HL Deb 11 March 1867 vol 185 cc1633-44
EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I rise to move for Returns on the subject of the franchise. My purpose in bringing this Motion before your Lordships is two-fold. In the first place, I desire to call attention to certain proceedings which have been adopted with reference to a reform of the representation of the people in Parliament; and, in the next place, to call attention to the present state of that question. I presume no one will deny that this House is as much interested as any part of the country whatever in the representation of the people in Parliament. On the question whether the House of Commons is well or ill constituted depend the weal and woe of this country in the future as well as at the present time; and therefore I will make no apology for calling your Lordships' attention to this subject. Your Lordships will recollect that in the Queen's Speech the attention of the two Houses of Parliament was directed to it; and on the same day, the 5th of February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice that on the following Monday he would make a statement with reference to Reform to the House of Commons. Every one must have given credit to the Government for the promptitude with which it appeared Her Majesty's Government were about to proceed with the question, and the unanimity of the Government in their opinions. Accordingly, on the Monday following, the right hon. Gentleman did make a statement; but it was so obscure that it was impossible for any one to gather from it what were the precise intentions of Her Majesty's Government, On the next day a series of Resolutions were laid on the table of the House of Commons; but from these it would have been as difficult, without further explanation, to decide what the Government intended. But after some time it appeared that they had changed their purpose of proceeding by Resolution, although no opposition had been made to their proceeding by that method; and it was announced that a Bill would be brought in, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating to the House of Commons what the main features of that Bill would be. That, I think, was on the 23rd of February. In the beginning of March both Houses of Parliament were told that a change of opinion had occurred; that the Bill which had been announced would not be brought in; and that a Bill grounded upon the principle of the Resolutions would at once be introduced. It is a course entirely without precedent—it is a course which shows great vacillation on the part of Her Majesty's Government in that which was supposed at first to have been unanimously propounded. In the course of the speech in which that statement was made, opportunity was taken to state that the operation of the original Reform Bill has been to exclude the working classes from the franchise; it was said, moreover, as I am told by a Minister of the Crown, that the present Ministers are now about to restore to the working classes those franchises of which hitherto they have been deprived, and to do them that justice which hitherto has been denied to them. Such a statement induced me to look back to see what actually passed at the time of the Reform Bill, and also what has occurred since with regard to the number of persons disfranchised. If your Lordships will permit me, I will cite what I stated to the House of Commons on the occasion of the second reading of the Reform Bill which afterwards passed through Parliament. I said— It is, therefore, desirable to fix upon a class of persons, who shall partake largely of the popular spirit, and yet not constitute a body hostile to property, or debased by ignorance. In order to effect this it will be advisable to bring into action the more intelligent of the working class in the large towns, and the more respectable of the middle class in the small boroughs."—[3 Hansard, ix. 497] I then gave an account of what would happen at Leeds, where the working classes would be generally excluded, and proceeded as follows:— I do not say, certainly, that the working classes will be excluded, generally, in large towns to the same extent that they will be in Leeds. I should be sorry to think that such would be the case. The operation of time and the growth of our manufactures have produced that anomaly in our Constitution—a mass of industrious, intelligent, prosperous men, without any direct tie binding them to our Government. …. It is an object with every sound Reformer to reclaim this powerful tribe from the political desert to which they have been confined; to recall them from wild prospects and hostile schemes, in order to bind them to our institutions, to make them a part of the great family of the Constitution, partaking in all its privileges and defending it in all its dangers."—[500.] That was the promise and the profession of the Reform Bill of 1831, and the consequence was that, though the working classes were not admitted to the extent we had wished, or that we should have been glad at the time that they could have been admitted, they were still admitted to a considerable extent. In such places as Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, and other places, none of the working classes had been previously admitted to the franchise, and Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh were, to the end of their lives, opposed to the enfranchisement of those great towns. I in vain endeavoured to induce the House of Commons to permit three of those towns to send representatives to Parliament. In looking over the different Returns, I find that in twelve of the thirty-nine boroughs created by the Reform Bill, there were more than 25 per cent of the electors composed of the working classes; in thirteen others there were from 15 to 25 per cent of the electors so composed; and in twelve others there were under 15 per cent. On the whole, by the Reform Act, there were 58,000 of the working classes admitted to the franchise who never had votes before. I find, likewise, from the Returns presented to Parliament last year by Her Majesty's command, that there were 70,000 more in the old towns belonging to the working classes who were admitted to the franchise. In certain towns there were some, undoubtedly, who were deprived of their franchise. In some these were scot and lot voters, in others these were the ordinary freemen, and in some they were persons who held under burgage tenures. Altogether there appear to have been about 57,000 persons who since the Reform Act have been by death or otherwise removed from the privilege of forming part of the electoral body; while, as I have already said, there were 58,000 of the working classes to whom for the first time we gave the suffrage. The whole body contains therefore a large number less, not of the working classes, but of those who had the special franchises. "With regard to the representation generally, it was the opinion of the Government of that day that there had been so many abuses at elections, that even in the few populous boroughs which existed there had been so much of bribery, treating, and corrupt practices, that it was better to have a body entirely new, and both in the old and new boroughs to give the franchise to persons holding premises of a certain money value. Undoubtedly, the first consequence of that step was that the substantial part of the elective body consisted of the middle classes; I have never denied that consequence—I always thought that it tended to the stability of our institutions; and I think your Lordships will agree with me that during the time that has elapsed since the passing of the Reform Act the electoral body, generally speaking, has maintained harmony with the rest of our institutions, and has, in the words which King William IV., by advice of Lord Grey, addressed to Parliament— Adhered to the principles of the Constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the privileges of the two Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people were equally secured. It was, I think, owing to the perseverance of Lord Grey, and owing to the eloquence with which he maintained in this House all the popular principles embodied in the Reform Act—especially the disfranchisement of the small close boroughs, which had become a scandal to the country—that the measure was carried triumphantly. Your Lordships will have seen lately a work which contains the correspondence of Earl Grey with his Sovereign, William IV. Everyone who reads that book must be of opinion that it was impossible to combine in a greater degree the respect and loyalty due to his Sovereign with the sincere maintenance of popular principles. It is the praise bestowed by one of our poets upon books that they speak the truth, and— To various people tell not various things, But what they say to subjects say to kings. Lord Grey in this respect resembled a volume, never concealing from his Sovereign what he was saying to his subjects, and never ceasing to impress upon those subjects the loyalty which he invariably expressed to his Sovereign. Having thus stated to your Lordships the provisions of the Reform Act, I do not see, as has been elsewhere asserted, that it deprives the working classes of votes; but, on the contrary, by giving representatives to thirty-seven towns which never before had any, it increased the power of the working classes. In 1851 it became the opinion of the Government, of which I was then at the head, that some further change should be made, regard being had to the great increase of wealth in the country, and to the great increase in the number not on the electoral roll; and, at the same time, that advantage should be taken of this opportunity to extend the right of voting given to tenants-at-will in counties. That franchise given to tenants-at-will in counties certainly did not meet with my support. Although I was not present at the time when it was carried, the grounds on which I objected to it have been very much misrepresented. It has been stated that I objected to the enfranchisement of the farmers of England; the real fact is that I thought it quite right that the franchise should be extended to occupation, but I thought £50 too high a sum at which to place the occupation franchise in counties. I believe that if, instead of proposing £50 as the limit, it had been proposed to give the franchise to £20 occupiers, that franchise would have lasted much longer and provoked fewer complaints; whereas repeated proposals have been made that it should be reduced to £10 in counties, as in boroughs. In 1851 T suggested, and in 1852 I proposed, a Bill founded on these two principles, that of admitting a greater number of the working classes to the franchise in boroughs and that of reducing the amount of the occupation franchise in counties. It has been stated over and over again, and it is one of those popular sayings that pass without contradiction, that five Reform Bills have been introduced and five have failed. That is not a correct statement of the fact; for the Bill proposed in 1852 never came to any debate whatever in Parliament. The Government resigned, and the noble Earl opposite came into office. I did not think it my duty then to raise the question, nor was the question raised by the then existing Government; and, consequently, that Bill cannot be said to have failed, for it never was brought forward for discussion. I have been told again with regard to the Bill of 1854,' which had the assent of Sir James Graham, Sir Charles Wood, and others, that it likewise was a failure. But the fact is that this Bill also was never brought forward for discussion, because the Russian war intervened and effectually prevented any debate on the subject. Three Bills, however, have been actually introduced and discussed; there was one in 1859, another in 1860, by the Government of Lord Palmerston, and a third last year. Having, my Lords, given frequent and much attention to the subject of Reform, I venture to intrude upon your Lordships some remarks with regard to the principles upon which it is said the Bill now in contemplation may be.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I feel bound to rise to order. The noble Earl has already taken great latitude in commenting upon what is said to have been said in "another place;" but I certainly must take exception to his remarks with regard to the supposed principles of a Bill which has not yet been introduced to Parliament, and of which it is absolutely impossible for us, as a House, to know anything whatever.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not wish to comment upon the principles of a Bill which has not yet been introduced to the House of Commons; but I think I have a right to comment upon that which is discussed in the public papers almost every day with reference to the manner in which a measure of Reform ought to be constructed so as to give satisfaction to the country. It is very commonly said that the only way of framing a permanent Bill—a Bill founded on a sound.principle—is to return to the old scot and lot franchise in boroughs, and this assertion appears to meet with general consent. Now, this is a subject we had under consideration in a small Committee, and afterwards in the Cabinet, at the time of the original Reform Bill; it has since been discussed over and over again, and I have recently turned my attention to the question as to whether it is now a fit principle to base a Reform Bill upon. I have come to the conclusion that, although it is natural to regard this as the old principle of the Constitution, and to take it as a basis in our attempt to fix the franchise for the future, yet it would be found extremely difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to adapt such a principle to the present state of society. In the 17th century, when the famous Glanville Committee stated that soot and lot was the principle upon which the franchise ought to be founded, those who paid scot and lot were the great substantial burgesses of the towns; it was from them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained revenue for the support of the Crown; and they were the persons who were called upon to defend the country in case of invasion. But the state of society for many years past has been totally different, and it is different at the present time. I have examined the Returns to find whether any great change would be made in the list of electors in London if every person who is rated as the occupant of a tenement were given a vote, and I find that there would be scarcely any change. In Westminster perhaps one or two persons would obtain the franchise, and in some of the metropolitan boroughs six or seven, forty or fifty in another. The reason that no essential change would be made by the introduction of this principle is that the greater portion of artizans, artists, clerks, and professional men live in lodgings and are not householders in the legal sense, although it would be impossible not to include them in any reformation of the franchise. Then, again, there is a large class of persons in the country called "compound householders" who, by an arrangement made first by an Act of 59 Geo. III., and afterwards by an Act of the present reign, have their rates paid by their landlords. The rate collectors rely upon the landlord, who is re-paid by the tenant when he pars his rent. Any franchise, then, which will not admit both the lodger and the compound householders will be imperfect. I should say, therefore, that if Parliament were to resolve upon anything like scot and lot as the basis of a Reform Bill, that basis must be departed from, not partially, but almost totally, by admitting, first, lodgers, and, in the next place, compound householders. We are told, however, that to give the franchise to lodgers paying a certain amount would not be a permanent franchise, because the sum paid might be reduced from time to time. But if you once admitted lodgers without naming any sum, you would then arrive, as nearly as possible, to that which the Reform League has asked by the mouth of Mr. Potter in Trafalgar Square—that is, manhood suffrage with simple residence, and with no condition whatever as to the money value of that residence. It appears to me that the principle first set forth by the Committee of the 17th century can with great difficulty be adopted at the present time; and, if that be the case, I cannot see how you can maintain that what is not fitted for the present constitution of society would make a sound permanent basis for a Reform Bill. The measure which I had the honour to introduce in the House of Commons, and which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) sustained in that House with an eloquence which defeated all its opponents, has now, for thirty-five years, been the law of the country; it has contributed to the establishment of the municipal corporations; it has contributed to the registration of the Births and Marriages of Dissenters; it has contributed to the establishment of Free Trade; and, whatever changes you may now make with respect to it, I doubt whether you can improve the foundation on which it is based. If it be required, as I think it is required, that the best of the working classes should be added to the electors throughout the country, I do not think you should make such a total change as will swamp altogether the middle classes, and make them without weight or power in this country. I beg leave to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that there be laid before this House—

  1. 1. A List in alphabetical Order of the Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales returning Members to Parliament previously to the passing of the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45., and stating the Nature of the Suffrage existing in each City and Borough:
  2. 2. A Return showing the Number of Electors in each City and Borough in England and Wales for 1865–66, classed according to the several Qualifications in respect of which they are entitled to vote; and the Number of such Electors who come within the Description of Mechanics, Artizans, and other Persons supporting themselves by daily manual Labour, classed in like Manner:
  3. 3. The Number of Electors made out from the foregoing Return, distinguishing those who come within the Description of Mechanics, Artizans, and other Persons supporting themselves by daily manual Labour in the Cities and Boroughs entitled to return Members to Parliament before the passing of the Reform Act, and distinguishing the Mechanics, Artizans, and other 1641 working Men entitled to vote as Scot and Lot Voters, Potwallers, and other ancient Right Qualifications from those entitled to vote as Freemen or as £10 Occupiers:
  4. 4. A similar Return of Mechanics, Artizans, &c. in Cities and Boroughs entitled to return Members to Parliament for the first Time by the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45.; and also in the Borough of Birkenhead.—(The Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, I must say that I have heard with the most unfeigned astonishment the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I came down to your Lordships' House expecting to hear that he was about to ask for information to enable him more completely than we can, or are supposed to be able at present, to judge of a measure which, at; no very distant period, Her Majesty's Government intend to bring under the consideration of the other House of Parliament. I listened to his speech, but the noble Earl has not given us and reason for his asking for this information, he has not vouchsafed a word on the subject of his Motion; he has indulged in a series of autobiographical reminiscences which are, no doubt, exceedingly interesting to your Lordships, and especially so to the noble Earl himself. He has gone back to the 17th century; he has discussed the principle of a Reform Bill in the passing of which I took a humble part, though I did not stand in regard to it in so prominent a position as the noble Earl himself; and he has given us a history of the measures of Reform introduced by various Governments since 1851; but with regard to the Returns, for which he has an undoubted right to move, and as far as his Motion is intelligible to me I shall be most happy to give him, not a single word has fallen from his lips during the lengthened period which he has addressed your Lordships. I hope he will not think me disrespectful if I decline to follow him in any charges which he has made against the present Government, on account of the course which it has pursued during this Session; the circumstances under which it laboured I have already had an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships at length. Nor am I about to discuss the merits of the Chandos clause, or the peculiar qualities of a £10 franchise as the basis for a Reform Bill. There is no question that the Reform Bill introduced in 1831 imported into the constituencies of the country a very large number of the working classes beyond those who previously held the franchise; but the noble Earl somewhat irregularly referred to the statement which has been made elsewhere that while the Reform Bill introduced a large number of the working classes, it also excluded from the constituencies of many boroughs a very considerable portion of the working classes who exercised their rights under different franchises which the Bill abolished; and this the noble Earl docs not deny. Whether it was wise to do this or not in some respects, I say it was certainly a mistake to abolish all those various franchises which gave a degree of variety to the electoral body of this country, and, instead, to bring the whole down to the dead level of a £10 occupation. The noble Earl admits that since 1830 the effect of the gradual extinction of their existing rights, and the termination of existing interests, has been to strike off a very large number—I think he said, 58,000 persons—belonging to the working classes from the electoral lists. These were composed partly of freemen, partly of potwallopers, partly of freeholders, and partly of others having ancient rights to vote; and they have all been swept away by the Bill championed by the noble Earl, who believes it is the intention of the Bill about to be introduced to restore a certain number of these franchises to the working classes. Now, my Lords, the noble Earl has been kind enough to give us a sketch of what he thinks ought to be and what ought not to be introduced into the Reform Bill. He will excuse me if I say it is better at present to abstain from the discussion of abstract principles of Reform, or what is or is not likely to be in the coming Reform Bill, and I must respectfully decline to discuss his argument in this respect. Now, my Lords, I will not say another word with regard to the speech of the noble Earl; but, with reference to the Returns for which he has moved, wish to ask an explanation of what appears to me to be perfectly incomprehensible. About the first part of the Motion of the noble Earl there can be no difficulty whatever. The second Return is one that was furnished by Her Majesty's late Government in the course of last Session. It is very voluminous; but it was laid on the table of the House of Commons and there I was no objection to its production. It I contains— The number of electors in each city and borough in England and Wales for 1865–6, classed ac cording to the several qualifications m respect to which they are entitled to vote; and the number of such electors who come within the description of mechanics, artizans, and other persons supporting themselves by daily manual labour, classed in like manner. But as regards the third Return for which the noble Earl has moved, I want to know how he can ascertain, from a Return relating to the state of constituencies in 1865–6— The number of mechanics, artizans, and other persons supporting themselves by daily manual labour in the cities and boroughs entitled to return Members to Parliament before the passing of the Reform Act. How is it possible, from the Return of 1865–6, to make a Return showing the state of the constituencies in 1831?

EARL RUSSELL

It does not mean the number of persons entitled to vote in 1831, but the number of persons in 1865, in the boroughs which now remain after the passing of the Reform Act.

THE EARL OF DERBY

But there is nothing said about that in the. Return moved by the noble Earl. All the boroughs disfranchised by the Reform Act are, in fact, included in the second Return of the noble Earl, the electors of which he asks to be made out from the Return of 1865–6. How are we to distinguish the mechanics and artizans, and other working men who were entitled as scot and lot voters, from those who were entitled as freemen? If the noble Earl only means to apply for those included in the second Resolution, the rest is all surplusage; because the noble Earl can attain his objects by moving, as an addition to the second Eesolution— The number of Electors in the Cities and Boroughs in 1865–6, distinguishing those who were entitled to send Members to Parliament previous to the passing of the Reform Act, from those who were so entitled since the passing of that Act. If the noble Earl will strike out the last two Resolutions, and amend the second in the way I have suggested, showing the distinction laid down, there cannot be the slightest objection to furnish the Returns asked for.

EARL RUSSELL

I think the Resolutions are perfectly intelligible as they stand, but I have no objection to amend them as suggested by the noble Earl.

Motion agreed to.

  1. 1. A List in alphabetical Order of the Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales returning Members to Parliament previously to the passing of the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45., and 1644 stating the Nature of the Suffrage existing in each City and Borough:
  2. 2. A Return showing the Number of Electors in each City and Borough in England and Wales for 1865–66, classed according to the several Qualifications in respect of which they are entitled to vote; and the Number of such Electors who come within the Description of Mechanics, Artizans, and other Persons supporting themselves by daily manual Labour, classed in like Manner; distinguishing those Cities and Boroughs which were entitled to return Members to Parliament previous to the passing of the 2d and 3d Will. IV. Cap. 45. from those which have been enfranchised by that Act, including the Borough of Birkenhead.—(The Earl Russell.)

House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.