee, and derided the idea of a revolution of two years, but he would remind the noble Lord that there was a revolution of two years in the reign of Charles 1st, for there was an interval of years of angry discussion before that revolution was completed. Was there not a revolution of more than two years in the time of Louis 16th in France, as well as in other instances which might easily be enumerated. Though he disliked the Bill greatly, still he was prepared honestly and truly to redeem the pledge he had given on the second reading. He would enter upon the examination of the Bill with a sincere desire to give to the country such a measure as ought, and he believed would, satisfy it. He entreated the noble Earl to pause before he took another desperate plunge—and he entreated the country, too, to consider well the matter. In this spirit he had gone into Committee, and if, on the third reading, the Bill appeared in such a shape that, under all the circumstances, it was as good as he expected, it should receive no further opposition at his 723 hands. More than that he did not think the noble Earl had a right to expect him to say, and in saying so much he was sincere and straightforward. Such was the course hitherto adopted, and he saw no reason for departing from it in the present instance. It had been said, that, by altering the Bill, they would cast a slur upon the House of Commons. He denied that assertion, and contended, that the Bill cast a slur upon, and did an injury to, the institutions of the country. He would not longer detain their Lordships than to express a hope that they would decide only upon mature and impartial deliberation, and to assure them that he should give his vote for the proposition of his noble and learned friend upon the purest and most conscientious grounds.
§ Earl Manverssaid, he very rarely intruded upon their Lordships' attention, but he was anxious then to say a few words. He had listened most attentively to the arguments in favour of the Amendment, in the hope that they would furnish him with some reason for voting in support of it. He must say, however, that he could find none. He considered the maintenance of the first clause, the disfranchising clause, as essential to the existence of the Bill, and therefore he could not consent to any motion which went to endanger that clause. He had made great sacrifices to pursue his duty, but he would do so come what might.
Lord Cliffordsaid, he had never before addressed their Lordships, but he could not believe that the House of Peers would be so unmindful of the voice of the people as to adopt the proposition of the noble and learned Lord. The noble Lord contended for the propriety of reposing confidence in the Government, as the noble
§ Earl at the head of it had always acted consistently and upon known principles. It was necessary for a person in this country to be useful, to connect himself with some party, and, having done so, he ought not to differ from it, or to leave it on slight grounds, Therefore, those who supported the second reading ought now to give credit to the declaration of the noble Earl, that the proposition of the noble and learned Lord would destroy the Bill, and, doing so, they ought to reject it. He was not present, owing to domestic circumstances, at either the first or second reading of the Bill; but he would not then go into any remarks upon the principle or character of the measure: he would content himself with noticing one or two arguments which had been used in support of the Amendment. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) meant to say that the present Government ought to follow the example of the Government of 1806 and 1807, and throw up office, then he could understand the propriety of his remarks. In such a course there would be reason. But if the noble Earl meant to say, that the Government should submit to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, he could see no reason in the assertion, unless, indeed, it could be maintained that the Government ought to take their measures from their opponents. He approved of the arrangement of the Bill, and he should support it. He contended that the House of Commons had dealt wisely with the Bill, and had not in any way interfered with any of the privileges or rights of the House of Peers.
§ The Committee divided on the Amendment: Contents 151; Not Contents 116—Majority in favour of the Amendment 35.
727| List of the CONTENTS. | ||
| His R. H. the DUKE of CUMBERLAND | DORSET | CAMDEN |
| MANCHESTER | CHOLMONDELEY | |
| His R. H. the DUKE of GLOUCESTER. | NEWCASTLE | EXETER |
| NORTHUMBERLAND | SALISBURY | |
| ARCHBISHOPS. | RUTLAND | THOMOND |
| WELLINGTON. | TWEEDDALE. | |
| ARMAGH | MARQUISSES. | EARLS. |
| CANTERBURY | ||
| YORK. | ABERCORN | ABINGDON |
| DUKES. | AILESBURY | AYLESFORD |
| BATH | BATHURST | |
| BEAUFORT | BRISTOL | BEAUCHAMP |
| BUCKINGHAM | BUTE | BEVERLEY |
| BRADFORD | WARWICK | HOPETOUN (E. of Hopetoun) |
| BROWNLOW | WESTMORLAND | KENYON |
| CALEDON | WICKLOW | KERR (M. of Lothian) |
| CARNARVON | WINCHILSEA. | LYNDHURST |
| CHARLEVILLE | VISCOUNTS. | MANNERS |
| DARTMOUTH | MARY BOROUGH | |
| DELAWARR | ARBUTHNOT | MELDRUM (E. of Aboyne) |
| DIGBY | BERESFORD | MELROSE (E. of Haddington) |
| DONCASTER (Duke of Buccleuch) | COMBERMERE | MONSON |
| GORDON (E. of Aberdeen) | MONTAGU | |
| ELDON | GORT | ORIEL (Viscount Ferrard) |
| ELGIN | MAYNARD | PENSHURST (V. Strangford) |
| FALMOUTH | SIDMOUTH | RAVENSWORTH |
| GLENGALL | STRATHALLAN | REDESDALE |
| GRAHAM (D. of Montrose) | SYDNEY. | RIBBLESDALE |
| HAREWOOD | LORDS. | ROLLE |
| HARROWBY | SALTOUN | |
| HOME | ARDEN | SEAFORD |
| HOWE | BAGOT | SHEFFIELD (E. of Sheffield) |
| JERSEY | BAYNING | SKELMERSDALE |
| LEVEN and MELVILLE | BEXLEY | SOUTHAMPTON |
| LIMERICK | BOSTON | STAFFORD |
| LIVERPOOL | CARBERY | STUART DE ROTHSAY |
| LONSDALE | CARTERET | TYRONE (M. of Waterford) |
| LUCAN | CLANBRASSILL (Earl of Roden) | WALLACE |
| MACCLESFIELD | WALSINGHAM | |
| MALMESBURY | CLANWILLIAM (Earl of Clanwilliam) | WHARNCLIFFE |
| MANSFIELD | WIGAN (Earl of Balcarras) | |
| MORTON | COLVILLE | WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE |
| MOUNT EDGECUMBE | COWLEY | WYNFORD. |
| NORWICH (D. of Gordon) | DALHOUSIE (Earl of Dalhousie) | BISHOPS. |
| ORFORD | ||
| PLYMOUTH | DE DUNSTANVILLE | BANGOR |
| POWIS | DE ROOS | BRISTOL |
| ROSSLYN | DOUGLAS | CARLISLE |
| SELKIRK | DUFFERIN | EXETER |
| SHAFTESBURY | DYNEVOR | GLOUCESTER |
| STAMFORD | ELLEN BOROUGH | KILMORE |
| ST. GERMAIN'S | FARNBOROUGH | LICHFIELD & COVENTRY |
| STRADBROKE | FEVERSHAM | LLANDAYF |
| TALBOT | FORESTER | LINCOLN |
| TANKERVILLE | GAGE | OXFORD |
| VANE (M. of Londonderry) | GRANTHAM | ROCHESTER |
| VERULAM | GRANTLEY | SALISBURY |
| WALDEGRAVE | HARRIS | WORCESTER. |
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| His R. H. the Duke of SUSSEX. | MARQUISSES. | CHARLEMONT |
| CLEVELAND | CHICHESTER | |
| DUKES. | HASTINGS | CLARENDON |
| BEDFORD | LANSDOWNE | COWPER |
| BRANDON | QUEENSBERRY | CRAVEN |
| DEVONSHIRE | WINCHESTER. | DENBUGH |
| GRAFTON | EARLS. | DERBY |
| NORFOLK | ALBEMARLE | GOSFORD |
| RICHMOND | AMHERST | GREY |
| SOMERSET | BURLINGTON | HILLSBOROUGH (Marquis of Downshire) |
| ST. ALBAN'S. | CAMPERDOWN |
| HUNTINGDON | CREWE | OAKLEY |
| ILCHESTER | DACRE | ORMONDE (Marquis of Ormonde) |
| LICHFIELD | DINORBEN | |
| MANVERS | DOVER | PANMURE |
| MINTO | DUCIE | PETRE |
| MORLEY | DUNDAS | POLTIMORE |
| MULGRAVE | DUNMORE (E. of Dunmore) | PONSONBY, Of Imokilly |
| MUNSTER | DURHAM | ROSEBERY (Earl of Rosebery) |
| ONSLOW | ERSKINE | |
| OXFORD | FINGALL (Earl of Fingall) | ROSSIE (Lord Kinnaird) |
| POMFRET | FISHERWICK (Marquess of Donegall) | SAYE and SELE |
| RADNOR | SEFTON (Earl of Sefton) | |
| ROMNEY | FOLEY | SELSEY |
| SUFFOLK. | GLENLYON | SHANNON |
| VISCOUNTS. | GOWER | SHERBORNE |
| GRANARD (E. of Granard) | SOMERHILL (Marquis of Clanricarde) | |
| BOLINGBROKE | HAWKE | |
| GODERICH | HOLLAND | SONDES |
| GRANVILLE | HOWARD DE WALDEN | STAFFORD |
| HOOD | HOWARD OF EFFINGHAM | STOURTON |
| LEINSTER (D. of Leinster) | HOWDEN | SUFFIELD |
| LORDS. | KENLIS (M. of Headfort) | SUNDRIDG E (D. of Argyll) |
| ALVANLEY | LIFORD | TEMPLEMORE |
| AUCKLAND | LUDLOW (Earl of Ludlow) | TEYNHAM |
| AUDLEY | LYNEDOCH | VERNON |
| BARHAM | LYTTELTON | WELLESLEY (M. Wellesley) |
| BOYLE (Earl of Cork) | MELBOURNE (Viscount Melbourne) | WENLOCK. |
| BRAYBROOKE | WILLOUGHBY D' ERESBY | |
| BROUGHAM | MENDIP (Visc. Clifden) | YARBOROUGH. |
| BYRON | MIDDLETON | BISHOPS. |
| CHAWORTH (E. of Meath) | MONTFORT | |
| CLEMENTS | MOSTYN | CHESTER |
| CLIFFORD | MOUNT EAGLE (Marg. of Sligo) | CHICHESTER |
| CLIFTON (E. of Darnley) | LONDON | |
| CLONCURRY | NAPIER | ST. DAVID'S. |
§ Clause postponed.
§ Earl Grey moved the House should resume, that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Thursday next.
§ Lord Lyndhursthoped the noble Earl would permit him to propose the remaining motion of which he had given notice, namely, that the next clause be postponed.
§ Earl Grey would not offer any opposition to the Motion.
§ Question put, that the next clause be postponed.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that, to the Motion just proposed by the noble and learned Lord near him he could have no objection, nor indeed could their Lordships, for the vote which had just been taken in point of fact as much referred to the postponement of the clause which formed the subject-matter of the Motion then before them as it did to the preceding one. He 728 had heard with great regret the intention which the noble Earl had announced of postponing the further consideration of the measure until Thursday next. Much had been said of the necessity of a speedy adjustment of the question of Reform, yet how did the noble Earl propose to act? He could assure both the noble Earl and their Lordships that, from the side of the House upon which he sat, there was no wish whatever to interpose any delay to the adjustment of the measure. If delay were chargeable against any persons on the part of those who were anxious that the measure before their Lordships should receive a full discussion, it was chargeable solely and directly against the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government. To that noble Earl it applied, and not to those noble Lords who concurred in the view of the measure taken by his noble and learned friend and which he had sup- 729 ported. For himself he much regretted that the motion which the noble Earl proposed to make should deprive him of the opportunity of explaining to their Lordships in detail, as he intended to have done at the meeting of the House, the next day, should it meet, the nature of those amendments which, after the fullest consultation and communication with his noble friends, it was his intention to propose to their Lordships' consideration. At the late hour to which the night had advanced he felt unable to go into those propositions in detail, and consistently with the respect which he entertained for their Lordships, he was unwilling to enter upon them at all unless he could explain them in a clear and most collected manner. However, the intimation which the noble Earl had given left him no alternative, and, even at the risk of being misunderstood and misinterpreted, he would briefly develop the nature of those alterations to which he should hereafter more particularly request their Lordships' attention. At present, then, he should merely state, that, having, in conjunction with others, most seriously considered the main principles of the Bill; having considered the various clauses by which enfranchisement and disfranchisement was to be effected; having considered the interests and the character of the several towns in schedules C and D; having well considered the change which under the circumstances in which the country was then placed, and the peculiar circumstances under which the Bill had been prepared and thus far carried towards completion—having well considered the change which under such circumstances would be effected by the giving additional Members to counties; having also strong objections to the schedules B and D, the result of the amendments which he should have proposed would have been to have given enfranchisement to an extent which would have rendered it necessary, unless the House had been prepared to extend the number of the Members of the House of Commons to a degree which would most materially interfere with its convenience and efficiency as a deliberative assembly to carry disfranchisement to the full extent of schedule A. To that schedule, and to the disfranchisement of Weymouth—that was to say, to the extinction of 113 Members as proposed in that part of the Bill—he should not object; but to the subsequent pro- 730 visions of the Bill he had, as he had already stated, many amendments to move. He was sorry to have been obliged, by the conduct of the noble Earl, to state thus much without, at the same time, stating in detail the reasons which induced him to oppose the other schedules to which he had shortly alluded. There was one other important feature of the Bill which he had not yet mentioned, but upon which he must be allowed to say a very few words, he meant the 10l. qualification. To that qualification, as a uniform qualification, he had at a late period, stated his most decided objection; he stated, that he objected to it, not because it was popular, but because it was uniform; and he also stated his deep regret that the measure proposed almost necessarily excluded from direct Representation all the poorest classes of the community. He thought that in the progress of the measure, it would be a matter of the most serious consideration to their Lordships whether it might not be expedient and necessary, with a view to the permanence of the measure, to continue in places where it at present existed the more popular mode of voting, which allowed to every man who paid scot-and-lot the privilege of electing Members of Parliament. It was true that that mode of voting was for a short period to be continued—at least existing votes were to be preserved; but he (Lord Ellenborough) did not believe it possible that any constituency could exist for any great length of time, from which all the poorer classes were excluded. There was this great advantage in the ancient system, which it was now proposed to overthrow, that while, on the one hand, it gave direct Representation to property and wealth, without exciting popular passion and popular jealousy, so, on the other, without leading to danger from democratic influence, it gave direct Representation to the very lowest contributors to rates and taxes. He now threw it out to the serious consideration of the House, whether it would be safe, perspectively, to disfranchise all the poorest class of voters and to establish one uniform qualification? With respect to another portion of the Bill, if the opportunity were afforded him, he should have proposed an amendment, which he apprehended would not have received any considerable opposition even from the noble Lords opposite. He referred to an amendment by which persons would not be allowed to vote for 731 counties in consideration of property situated in boroughs. He repeated his regret that he had been obliged, in that imperfect and very hasty manner, to state the amendments which it was his intention to have proposed had the business of the Committee been allowed to proceed in the manner that was anticipated. He had nearly forgotten to state that, with respect to the 10l. qualification, it had occurred to him, as he apprehended it must have occurred to all who had attentively considered that provision of the Bill, that there ought to be some more clear and more certain mode of ascertaining the genuineness and reality of that qualification than was at present laid down. It was his intention, therefore, to propose some amendment, which should have the effect of ensuring the genuineness and reality of the 10l. qualification whenever it should be made to confer the right of voting.
The Duke of Buckinghambegged to make one remark, namely, that, with regard to the 10l. clause he could not go along with the noble Baron who had just spoken. Before he sat down he desired to express a hope that the noble Earl (Earl Grey), after the consideration which it was to be presumed he had given the measure of Reform, saw the necessity of enlarging the 10l. qualification in different districts.
§ Earl Greysaid, it was not his intention at that late hour of the night to enter into a consideration of the plan of Reform which the noble Baron had just proposed. He could not, however, refrain from congratulating him and the House in the progress which he had made, and the extent to which he then found himself ready to proceed upon the revolutionary measure, as it was termed, which his Majesty's Ministers had introduced. The noble Baron, it appeared, was prepared to admit disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and an extensive popular qualification; nay, even more extensive than the qualification proposed in the Bill, because the noble Baron professed an intention not to touch the 10l. qualification, but to preserve that more extensive right of scot-and-lot franchise in all those places where it then existed. The noble Baron objected to the uniformity of the 10l. qualification as being, as he and others had denounced it to be, democratic and revolutionary, and he proposed to correct it—how? by retaining 732 a portion of the existing system, which was more extensive and more democratic. It was not for him to speak of the consistency of the noble Baron, or of the plan of Reform which the noble Baron was prepared to concede; but he must congratulate him on the proof which he had given in the suggestion which he adopted from the noble Baron at the Table, of there being no concert between noble Lords on the other side. Recurring to what had been said of a noble Earl opposite, he could not but regret that some communication had not been made with respect to the course which the noble Lords who opposed the measure intended to pursue, or of the views which they had adopted. Certainly that was the first time that he had heard of any disposition to make the concessions of which they had just heard. He did not say, that he had a right to complain of no communication having been made to him; but he thought that he had a right to complain, on the part of the House, that the intentions of the noble Baron were not explained before the vote which had just been carried were taken. He should like to know what many, who concurred in that vote, particularly the noble Duke opposite, would have said if the noble Baron's intentions had been explained? It was not, however, his intention to go into any discussion of the matters to which the noble Baron had adverted on that occasion. They would come to be considered hereafter. He understood that to the principle of disfranchisement to the extent of schedule A, the noble Baron had no objection. If that were so he certainly thought it unfortunate that the noble Baron should have raised a difficulty in the way of carrying into effect his own purpose by proposing the postponement of that clause. But, if he were not mistaken, the noble Baron, although prepared to assent to schedule A, would proceed to abolish entirely schedules B and D. To such a proposition it was impossible for him to consent. He trusted that the House would concur with him, seeing the necessity which had arisen for doing so, in deferring the further proceedings of the Committee until Thursday next. As to the charge of delay which the noble Baron was anxious to fix upon him, he (Earl Grey) could only say that, under the circumstances of the case, he should be perfectly ready to run the risk of incurring such a charge, being 733 convinced that there was no man in the country who would not think him justified, after what had occurred, in proposing an adjournment of two days.
§ Clause postponed House resumed, to sit again on Thursday.