NEW REFORM BILL.
On the 12th of December, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a new reform bill. He first called upon the house to remember Earl Grey’s declaration on the rejection of the former bill in the house of lords—namely, that he remained in office only with the view of bringing forward another and no less efficient measure of reform. The principles of the two measures, he said, were the same—any alterations which had been made left its efficiency unimpaired. He conceived that, as a resolution had been passed by the house of commons in favour of the last measure, it was only necessary to explain the alterations in the present bill, which alterations regarded the manner of carrying into effect principles already adopted by the house. These principles consisted in the disfranchisement of decayed and inconsiderable boroughs; the enfranchisement of large and opulent towns; and the introduction of a general new electoral qualification. As regards the disfranchisement of decayed boroughs, the former bill had taken the census of 1821 as the rule, and had fixed on a certain amount of population, disfranchising all those whose population did not at that time reach the amount. Since that time a new census had been taken. This census could not be thrown out of view, but, at the same time, it was liable to objection, having been taken after a particular point of population had been fixed as that of disfranchisement, it was not improbable that pains had been taken to raise certain boroughs above the line of disfranchisement. Ministers had, therefore, rather taken the number of houses than that of inhabitants, it being less likely that improper practices would be adopted in regard to the former than to the latter. It had been found difficult, he continued, to draw a line which should mark where the census should be attended to, and where it was to be disregarded. Ministers had used every effort to obtain a correct account of the size and importance of the boroughs which were to be abolished; and on the data they had obtained schedule A of the new bill was to be founded. The drawing of the line at which disfranchisement should stop, he said, must necessarily be arbitrary, whether the population, the houses, or the amount of the assessed taxes, or the number of boroughs, was to be taken into consideration. It had appeared to ministers that the number which had been fixed last session to be disfranchised was proper, and therefore they proposed to strike off fifty-six, the number which stood in schedule A of the former bill. The consequence of this was that some of the boroughs which formerly escaped disfranchisement in consequence of the population of their parishes being large, though the boroughs themselves were inconsiderable, would now be placed in schedule A, whilst others would be raised out of it, and placed in schedule B. Another part of the disfranchising clauses of the bill regarded the boroughs in schedule B, which were to be deprived of only one of their two members. Ministers had now resolved to give an additional member to a certain number of boroughs in this schedule, taking the number to be included in it to be forty-one, as it had been fixed last session, and dividing the rest of the twenty-three members, with two exceptions, among the newly enfranchised towns which, under the late bill, were to have only one representative.
Of the twenty-three members required to fill up the numbers of the house, it was proposed that ten should be given to the most considerable towns in schedule B, one to Chatham, so as to render it independent of Rochester, and another to the county of Monmouth, from which there had been several petitions, stating that there was only one district of boroughs in that county, although its population exceeded 100,000. The rest of the twenty-three, he continued, were given to the large towns to which the late bill gave one representative each. The consequence of all this was, that there would be only thirty boroughs in schedule B, instead of forty-one, and that in schedule C. instead of twelve members, there would be forty-two: instead of ninety-six places, as by the old bill, there would be only forty-nine returning one representative each. His lordship next proceeded to the ten-pound qualification clause. As it stood in the last bill, he said, the right of voting in boroughs was to be enjoyed by occupiers of houses assessed to the house-duty, or poor-rates at ten pounds, or rented, or of the annual value of the same; but then this right was afterwards limited thus:—that no one whose landlord compounded for the rates should be entitled to vote unless he claimed to be rated in his own name, and that no one should be entitled to vote for airy premises, unless he had occupied them for twelve calendar months, and had not been in the receipt of parochial relief during that time. He now proposed that every one who occupied a lease of the value of ten pounds should have a right to vote in behalf of it, provided he was rated,—not that he should be rated at ten pounds, but that he should be assessed to the poor-rates, and then the only question to be decided would be, whether he was the occupier of a house or a warehouse of the stated value. It would also be enacted, that any person who was not rated to the poor-rates might demand to be placed upon them, and being so placed upon them, might claim to be put on the registry. In other matters, his lordship said, connected with the right of voting, the present bill would be found to differ from the last, though most of what stood in the latter was still allowed to remain. Thus the former bill had allowed the right of voting to freemen during the lives of those now in possession; the present bill did the same, but it went a step further, in preserving the rights of freemen, acquired by birth or servitude, for ever. Another change related to officers, about which some difficulty arose in the committee on the late bill: it was this, that in any case where his majesty might grant a charter of incorporation to any of the new boroughs to be created by the bill,—such as those in schedule C,—it was intended that the mayor or other chief officer of such corporation should be returning officer of such borough. It was thought much better, he said, to unite the voters in such boroughs in a corporate form on liberal principles, the same as those of London and other places, than to leave them the right of voting without such corporate form. Another right reserved in the bill related to the rights of freeholders in cities being counties in themselves. Freeholders were of three classes: some voted in the county at large; others only for the county of the city or borough; and others did not vote for either. It was intended that the voters for counties at large should remain undisturbed, and those who voted for the county of the city would also be allowed to continue that vote, but those who by the former bill were not to be allowed to vote for either place would now be allowed to vote for the county in which the city or borough happened to be situated. Lord John Russell added in conclusion, that by the late bill commissioners were appointed to make inquiries, and to ascertain the limits of boroughs, and that the reports of these commissioners would be laid before parliament, for it to determine the limits of each. In consequence of the inquiries of these commissioners a mass of information had been obtained, which he hoped to be able to lay before the house soon after the Christmas recess. There were other alterations of minor importance, he said, in the bill, and some verbal changes, but it was not necessary to allude to them, as the discussion of these would be more proper in the committee. Sir Robert Peel said that in one thing there must be an unanimous feeling on all sides—that of gratitude at the escape which the country had had from the bill of the last session, a danger which he had not till now fully appreciated. The new bill, he contended, was a full and complete answer to the calumnies of which they had heard so much in the last session against the factious delays, as they were then called, of those who sought to introduce some of those very modifications now adopted by the noble lord who brought forward the former measure. There was scarcely an amendment in schedule A which had been offered from the opposition side of the house which had not been adopted. The principle of population was abandoned; and the preservation of the rights of freemen, which the opposition had vainly struggled to introduce last session, was now voluntarily urged by the noble lord, as an improvement in his new plan of reform. He would not stop to inquire, he said, why when five boroughs were taken out of schedule A as many more should be added, so as to make the number fifty-six; nor would he now examine why the number of boroughs having but one member each should be reduced from sixty-nine to forty-nine; nor would he enter into any inquiry as to the cause of the change in the right of voting in cities and counties; he left all these matters for future discussion;—but he must congratulate himself and his friends on the effect of the opposition which they made to the last bill. He was not surprised that the noble mover should have been so severe on the last bill; but he must say, that he was not prepared for such a sacrifice to the manes of the late parliament as the adoption of the resolution of General Gaseoyne, by keeping up the number of members undiminished. After all that had been said, both in and out of the house, as to the nature and the object of the opposition, it was declared to be the deliberate conviction of the king’s government, that the objections which the opposition took were well founded. He rejoiced for the sake of the character of those on that side of the house with whom he had the honour to act, that such a triumphant refutation was brought forward of the charges which had been made against them. He rejoiced, also, not only on account of the amendments which had been made in the details of the bill; but because, if the house should determine, on the second reading of the bill, to adopt the principle of the measure, and to make so extraordinary and extensive a change in the frame and constitution of the government of this country, he could not help thinking that when they approached the discussion of the details, there would be a disposition on the part of the majority of the house to follow the course of ministers, and to introduce more amendments into the measure. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, said that he could not recollect a question moved from the opposition side of the house with respect to any of the alterations which had since been made in the bill. Ministers had given their attention to every reasonable suggestion with regard to the details of the bill, and some of those alterations now proposed might have been pressed upon their consideration; but he did not remember that an opportunity had been given them last session to adopt such resolutions. The bill having been rejected, ministers had employed the interval which had since elapsed in endeavouring to remove all objections to the details of the measure, and in introducing such improvements as were consistent with its great principle; and yet, because they had done so, the right honourable baronet taunted them with unstable conduct. The giving up the clause regarding commissioners, he asserted, was the necessary consequence of the fact of the commissioners having now made their inquiry. Great alterations were said to have been made in schedule A: fifty-one boroughs out of fifty-six remained as before. The ten-pound clause, again, it was admitted, had not suffered from the alteration which had been introduced in it: the fact was, the clause had been merely simplified in its wording and provisions; in its practical effect it was precisely similar to that contained in the late bill. Some of the Irish members complained that injustice was done to Ireland in not allowing her a greater number of members: twenty-three additional members, it was said, had now been given to England, and eight to Scotland; and yet Ireland was still to receive only the one hundred and five which had originally been allotted her under very different circumstances. The bill, however, was read a first time without a division, and the second reading was fixed for the 16th; after which, Lord Althorp stated that the house would adjourn for the Christmas holidays.
On the 16th, on the motion being made that the bill be read a second time, Lord Porchester moved an amendment that it should be read a second time that day six months. He had hoped, he said, that ministers would have framed a bill which would have been generally acceptable. The debate which followed was continued by adjournment on the 17th. Sir E. Sugden, who seconded the amendment, agreed with Lord Porchester that the bill was more democratic in its tendency than its predecessor, and equally unfounded in any sound principle of the constitution, though some of the alterations made in the details were changes for the better. There were other changes, however, which were alterations greatly for the worst, setting aside the mischievous and unconstitutional tendency of the measure. Mr. Macaulay contended that since opposition admitted that the principles of the bill were unchanged, they had no reason for the exultation in which they had indulged over minor alterations, as if ministers had abandoned their own plans, and gave the preference to theirs. The new bill, he said, was an improved edition of the first; but the first was superior to it in one point, inasmuch as it was the first, and was, therefore, more likely to cement a reconciliation between the refractory aristocracy and the exasperated people. It had been asked, he continued, why they had the temerity to legislate in haste? He did not mean to dispute that a hurried settlement at a season of excitement might not be wholly unaccompanied with evil; but if so, the responsibility must be with those who had withheld concession when there was no excitement. The time had arrived when reformers must legislate in haste, because bigots would not legislate early; when reformers must legislate in excitement, because bigots would not do so at a more auspicious opportunity. Bigots would not walk with sufficient speed, nay, they could not be prevailed on to move at all; and now, therefore, the reformers must run for it. Mr. Macaulay entered into a defence of the principles of the bill; and in conclusion asserted, that, by fair means or foul, either through or over parliament, the question must be carried. He was followed by Mr. Croker, who said that the doctrine now set up, of some terrific and uncontrollable necessity, put an end to all argument and consideration. Lord Althorp, in reply, challenged the opposition to point out any instance in which, ministers had neglected their duty, or had looked with apathy on the violations of the public peace, or on outrages against persons and property. Mr. Stuart Wortley said he had hoped that ministers, after knowing the sentiments entertained in another place, would have introduced a measure which might, to a great extent, have met the ‘wishes of those who, like himself, were disposed to mitigate their opposition, if it could be done without sacrificing the principles for which they contended. He had been disappointed: and, therefore, notwithstanding the improvements made in the bill, he could not give it his support. He was satisfied that in principle, and in some of the details, this bill was dangerous: yet if members on the other side would declare their willingness to admit of further amendments, he would not be indisposed to give up the point of disfranchisement to a considerable extent, as being the point on which the popular feeling was most strongly excited; provided that, on the other hand, concessions were made in parts of the bill on which the public did not feel so strongly. Lord John Russell contended that it signified little whether they took away this or that number of nomination-boroughs; the time was gone by when any government could be earned on by means of their operation. It must be carried on under the control of the intelligent and respectable part of the community, which control would be provided by the bill. If the bill passed into operation, he had no doubt that men would be returned of sound views, and entitled to the confidence of the country. Sir C. Wetherell, on the other hand, maintained that while the present was the most unfit of all seasons to agitate reform, in consequence of the violent excitement into which the country had been thrown, that excitement itself was mainly attributable to ministers, who had fostered it for the express purpose of carrying the bill. Sir Robert again combated the details of the bill, arguing that they tended to the destruction of the British constitution. He added, in conclusion, “This bill, therefore, I shall oppose to the last, believing, as I do, that the people are grossly deluded as to the practical benefits which they have been taught to expect from it; that it is the first step, not directly to revolution, but to a series of changes which will affect the property, and alter the mixed constitution of the country; that it will be fatal to the authority of the house of lords; and that it will force on a series of further concessions. I will oppose it to the last, convinced that, though my opposition will be unavailing, it will not be fruitless, because the opposition now made will oppose a bar to further concessions hereafter. If the whole of the house were now to join in giving way, it would have less power to resist future changes. On this ground I take my stand, not opposed to any well-considered reform of any of our institutions, which the well-being of the country demands, but opposed to this reform in our constitution, because it tends to root up the feelings of respect towards it, which are founded in prejudice, perhaps, as well as in higher sources of veneration for all our institutions. I believe that reform will do this; and I will wield all the power I possess to oppose the gradual progress of that spirit of democracy to which others think we ought gradually to yield; for if we make those concessions, it will only lead to establish the supremacy of that principle. We may, I know, make it supreme; we may be enabled to establish a republic full, I have no doubt, of energy—not wanting, I have no doubt, in talent; but in my conscience I believe fatal to our mixed form of government, and ultimately destructive of all those usages and practices which have long ensured to us a large share of peace and prosperity, and which have made and preserved this the proudest kingdom in the annals of the world.” The bill was supported by Sir H. Willoughby, Lord William Lennox, Messrs. Bulwer and Slaney, and other members, who all insisted on the absolute necessity of yielding, and of yielding precisely what was contained in the bill, because all the principles therein contained, and the extent to which they should be applied, had been submitted to the people, and had been adopted by them, with a determination which rendered resistance useless. On the other hand, the bill was opposed by Lord Mahon, Sir E. H. Inglis, and other members. It was stated that most members of the house had seen an address to the inhabitants of Leeds, signed “Thomas Babington Macaulay,” in which that gentleman stated that he by no means considered the bill as final, but that he looked upon it only as a step towards a more extended suffrage. The house divided on the morning of the 18th, which was Sunday, and the motion for the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and sixty-two. Immediately after the division, the house adjourned for the Christmas holidays, till the 17th of January.
