GEORGE IV. 1826—1827
The chancellor of the exchequer opened the budget on the 13th of March. In doing so he took a large review of the whole financial system, particularly of reductions which during several years had been made in taxation, and of the effect of these reductions in the productiveness of the revenue. His statements for the year partook of the favourable character which they had sustained for the last three years, although he admitted that he must make allowance for some loss in various branches of revenue, consequent on the present state of public embarrassment. After all the deductions, however, he reckoned the probable produce of the year before him at not less than £57,000,000, while he calculated on the whole expenditure at £56,328,421. This statement, holding out much happier prospects than, from the distress which prevailed in the country, could have been anticipated, was received by the house with general satisfaction. Mr. Maberly and Mr. Hume, however, maintained not only that there had been no reduction of the public debt, but that there had been an actual increase both in the capital, and in the annual charge, and that taxation had been raised instead of being diminished. They alleged that the capital of the debt had been increased by the enormous sum of £61,646,000 between 1819 and 1826, and that the annual charge had grown in proportion. This assertion, however, rested on an obvious fallacy, arising out of a total misapprehension of the nature of what is called the dead-weight scheme, and of the arrangements which, in pursuance of it, had been made with the Bank for discharging part of the half-pay and pension list. Mr. Hume’s assertion, that taxation had increased during the last three years was still more erroneous; for the chancellor of the exchequer in his statements proved to demonstration, by actual figures, that from 1816 to 1825 taxes had been reduced to the large amount of £27,522,000, and that no new taxes had been imposed. Subsequently the state of the public debt underwent much discussion, the great questions being not whether it ought or might be reduced, but what was its actual amount, and whether, in point of fact, any diminution of it had been effected during late years. The amount of the army, navy, and civil estimates was also censured by Messrs. Maberly and Hume with other members, but the necessary supplies of the year were readily voted.
BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
On the 2nd of March Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better prevention of bribery at elections. Leave was given; and on the second reading of it Mr. Wynn stated that he had many objections to it, which he feared it would not be practicable to remove so as to render it fit for the adoption of the house. As he understood it, he said, the principle of the bill was, that upon complaint made to the house by petition, a select committee should be appointed to try the issue, and that their decision should be final. There was an obvious objection to this; namely, that the decision of no committee could be binding upon that house. The inquisitorial powers of the house might be delegated, but not the judicial. A body might be appointed to bring in a true verdict as to fact, but the question of corruption was a question of influence. All that a committee could do was to report to the house, and the house could proceed on that report or not as it pleased. Mr. Wynn also objected to the clause which gave power to present petitions of complaint within six years from the period of election; and that there was no penalty or punishment assigned to an unfounded charge. The bill was supported by Messrs. Hobhouse, Smith, and Fyshe Palmer, but it did not proceed further; for when the report on the bill was to be taken into consideration, Lord John Russell stated that it was not his intention to press it during the session, but that he would probably embody its provisions in the shape of resolutions. On the last day of the session he moved, therefore, that “whenever a petition shall be presented to this house after the expiration of the time allowed for presenting petitions against the validity of the return of any member of this house, by any person or persons, affirming that at any time within eighteen calendar months previous to presenting the said petition, general bribery or corruption has been practised for the purpose of procuring the election or return of any member or members to serve in parliament for any borough, cinque-port, or place, and it shall appear to the house that such petition contains allegations sufficiently specific to require further investigation, a day and hour shall be appointed by the said house for taking the said petition into consideration, so that the space of twenty days shall intervene between the day on which the said petition shall have been presented, and the day appointed by the said house for taking the same into consideration, &c.”—“that at the hour appointed by the said house for taking such petition into consideration, the said house shall proceed to appoint a select committee to inquire into the truth of the matters contained in the said petition, and report the result of their inquiry to the said house, and such select committee shall consist of thirteen members chosen by lot, &c.” Mr. Wynn said, that he did not intend to object to the principles of these resolutions, but he thought they had better be reserved till the next parliament, as they would have to be confirmed by it. Mr. Peel thought so likewise, as the last day of the session was not a fitting time to give them that consideration which their importance demanded. Lord John Russell, however, pressed his motion to a division, as he could not be certain of having a seat in the next parliament, and the numbers on each side being equal, the speaker gave his casting vote in favour of the resolutions.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
On the 27th of April Lord John Russell again brought forward the question of parliamentary reform. The resolution he proposed was “that the present state of the representation of this country in parliament requires the most serious consideration of this house.” In his speech on this occasion he laid down two premises: first, “that it was a matter of paramount importance to adapt every government to the wants and wishes, the prejudices and existing circumstances of the country for which it was intended; and that the people of this country had arrived at a degree of knowledge, intelligence, and wealth, which made them a people more worthy than had ever before existed of being entrusted with the privilege of electing their representatives, and more capable of exercising it with advantage.” From these premises he concluded that the house of commons as it existed at present, was badly constituted; for instead of being chosen by the more numerous, the more intelligent, and the mora wealthy class, it was elected by the minority, the less intelligent, and the less wealthy. As therefore the elective franchise, instead of remaining in the hands of the many, had become the property of a few, and as such a discrepancy between the condition of the people, and the constitution of the government had unhappily come into existence, calamities would one day or other ensue, unless the state of the representation were amended, from which neither the constitution nor the country would ever recover. After noticing the objections commonly urged against the necessity of reform, the noble mover continued, that, of two modes of reform which it was customary to propose, the one a total reconstruction, and the other a partial renovation of the house of commons, the latter appeared to him of the soundest principle, and the best suited to the condition of the country. The principal feature of his plan, he explained, would be, to restrict a hundred of the smaller boroughs to one member instead of allowing them two, and to give the number of representatives thus subtracted from them to towns of importance unrepresented. These details, however, he said, would be matter of future deliberation. The object he had in view was, in the words of Mr. Fox, “not to pull down, but to work upon our constitution; to examine it with care and reverence; to repair it where decayed; to amend it where defective; to prop it where it wanted support; and to adapt it to the purposes of the present time, as our ancestors had done from generation to generation, and always transmitted it not only unimpaired, but improved, to posterity.” The measure was supported by Mr. Hobhouse, and opposed by Messrs. Dennison and Lamb; but the debate did not present much novelty, and it terminated in the rejection of the motion by a majority of two hundred and forty-seven to one hundred and twenty-three.