MR. O’CONNELL’S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ETC.
On the third reading of the East Retford bill, the first attempt was made in the British parliament to introduce principles new to the representation of the country: namely, that the votes of the electors should be given by ballot. This proposition came from that most reckless of all demagogues; that prototype of the Athenian Cleon, Mr. O’Connell, who argued that the ballot would protect the voter from all undue influence, whether of fear or corruption. On the other hand, it was argued that the mode of taking votes by ballot would preclude representatives confronting their constituents; but it was not till after nomination, and the demand of a poll, that the ballot would commence; so that this mode would not take away from constituents the power they now enjoyed of requiring explanations of past conduct, and pledges for the future. The motion, which was lost, had been favoured by certain occurrences at Newark, which were brought before the house of commons on the 1st of March, on a petition from some of the electors of that borough against the Duke of Newcastle. His grace was possessed of large property within the borough—some private, and some held under a crown lease—and had always been able to decide the election. Mr. Sadler had recently been returned on his interest in opposition to Sergeant Wylde; and the petition stated that “the return of Mr. Sadler was obtained by means of the prevailing belief, founded on the experience of former elections, that such of the duke’s tenants as should vote against his grace’s nominee would be expelled from their tenancies; that many of the tenants gave their votes to the opposing candidate; and that they had in consequence received notice to quit their holdings, whether the same was house or land, and whether it constituted part of the estate of the crown, or the private property of his grace.” The petition further stated, that his grace had neither denied that such notices had been given, nor had disclaimed them; but had rather justified them, by stating that he had a right “to do what he would with his own.” In moving that this petition should be referred to a select committee, Mr. Poulett Thomson informed the house, that not only the use thus made of crown property affected the constitutional character of the representation, but that its original investment was a ministerial job, which had caused a great pecuniary loss to the country. The Duke of Newcastle, he said, held about nine hundred and sixty acres of land surrounding the town, by a lease, granted in 1760, at a rent of only £36. This lease had been renewed in 1815, nine years after its expiration, at a rent of £2,060; but it was still too low, as the estimated value was £3,500. The pecuniary loss was therefore well worthy of attention: but this was a trifle compared to the political purposes to which the property had been applied. The noble lessee never gave a lease for more than one year, in order to keep the voters under his power; and the petition stated the manner in which this power had been employed. If the allegations were true, the house was bound to interfere; for though he did not mean to impugn the just and natural influence of the landlord over his tenant, he appealed to the house whether the power arrogated in the case before them did not rather resemble the tyranny of the slave-driver, than the proper influence of a British landlord. There was not even, in the present instance, the objection of interference with the rights of private property; this was a species of property against the future abuse of which the house might guard, though they could not interfere with the existing lease. They could address the crown, praying that the lease should not be renewed; and, with a view to have the allegations sifted, he moved that the petition be referred to a select committee. This motion was supported by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse, who set no bounds to their indignation. The latter especially exerted his eloquence on the subject. He remarked:—“Suppose the king’s government should send to his grace the Duke of Newcastle, to let him know that when his lease expired he should no longer have the benefits of that lease; suppose such an intimation was given to his grace, and that it was alleged and understood that his ejectment from the possession of this property took place in consequence of his having given a vote against government upon some great and leading question. If that were done, would it not be denounced as an attack upon our dearest privileges, as an invasion of the most sacred birthright of Englishmen: the liberty to assert and maintain their opinions? Compare the conduct of the government in such a case, with the conduct of the noble peer in the present instance: there were these poor men, because they had to vote against his grace’s candidate, banished from their homes, driven from their happy firesides, and deprived of all the comforts of life. Could such conduct on the part of the noble duke bear comparison with the case of the government depriving the noble duke of these crown-lands on account of his giving a vote against them?” It was stated on the other hand, that many of the allegations in the petition were gross perversions of fact. The crown-lands, for instance, were not in the immediate neighbourhood of the town, but were scattered about among the adjacent villages to a considerable extent; and the crown at the renewal of the lease had only twelve houses and twenty-six cottages. There were others in the neighbourhood who held land to a much greater extent than that belonging to the crown. Mr. Sadler himself said that the petition was a mere election paper, made up of wanton exaggerations, and unfounded misstatements, for electioneering purposes. He also vindicated his patron’s character for humanity and consideration, as regarded the inhabitants of Newark. He denied that he was exposed to the operation of any sinister influence, and could conscientiously say, that the noble duke had left him on all questions to pursue his own line of conduct. Mr. Peel defended the principle of the whole transaction, as well as the mode by which the land in question had been acquired. He could see no valid distinction between this property and that which descended to a man as a freehold from his ancestors. He remarked:—“The lease which his grace possessed of this crown-land gave him a right to deal with it as any other possessions during that period; and in dealing with the property of the crown as with his own, it was obvious that he committed no breach of privilege. Now the petitioners entirely confined themselves to the crown possessions held by the noble duke, praying that a lease of them might in future be refused to him. They did not even refer to his other property, with regard to which he had dealt precisely in the same manner. It was plain therefore that if, in the management of his own private possessions, he had committed no breach of privilege, he had committed none by dealings in a similar manner with the property of the crown. He would not say that the Duke of Newcastle did not dispossess these tenants; but, without entering into the question, he would say that superior to the privileges of that house were other considerations, to which they were bound in duty and conscience to defer, namely, the rights of property. Here was no allegation that menaces had been employed; there was only the fact that seven tenants had been dispossessed. Now, if they were to control the rights of property, under the idea that those rights had been exercised in controlling an election, a precedent would be set which would be not merely inconvenient, but positively dangerous; for nothing could be more dangerous than to say, they would not suffer any tenant to be dispossessed who had voted in opposition to his landlord’s wishes. It was in vain that honourable gentlemen exclaimed against the influence which any peer derived from the possession of property: there was no difference between that, and the influence which any other great landed proprietor enjoyed; nor could any species of reform exclude such influence. Property, he contended, should always have an influence in that house, no matter whether it was in the hands of peers or commoners.” The motion for referring the petition to a select committee was negatived by a majority of one hundred and ninety-four against sixty-one.