REFORM BILL PASSED BY THE COMMONS.
A.D. 1832
When parliament re-assembled on the 17th of January ministers expressed their intention of going into committee on the reform bill on the 20th. Messrs. Croker and Goulburn rejected this proposition, as bringing the house into a consideration of the details of the bill before it had been put in possession of the proper information. Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp, however, would not consent to any delay of the committee. On the 20th, when the motion was made for the house to go into committee, Mr. Croker repeated his objection to their proceeding in the state of imperfect information in which they were now left. Lord Althorp, and the material adherents, asserted that the information called for was unnecessary in deciding on the first clause, which respected the number of boroughs to be disfranchised, though they admitted that when they came to the schedule, information would be necessary in order to see whether the boroughs designated ought to be retained or not. Mr. Croker moved as an amendment that the committee should be delayed till the 24th; but it was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went into committee. On the first clause being read, Lord John Russell said, that as the line must, in any case, be arbitrary, it had been thought best to take the number which had received the sanction of the house in the former bill. Ministers would have liked quite as well fifty or fifty-five, sixty or sixty-five; but in fixing upon a number different from that of the preceding bill, they would have been acting on their own responsibility. After combating this clause with all the arguments that could be enforced, Mr. Croker, in accordance with the views of the opposition, moved, as an amendment, that the number fifty-six should be omitted. Lords John Russell and Althorp, however, repeated that the number had been adopted because it had been sanctioned in the preceding session. The former bill, they said, containing precisely the same number of disfranchised boroughs in schedule A, had been rejected by the lords; and it appeared of great importance to ministers that as little risk as possible should be run of its being again rejected by them, while at the same time they felt it to be of equal importance, to satisfy the country, that the great disfranchising principle of the former bill should be preserved. Mr. Croker’s motion was negatived; and then a similar discussion took place regarding the next clause, which enacted that thirty boroughs, to form schedule B, should in future send only one member to parliament. This was opposed on the ground that no reason was given why this number had been selected, and also on the ground that the principle of giving only one member was an inexpedient principle. Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment, that each of the boroughs in schedule B should continue to return two members; but this motion was also negatived by a large majority. The clauses giving members to various towns hitherto unrepresented, and those which united different places into one for electioneering purposes, were agreed to without much opposition, and without a division. The provision, also, that each of the three ridings of Yorkshire should return two members passed without opposition. Colonel Sibthorp made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the division of the county, but the clause was carried by a large majority. On the clause which provided that the limits of all places having the right of electing members, should be held to be such boundaries as shall “be settled and described by an act to be passed for that purpose in this present parliament,” Lord Althorp admitted an amendment, that the present act should not operate as a law until the boundary bill should have been passed. The provision, that where no particular returning officer was named in the schedule, the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the place lay should annually appoint such resident person as he thought fit to be returning officer, was strongly objected to; but the objections to the clause were not pressed to a division. The clause for dividing certain counties and giving two members occasioned much discussion. An amendment was proposed for the purpose of getting rid of it, and giving the four members to the undivided county. The principal support of this amendment was from the reformers, who opposed this part of the ministerial scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with the main principles of the bill, as it narrowed the sphere within which aristocratic influence was to act, thus adding to its energy; and that it was a wanton and unnecessary interference with the ancient institutions of the country. Some members who had voted for this clause in the preceding session now declared themselves opposed to it in consequence of the extension of the comity franchise to tenants-at-will; while on the other hand several members who had voted against it in the former session, conceiving that the division would do good by preventing contests and unsatisfactory compromises, now supported it. Sir Robert Peel said, that though he intended to vote for the clause, he wished to suggest that another arrangement might be made with respect to the right of voting for counties, which would simplify the operation of the bill, and improve it; namely, that wherever a right of voting accrued from property, of whatever nature, in any city or borough, the individual possessing such property should be allowed to vote for the city or borough, but not for the county. Having made that provision for cities or boroughs, he would continue the integrity of the counties, and propose that each county should return four members. He offered this suggestion bona fide, as an alteration that would simplify the operation of the bill; and though he did not mean to move it as an amendment, he would ask whether it was not a proposition that was likely to please all parties? Ministers defended the clause on the ground that it would greatly diminish the expenses of county elections, and thus contribute to the purity of the representation, while it would neither tend to throw the power of the elections into the hands of the rural voters exclusively, nor of large proprietors, as it had been objected. As for Sir Robert Peel’s proposition, there was the great objection which he had himself suggested; namely, that it was too great a distinction between the inhabitants of towns and those who were more immediately connected with counties. If the proposition succeeded, the consequence would be that many voters possessing freeholds in boroughs, which, as the bill now stood, would enable them to vote for counties, would be disfranchised. The original clause, however, was carried by an overwhelming majority. An amendment, intended to have a similar result with Sir Robert Peel’s proposal, was subsequently moved by Mr. Praed on the clause, to the effect that no county franchise should arise from the possession of property of any kind situated in a represented borough, and that forty-shilling freeholders in boroughs returning members should be entitled to vote for the borough members only; but this amendment was likewise negatived. No division took place on the clause giving three members to certain of the middle-sized counties, although it was denounced as monstrous and unjustifiable on any principle of fairness or common equity. In the preceding session, while the former bill was in committee, the Marquis of Chandos had succeeded in carrying as an amendment a provision which conferred the county franchise on tenants-at-will paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds per annum. Ministers had opposed this, but had been defeated; and they now, although they had made the provision part of the new bill, sought to get rid of it by an amendment which went to strike it out of the clause altogether. The amendment was moved by Sir Robert Heron, and supported by Lord Milton and Mr. C. Ferguson, but only thirty-two members voted for it, while two hundred and seventy-two supported what was now part of an original clause. A variety of amendments on the clause fixing the qualification of borough electors at ten pounds was moved by Mr. Hunt and others, but were all negatived. The clauses which regulated the formation of registers of the voters, the duration of elections, and the mode of polling, were carried without giving rise to much discussion. By the 20th of February the committee had gone through the different clauses, and then proceeded to take up the schedules, which it had been agreed should be postponed till the other provisions of the bill should be arranged. Mr. Croker argued that great inconvenience and injustice would result, if the committee proceeded to determine what boroughs should stand in schedules A and B, before they had ascertained whether the calculations on which disfranchisement was made to depend were correct and uniform. In some boroughs, he said, game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were included, while in others they were omitted: if the rule was not uniform it would be unjust. The fifty-six boroughs for schedule A, and the thirty for schedule B would come up to No. 86 in the list: Helstone No. 84; neither the yeomanry exemptions, nor the game-certificates for that borough had been included; if the former were added, Helstone would be No. 88; if the game-certificates were likewise added, it would be No. 89; in either case it would be raised above the line of disfranchisement. It was impossible for the committee to decide what boroughs ought to be disfranchised, until they had returns of the assessed taxes of each borough, specifying whether game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were or were not included. The consideration of the schedule ought to be postponed till that information had been obtained. Lord John Russell admitted that there was a difference with respect to many boroughs, and that one uniform rule ought to be observed. Directions for that purpose had been given to the commissioners, and they had endeavoured to obtain returns comprehending the game-duties; but from some misunderstanding there still remained a few cases where the game-duties were omitted. He argued, however, that this was no reason for delay; and the house supporting him in his views, it was resolved to proceed. After a discussion on the principles and calculations on which the schedules had been framed, which led to no division, the committee proceeded to the particular boroughs, and the disfranchisement of the first fifty-two was agreed to without an amendment. The next was Appleby, in regard to which it was contended by the opposition that ministers had repeated the injustice which they had committed last session, by leaving out details which ought to have been introduced, which omission was made for the purpose of securing its disfranchisement. A motion was made for its exclusion from schedule A; but the committee having divided, it was decided that it should remain in the schedule. The last of the fifty-six boroughs to be disfranchised was Amersham, and Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst should take its place. No reason was offered why the one should be disfranchised and the other not; but Midhurst was saved by taking in an adjoining district. Alderman Waithman justified the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a corrupt borough, where there had been no election within the memory of man. But this had been the case equally at Midhurst, and yet it was decided by vote that Amersham should be No. 5G in schedule A, instead of Midhurst. Mr. Shiel, who wished to extend the disfranchisement in England, in order that Ireland might receive a larger number of members, moved that Petersfield should be taken out of schedule B and transferred to schedule A. If successful in this, he intended to follow up the motion by one regarding Eye, Wareham, Midhurst, and Woodstock. He conceived it impossible that his motion should be rejected, considering what had been done to Amersham, as that town had far higher claims to return a member than Petersfield, whether as regarded population, wealth, rental, or number of ten-pound houses. Lord Althorp admitted that he could not oppose the motion on principle, though he resisted it on the ground of expediency. Prudence, he said, required that the success of the bill in the house of lords should not be hazarded by sending up to their lordships a bill disfranchising a greater number of boroughs than had been contained in that which they had rejected. Mr. Shiel withdrew his motion; and on the 28th of February the committee proceeded to the consideration of the thirty boroughs which were to form schedule B. Having thus disposed of the disfranchising clauses, the committee proceeded to schedule C, which gave members to places hitherto unrepresented. The only debate or division which took place in considering this schedule, was on the clause which proposed to confer eight members on the metropolitan districts: the Tower Hamlets, Finsbmy, Marylebone, and Lambeth. The Marquis of Chandos, after contending that to extend the elective franchise in that quarter would lead to a great excitement, and give the capital a preponderating influence over the rest of the country, moved an amendment, that the clause should be omitted. He was supported by Sir E. Sugden, Sir George Murray, and Lord Sandon, who argued that the provision was unnecessary, and far from being expedient. The clause was defended by Lords Althorp and John Russell, and Messrs. Macaulay and C. Grant, who, on the other hand, maintained that an increase to the metropolitan representation, was required both by justice and by the principles of the bill; and that the dangers apprehended from it were visionary, while those which would attend its refusal were real and unavoidable. On a division, the motion of the Marquis of Chandos was lost by a majority of three hundred and sixteen against two hundred and thirty-six. In the consideration of schedule D, which contained those new boroughs which were only to return one member, an unsuccessful attempt was made to include Stockton-on-Tees, and Merthyr Tydvil; but on the bringing up of the report, Lord John Russell informed the house that ministers had resolved to allow the latter place a member of its own: “treating it,” he said, “rather like an English town than a Welsh contributory borough.” By the 9th of March the committee had gone through the bill, and the report was considered on the 14th, on which day Mr. Croker put several resolutions on the journals without pressing them to a division, embodying the objections, not to the principles of the bill, but to the manner in which they had been applied. On the 19th the motion for the third reading of the bill was met by an amendment, moved by Lord Mahon, that it should be read a third time that day six months.
The amendment was seconded by Sir John Malcolm, and was followed by a debate which continued to the 22nd, in which old arguments, both for and against, were reiterated with deep earnestness. On a division, the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and fifty-five against two hundred and thirty-nine; leaving a majority of one hundred and sixteen for ministers. On the 23rd the bill was finally passed; an amendment which went to raise the qualification to twenty pounds in Liverpool, and all the new boroughs, returning two members, having been negatived without a division.