_Mr. Joseph Hume_ says,--"But I must submit that in whatever way you
view the question it is one of immense difficulty, because in the
established institutions of this country any change from the worse
to the better must always be attended with great difficulty, so far
as individual interests and contending parties are concerned. It is
with this view His Majesty's Ministers have done wisely. I candidly
confess that when the noble lord stated yesterday that it was not the
intention of the Ministry to introduce any clause respecting altering
the duration of Parliament, or Vote by Ballot, it struck me that the
measure was defective in that respect."
_Lord Newark_ "Did not suppose at a moment's warning it would put
an end to all corruption, but it was the vainest of all possible
expectations to imagine that reformed Parliament would not do more than
anything else to abate the evil. He confessed that he had not been
prepared for so sweeping a measure, and he hoped that they might be
induced to modify it before it was passed."
_Lord Darlington_ "Thought the rotten Boroughs ought to be carefully
observed, and when they were detected, should be deprived of their
Charter, but he could never agree with those who sought to demolish the
social structure for the purpose of erecting their own temple in its
stead."
_Lord Stormont_ "Would not agree to the Ministerial Budget of Reform.
He represented 'Aldborough' in Yorkshire. Now that borough happened to
be surrounded with walls, and as the place was as fully occupied now as
it was formerly, it was evident that no alteration had taken place in
the constituency. According to the noble Lord's statement, 163 members
were called upon to pronounce civil death to their constituents; he,
however, thought that there were not 168 gentlemen to be found anywhere
who would be ready to vote their own damnation." (_Sensation._)
_Mr. Macaulay._ "For himself he could only say, that so far as he was
able to consider the proposition of the noble lord during the last
twenty-four hours, he thought it a great, noble, and comprehensive
measure, a medicine most skilfully prepared for removing a dangerous
distemper, a plan excellently contrived for uniting and permanently
knitting together all orders in the State. They had forgot the attempts
made to put down emancipation, and how fruitless those attempts had
proved. Did they wait for a time when demagogues demanded again to
divide the power in the Cabinet of the Government of this country?
or did they wait for that worst of all resources in a conflict with
public opinion, the fidelity of the military? If they did not, let
them concede Reform, while yet concession could be made with advantage
to the country. It was yet time to save the property of the country
from risk, to save the multitude (who demanded reform) from its own
ungovernable power and passion, to save it from that danger, which even
a few days might expose them and the country to."
_Mr. Hunt._ "The people of England had for many years past been anxious
for reform, and in 1816, 1817, and 1819, had loudly expressed their
wishes for some measure to amend the state of representation. He did
not condemn the ministers for not going the full length (universal
suffrage) of his views; on the contrary, if they had only gone for
disfranchising one rotten borough, they would have had his support on
principle."
_Lord Morpeth_ said, "If the House was prepared to say that the demand
for reform was not proper, that the evil was not manifest, that the
corruption was not glaring, that they might with perfect consistency
determine not to give up a stone of Gatton, and to die in the ditch
at Old Sarum, where there was nothing left now but a ditch to die
in. He believed that the House would not so far outrage the sense of
the community as to say that they would not so much as entertain the
question of reform. Two extreme parties (Tories and Radicals) were now
agitating the country; one was opposed to all amelioration, and the
other advocated the worst species of reform, with a view of subverting
the existing institutions of the country, and all the gradations of
rank, society, and order. Between those two extremes the only safe path
was the Conservative principle to which the measure led that was now
submitted to the House; to that let them hold fast. By conceding what
was just, wise, and honest, they would be armed with tenfold power to
resist the dangerous principles of some now promulgated, which were
unjust, unwise, and unsafe."
_Sir Charles Wetherell_ said, "It appeared then by this Bill 60
boroughs were to be deprived of their franchise, and the time-honoured
right of sending 120 members to Parliament, and that 47 were to lose
one member each, and in the whole 168 members were to be ejected from
that honourable house. He did not wish to call this by an offensive
name, but as a great man (Mr. Locke) said that things should be called
by their proper names, he would call it by the name of "Corporation
Robbery"--(sensation). The present Cabinet of the noble lord, and his
associates, seem to have proceeded upon the precedent in the history
of England which had been set by Cromwell, Fairfax, Milbourne, and Co.
Those worthy regicides set about reducing the number of members of
Parliament in their day, and this plan of cutting off the boroughs, and
confining the number of members, had not the merit of originality, for
it was almost the same in form, in substance, and in principle, as the
Radical system of reform, which has been introduced by regicides when
they established a Commonwealth in England. Did gentlemen recollect
how many experimental governments were now afloat? Did they recollect
that there was a smithy of political blacksmiths, where constitutions
were constantly on the anvil which was at work in making new fangled
governments for all Europe. Let him be permitted, _as he was in
extremis_, to utter the last expiring expressions of a dying member
that Great Britain might not be added to the catalogue of experimental
states, and that those visionary projects of His Majesty's Ministers
might not be realised. He had taken the liberty to call this measure a
corporation robbery, and as there had lately been special commissions
sent down into the country to enquire into the breaking of thrashing
machines, he wished there could be a special commission issued from
the Crown for preventing the breaking up of ancient and independent
Corporations. There being no precedent for this confiscation of
corporate property, he should be glad to hear from the Attorney-General
upon what principle of law he would justify the present audacious
attack upon the corporate rights of so many of those ridiculed places
called small 'rotten boroughs.' He defied whether even he could lay
his finger on a single page of the journals of that house which would
at all warrant such an act of wholesale confiscation, aye of civil
sacrilege. Then what he asked was the mode by which this amorphous body
proposed to carry out their iniquitous measure? Why neither more nor
less than a most audacious threat to dissolve Parliament in the event
of their failure. The man who would be influenced by this audacious
menace on the present momentous occasion would be nothing less than a
rebel to his country--the man, he repeated, whom such a threat (uttered
by any government) would influence, was a man wholly unworthy the name
of a British Senator; was a recreant in morals; wholly deaf to the
calls of conscience and English liberty. Within the last three days the
house had been promised with a 'purge,' to which, as no name had been
given to it, he would attach the name of 'Russell's Purge.' Yes, he
would call this bill 'Russell's Purge of Parliament.' He held that the
principle of the bill was Republican in its basis; it was destructive
of all property, of all right, of all privileges; and that the same
arbitrary violence which expelled a majority of the members from
that house in the time of the Commonwealth, was now, after the lapse
of a century from the Revolution, during which time the population
had enjoyed greater happiness and security than was ever enjoyed by
any population under the heavens, proceeding to expose the House of
Commons, and the country again to the nauseous experiment of Pride's
Purge."
_The Attorney-General._ "Surely his honoured and learned friend (Sir
Chas. Wetherell) did not mean to say that Colonel Pride's Purge had
anything to do with Cromwell's system of reform, for the periods of
time at which they occurred were quite different. He would, however,
ask his honourable friend and those who were acting with him, whether
there was to be any reform at all? He had said that he was no enemy to
representative improvement. When, where, how, and in what shape had his
learned friend ever expressed himself a friend to reform? He had never
heard such a sentiment proceed from him before. If they were advocates
for reform to any extent, would they inform him of the plan, and how
far it went? His learned friend had never brought forward a plan of
reform, or expressed such a sentiment before that night. Corruptions
abundantly had been proved, and the people of England had at length
discovered that the evils which gave rise to such corruptions were
no longer to be tolerated. The House of Commons was called upon to
redress it; and he was satisfied that the members of that House, as
English gentlemen, would not hesitate to pursue their enquiries into
the practicability of redressing it, by passing the present bill. If
hon. gentlemen were inclined to say that no reform ought to be had,
or only such reform as could be effected by an _ex post facto_ law,
or a detestable bill of pains and penalties, the country knew what it
had to expect from them; but, if they said that reform was necessary,
but that this plan of reform was not satisfactory, then he would ask
them to try their hands at producing a scheme which would give them
less annoyance, and would prove more beneficial to the public at
large. He had the authority of Burke, Pitt, Fox, and Lord Chatham in
his best and proudest days, that reform in the House of Commons was
absolutely necessary for the preservation of the internal quiet of the
country. Mr. Pitt had said, "that without reform no honest man would
be, or could be, an upright minister." It was the mere accident of
Peers having purchased Boroughs, which made it worth while to consult
them as to matters which ought to appertain only to members of that
House, properly so called. He contended that this measure, far from
being unconstitutional, was in strict accordance with the spirit
of the constitution; to take the elective franchise from decayed
and corrupt Boroughs, and send them to more populated and healthy
places. He knew that there were some gentlemen who thought that the
Attorney-General ought to be a sort of censor over the press; but
let him tell those gentlemen that he could find occupation far more
advantageous to the country than proceeding against those whose very
violence prevented them from doing mischief, and only disgusted the
people whom it was their object to excite and exasperate. There were
other violators of the law who were much more dangerous to the public
weal. Let them hear no more about vested rights, for now if a Peer
chose to interfere, by bargaining and influence, to return members
to the House of Commons, that Peer was not only guilty of a gross
breach of the privileges of that House, but subjected himself also to
indictment at law. The character of the people of England was well
known, and it was not their character to approve and applaud acts of
spoliation and robbery. It was not consistent with the fact to say that
the people of this country had been a happy and contented people for
the last century, for, on the contrary, it was true that during that
time they had suffered much and severely from unjust measures of that
House, which would never have passed into law if the people had been
fairly represented in Parliament. Much had been said by hon. members
about revolutionary measures, he believed in his conscience that this
Bill was strictly within the constitution of the land, and the only
measure that is calculated to allay the outside clamour for reform, and
prevent revolution. His learned friend might quit this house a martyr
to the cause he has espoused, but he would have the satisfaction of
reflecting, that on one great question he had been the advocate of
intolerance, and on another the last champion of corruption."
_Mr. G. Bankes._ "The learned Attorney-General had referred to the
plan of reform which had been introduced by Oliver Cromwell in his
parliament, and had stated that Lord Clarendon had given it his opinion
"that it was well worthy of imitation by other parties." Now, let them
but just see how it had worked. Every thing that was absurd, futile,
and ridiculous, it would appear from their debates, had taken place in
this reformed parliament. As a test, however, of the merits of that
reformed parliament, he should quote to the House the opinion of the
parent of the measure after he (Cromwell) had tried it by experiment.
On dissolving this reformed parliament the Protector Cromwell said, 'My
Lords and Gentlemen of the House of Commons, I had every comfortable
expectation that God would make the meeting of this Parliament a
blessing, and the Lord be my witness, I desired the carrying on the
affairs of the nation to that end. Having proceeded upon these terms,
and finding such a spirit as is too much predominant, everything being
too high or too low, where virtue, honesty, piety and justice are
omitted, I thought I had been doing my duty, and thought it would have
satisfied you. You have not only disjointed yourselves but the whole
nation, which is in the likelihood of running into more confusion in
these 15 or 16 days that you have sat, than it hath been from the
rising of the last Session to this day. And if this be the end of your
sitting; and if this be your carriage, I think it high time that an end
be put to your sitting, and I do dissolve this Parliament, and let God
judge between you and me.' (Cries of hear, hear.) Cromwell had given
that parliament two trials, in the first instance five months, and the
second 16 days; at the end of which he was compelled to dissolve it."
_Mr. Hobhouse._ "He had listened to all that had been said on both
sides on the subject of this debate, and he had not heard one single
argument to show that there was any danger whatever that could arise,
or was likely to arise, from adopting the project of the noble lord.
Mr. Horace Swiss had expressed himself very much alarmed lest the
present plan of reform should throw the elective franchise into the
hands of shopkeepers and attorneys. He should like to ask where the
elective franchise voted now? By the bill of the noble lord, the
franchise would be thrown into the hands of that class which ought
to possess it--namely, of people of a certain degree of property,
and of those who had the greatest hold upon the higher classes. This
was as good and proper a basis as could be proposed. It was scarcely
possible to believe that any gentleman was sincere, when he expressed
an apprehension, that a system of public rectitude and intelligence in
electors would give vice and ignorance an ascendancy in the choice of
representatives, and that a system of perjury, bribery, and corruption
was essential to the attainment of virtue and knowledge. If those with
whom he agreed in opinion had been accused of appealing to the fears
of the people, he must accuse gentlemen opposite not of appealing to
the fears of the people, but of doing what was infinitely worse,--they
had appealed, by the worst of artifices, to the fears and selfish
passions of those whom they called the aristocracy of the country.
Could the gentlemen who now opposed the Ministry so violently make up
a Government amongst themselves? A Ministry can only be formed on one
of two principles--Anti-Reform or Reform--and so long as Ministers
attempted to go on without a majority in the house in their favour, and
the people outside against them, it was hopeless to expect tranquillity
or security in the State. He asked the right hon. gentlemen and the
house in the words of Poet Waller, in his famous speech on Episcopacy,
'to Reform, that is not to abolish the Parliament.'"
_Mr. Baring._ "He had sat in that House a many years; he had approved
of many acts of his hon. friends, but when a question of this magnitude
was brought forward he would state his opposition to it without
apology. Those who supported this measure said, 'let the king stand
by himself; let the lords stand by themselves; let the people stand
by themselves; let there be no mutual connection between them.' Such
was their doctrine, but such was not the constitution of this country.
What grievance, he would ask, did any man suffer in this country from
the action and conduct of the other House? Did they find those Peers
pressing on them in any way? Did they find them making laws which were
directed against the popular branch of the legislature? Did they not
find that their rights and liberties were as well secured as those of
the House of Lords? He knew of no such interference, and he was firmly
of opinion that the mixture of different powers and interests in that
House had been the great protector and promoter of public liberty.
It was certainly right and just that large popular bodies should be
represented; but could they, he would ask, allow that principle to
be put in force without having something to counter-balance it? His
noble friend had gone on a reforming tour, but he had taken care to
make no stay at the Borough of Tavistock, (which he represented). By
this plan Boroughs containing less than 2000 inhabitants were to be
disfranchised, and 47 Boroughs, having 4000 inhabitants, were to retain
one member. Would not Tavistock, which was to be retained, belong as
much to the Duke of Bedford as before? He would have the same influence
that he now possesses. If, however, great changes must be made, he
should regret it, and he must say that all the intelligent portion of
the country would view its progress with the greatest concern. Much
of the excitement was caused by this being announced as coming from
the crown, but he felt satisfied that, but for such announcement, the
people would be satisfied with a much less sweeping, and much more
moderate, plan of reform."
_The Marquis of Tavistock_ said, "It appeared to him that the
government of this country had for years been carried on on principles
of most unjustifiable and wasteful extravagance; that patronage had
been kept up for the purposes of maintaining the influences of the
Crown, and that which was known as Parliamentary influence, for the
purpose of carrying on measures against the sense of the country. The
people felt now that they had not their just influence in the councils
of the nation, and they naturally sought for that change which would
give it to them. He sincerely believed that the measure now before the
House would give them all they reasonably could desire. He hoped it
would curb the monopoly so long maintained by the higher orders, and
give a fair expression of the sense of the middle classes. With this
view he should give it his cordial support."
_Lord Palmerston._ "Fondness for change he must say was not the
character of the English people. They had always been remarkable for a
tenacious attachment to their national institutions, affording in this
respect a striking contrast to their neighbours, the French nation.
We well know the difficulty of bringing the people to consent to any
change in their laws, how long and difficult was the struggle which
brought them to give up first the traffic in human beings, the accursed
Slave Trade, and at a later period those laws which condemned a large
portion of the people to political degradation--he meant the penal laws
against Roman Catholics. He contended that the people of this country
sought for a change because the state of the country was such as to
require it. The rock which the late government had split upon was their
defiance of public opinion. They went on spreading wide the canvas of
patronage as they proceeded--but that patronage, and the use they made
of it, did not accelerate their progress, or increase their power, but
proved to be their ruin. Taunts had been thrown out during the debate
against those who like himself were great admirers of the late Mr.
Canning. They had been taunted for abandoning the principles which
that great man had adopted with respect to the important question of
reform. He thought that the events that had taken place in that House
since the death of that illustrious man might have taught those who had
indulged in such taunts that public men might change their opinions on
questions of deep national concernment without being influenced by any
but honest and honourable motives. If any man took a great and enlarged
view of human affairs--without doubt that eminent statesman did--he
would venture to say that had Mr. Canning lived in these days, and
stood in the same circumstances as he (Lord Palmerston) did, his great
genius would at once have comprehended the necessity of the occasion,
and would have stated in that House his well-known convictions of the
necessity for a reform of the representation of the people. If any
hon. member wanted to learn the opinions of Mr. Canning let him refer
to his speech delivered in February, 1826, on the freedom of the silk
trade, when he said 'that those who resisted improvements because it
was innovation upon old worn systems, might find themselves compelled
to accept innovation when it had ceased to be improvement.' He believed
that the proposition would prove satisfactory to the country; he
believed that there did not exist in any country in the world a body
of men more entitled to respect and confidence than the middle classes
of this country. He would venture to say that there was not a class of
men more distinguished for morality and good conduct; for intelligence
and love of order; for true loyalty to the king; for affection for the
constitution; and in case of need for devotion to the country. To the
manufacturing towns it was intended to give thirty-four members, and to
preserve the just preponderance of the landed interest, it was proposed
to add fifty-five new members to the counties. He would add that it was
not talents under the present system that procured a man a seat in that
House, but length of purse, the ability to pay agents and post-horses
up to the fourteenth day. This was a great and practical evil, and this
evil the Bill would do away with, for it would alter the distribution
of the different classes, and bring the middle classes into communion
with others."
_Sir Robert Peel._ "He begged his noble friend to believe that he did
not join in the taunts against him. He never could think that public
men did not look to higher motives than a desire to retain their places
when they were induced to change their opinions, and the character,
the views, and the conduct of his noble friend afforded a sufficient
guarantee for the purity of his motives. In his anxiety to find cause
for blaming the administration which had preceded the last, his noble
friend had said, that if in 1828 that Government had consented to
transfer the elective franchise from the rotten borough of East Retford
to Birmingham, the House would not now be discussing the necessity
for a general reform, for that single measure would have quieted the
apprehensions of the people. But, if from such small events such mighty
results would spring, it was incumbent upon the House to enquire what
was the paramount considerations under those circumstances which _now_
rendered it imperative to change the constitution of the country. Why
did they not consent to the disfranchisement of East Retford? His
noble friend had lamented that the voice of Mr. Canning could not now
be heard in that House, and had assumed that his voice would have
been raised in favour of this Reform Bill. God grant that voice might
now be raised in that House, convinced as he was, that it would be
raised to confound the fallacies and sophistries by which the public
mind was deceived. He regretted that the name of the King should be
obtruded upon the house day by day; and he could not dismiss from
his mind doubts and fears as to the justice and expediency of this
extreme measure of disfranchisement; but, granting that they did not
exist, still it was a harsh measure towards the loyal bodies who were
called upon to sacrifice privileges which they had long exercised;
and even if it was justly introduced, why should the King be held out
as the special author of the plan. Then, the House was threatened
with a dissolution; in his opinion the chances of a dissolution were
as strong if the measure were carried as if it failed. They did not
think that if they rejected that bill it implied an aversion to all
measures of reform! Upon the same principle those gentlemen rejected
the ballot, and why was he not at liberty to discuss this bill? He
had never been the person to excite the people to a pitch of frenzy,
to spur their lazy indifference into an emulation of revolutionary
clamour. If, therefore, this measure which common prudence would have
forborne introducing at such a crisis in our foreign and domestic
relations, when fresh causes of excitement ought to be very cautiously
avoided; if, he said, this extraordinary measure should be defeated he
would never allow that the responsibility of the disappointment could
attach to him, or those honourable members who acted with him in that
House. Some disparagement had been made upon the middle classes, but
he did not participate in that sentiment; on the contrary, he should
ever repudiate it from his heart, for he (personally) desired his
strength from that order of society; he was one of themselves, and
should always be proud of his connexion with the middle classes of this
country. He had heard frequent allusions to Burke and Canning, and
other authorities whose opinions had been advanced in the course of the
debate, but he would quote a passage from a speech of the noble member
for Tavistock (Lord John Russell), in the session of 1819, which he
considered much more to the purpose, and was, besides being apposite
to the question, one of the most beautiful specimens of eloquence ever
uttered in that house. The discussion related to the disfranchisement
of a corrupt borough in Cornwall. When asked what he would do with
the unconvicted boroughs, he replied that he would consider a general
disfranchisement of the unconvicted boroughs a reconstruction of the
House of Commons altogether. He has therefore the noble lord's own
authority for so designating the present plan of reform. He then
observed that 'Old Sarum' had existed when Montesquieu pronounced the
constitution of England the nearest to perfection of any which the most
enlightened States had ever before experienced. When Lord Somers, and
the other great legislators who flourished with him, bore attestation
to its merits, it was open to the same objections which have since
been urged against it, and when Hampden lost his life Rutland returned
the same number of members as Yorkshire. Such was the noble lord's
judicious, and at the present moment timely, warning against the danger
of rashly departing from the practical wisdom of mankind during the
centuries of historic experience, proffered at the critical junction
of 1819. With respect to the question before the House, he could not
but declare that he saw in it but the instrument of men endeavouring
to retain power. It was the inevitable tendency of the Bill to sever
every link of connexion between the poorer classes, and that class from
whom the representatives were now chosen. Now, this severing of the
ties which connected the highest and the lowest classes was opposed to
the practical working of the present system of representation, which
enabled every class, in some way or other, to have a voice in the
election of the members of that House. With regard to the influence
of the oligarchy, he would ask hon. members to point out to him any
attempt to subject the people of England to the sway of an oligarchy,
or to establish any laws of exclusion or distinction among them. Up to
this time no practical advantage had been held out to the House, as to
the natural consequences of the change now proposed. All the reason
that had been urged that it was necessary to conciliate public opinion.
No better way of conciliating public opinion had been devised, than
that of adding half a million of electors to the constituency of the
country; but if that were a good way of conciliating public feeling,
then, if another Government, wishing to participate in this popular
favour, should add another million of electors to the constituency,
would that argument meet with the same favour and success? Look at
the question of reform in all its bearings--look at the parliamentary
debates, and you will find that whenever the question was agitated
some dire misfortune lurked behind. It was brought forward with great
pomp of circumstances in the year of the rebellion in 1745; it was
brought forward during the American war; it was brought forward at the
commencement of the French war; and, to come to our own times, it was
prominently brought forward in 1817, 1819, 1822, in a word, at every
period in which there was either commercial or great agricultural
distress in the country. Then, it was sure to find great favour with
the people. It was brought forward also at the periods when the
excitements of foreign revolutions misled the judgment of the British
public, and, deluding them with a false love of liberty, rendered them
discontented with the moderate freedom they enjoyed. Let us therefore
be content with the well-tempered freedom that we now enjoy, and which
we have the means of securing if we act with ordinary discretion. I
lament exceedingly that the Government should have determined to have
agitated such a vital question, as that of reform, at this particular
crisis; it would have been wiser in my opinion to have avoided these
new causes of excitement, for depend upon it by this process throughout
the land the first seeds of discontent and disunion are sown. Oh, sir,
I lament beyond measure that the Government had not the prudence to
adhere to that course of policy, which, if they did think it necessary
to propose a plan of reform in this excited state of the public mind,
they did not confine it within those narrow limits which are consistent
with the safety of the country and the dignity of their own characters.
They have sent through the land a firebrand of agitation; and it is
easy so far to imitate the giant enemy of the Philistines as to send
300 firebrands carrying danger and dismay in all quarters, but it is
not so easy when the mischief is done to find a remedy for it. In the
present difficulty you should have the powers of summoning all the
energies of life, and should take care that you do not signalize your
own destruction by bowing down the pillars of the edifice of your
liberty, which, with all its imperfections, still contains the noblest
society of freemen known to the habitable world."
_Mr. Calcraft._ "Solemnly declared his opinion that this measure must,
in the end, convert this country into a Republic; and the trifling
difference that existed between his noble friend, the opposition and
himself, was this--that he was for reform, and the noble lord was for
revolution."
_Mr. Wm. Duncombe._ "He had listened to the proposition of the noble
Lord, and in taking a retrospect of the whole debate he was compelled
to acknowledge that there was much more of declamation in it than of
argument, much more of assertion than of fact, and much more of fear
than of resolution. He deemed it to be revolutionary with respect to
the Constitution and Government of the country, and as it affected the
people of England it was tyrannical and unjust. He had never consented
to the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, nor would he
ever consent to the disfranchisement proposed by this Reform Bill."
_Mr. Stanley._ "Had anxiously listened to the discussions that had
taken place in that House the last eight years upon the all-absorbing
question of Reform, without having ventured to give more than a
silent, though cordial vote in favour of the great principles which
it involved. He confessed that he had heard the right hon. baronet
(Sir R. Peel) with some sorrow, use, he would not say inflammatory
language, when speaking of this measure, but declare that it would
lead to revolution. It was not a revolutionary measure, no, but it
was a new constitution. Now, his idea of revolution was this, that
revolution was a great change effected in the constitution of a
country by the use of unconstitutional means, and force, called by the
extraordinary circumstances of the time into operation, and enabled,
in consequence of the operation of those circumstances, to overthrow
the constitution. When this was the case, let those who had always
on principles of justice and of policy maintained and upheld this
great question of Parliamentary Reform,--let them in bringing their
proposition forward, without being told that they were endeavouring to
overawe and intimidate the House, be allowed to advert to the situation
of the country as a collateral argument in favour of the measure
they advocated. He regretted as much as any man that the name of the
Sovereign had been used in that House. He was sorry that that name had
been brought forward in a manner which might be supposed likely to
influence their decision. But the name of the Sovereign had been made
use of in the public press, and to that he could only answer that the
House had no influence over the public press. The hon. Baronet said,
'Why has Government brought this Bill forward? It is a bad time and
ought not to be introduced now.' In answer to this we would ask, what
was the conditional pledge upon which Ministers came in and without
which his noble friend (Lord John Russell) would not have accepted
office. It was this, that they would bring in a measure of Reform. Now,
with this pledge on their lips, with those principles in their hearts,
which they had always maintained, they entered office. Now, what is the
kind of advice the hon. Baronet gives them, he said, 'Now, that you are
in office, tell the people that the time is not convenient for Reform!'
If the Government acted on such a principle as that, then indeed a
fearful responsibility would rest upon their shoulders. Dreadful
would be the consequences arising from disappointed hopes, and high
expectations blighted and falsified by the mean conduct of those upon
whom the people had relied. But let the House look back for the last
few years and mark the time, the money, and the talents which had been
wasted in discussing useless questions with respect to boroughs charged
with malpractices, inquiring, for instance, whether one voter received
one guinea and another five, when it was notorious that boroughs were
commonly bought and sold in the market by the proprietors. And, after
all this labour and enquiry, what had been gained in the shape of any
reform, not one great town, not one great district, had been added
to those represented in that House. Not one corrupt borough had been
deprived of the means of corruption. It was the opinion of Mr. Pitt,
when he attempted to effect a reform in Parliament, that a certain line
should be fixed to the disfranchisement of rotten and corrupt boroughs,
and asserted, that in the earlier periods of the constitution, 'That
as one borough decayed and another arose, the one was abolished, and
the other was invested with the right.' He had been told some curious
circumstances connected with the proceedings at Wareham. His hon.
friend had informed him that on the occasion of his being chaired as
one of the members for Wareham, he heard one elector say to another,
'Pray, which is the new member.' Why, answered the other, 'Calcraft
is one, and a friend of his is the other; but I never saw him, and I
don't know who he is.' Doubtless any person recommended by his hon.
friend would be highly respectable but he was elected without being at
all known by the electors. For his own part he felt no alarm for the
results of the Bill. By that Bill would be upheld the influence of the
aristocracy as it was before; he meant that legitimate influence which
they ought to possess, not the influence of bribery and corruption, nor
the influence of direct nominations, for the only influence which the
Bill would remove was that which was notoriously illegal. Ministers
had come into office pledged to economy, retrenchment, and reform;
these pledges they had redeemed. They had cut off from themselves and
their successors for ever that corrupt patronage upon which heretofore
so much of the Government depended. With these views of the measure
before the House, he earnestly implored hon. members, by their sense of
justice to the country, by their respect of what was due to the people,
by their regard for the maintenance of that glorious constitution, what
had been handed down to them by their ancestors, by their regard for
the permanency of our institutions, and the peace and security of the
state; he called on them by all these considerations, by their respect
for the petitions of the people, for what might be lawfully asked
and could not be constitutionally refused, to support His Majesty's
Government in their endeavour to uphold and cement the legitimate
rights of the Crown, the aristocracy, and the people, and, by so doing,
to fix the whole as well as their own fame on the imperishable basis of
the affections of the people."
_Mr. H. Seymour._ "This measure proceeded not from fear, but from a
desire to court popularity. It was an unjust attempt to reduce the
power of the aristocracy, as well as of the lower classes. He contended
that if the House was the corrupt body it was represented to be, it
was incompetent to settle this great question. It was a measure devoid
of principle, or if principle was asserted in some parts of the plan
it was violated in others. It was broken through for some portion of
the aristocracy to court popularity; if the constitution was to be
violated in this manner, he would rather have no constitution at all.
The whole measure was, in his opinion, one of deceit; it removed the
direct influence which was seen, and left that which was much worse,
the influence which it could not see, yet of which it complained. To a
measure of that kind he could not give his consent."
_Mr. G. W. Wynn._ "The constitution of this country was one of constant
innovations and perpetual amendments; but admitting this, he thought
such amendments ought to be gradual. Many changes which might be
made with great advantage, would, if made at once, be found highly
beneficial to the country. It was on this principle that he, from time
to time, supported motions for the disfranchisement of boroughs which
had been found guilty of gross corruption, and without any personal
vanity, he might say, that he it was that drew the transfer clause to
give the franchise of the corrupt Borough of Helstone to Yorkshire. He
was aware that it had been said that the present measure, if agreed to,
would preclude any further change; but if the measure was rejected,
demands for greater changes would be made by the people. He had always
thought that those great towns ought to have representatives, and he
believed their possessing the elective franchise would be beneficial to
the country."
_Mr. Tennyson_ said, "That he would support the measure of his noble
friend (Lord John Russell), for he believed that it would put the
representation upon a permanent and, he hoped, everlasting standing.
The sacrifice he should make by losing his seat was nothing to him,
but he felt bound to refer to his relative, Mr. Wm. Russell. That hon.
member, by this present Bill, would be called upon to make a sacrifice
of three of what are termed nomination boroughs; boroughs not purchased
by him, but which had descended to him by inheritance; and he was
willing to offer this £100,000, the value of these nominations, upon
the altar of his country, in order to ransom her from that oligarchy
which has too long held her destinies in their merciless and unhallowed
power."
_Mr. Daniel O'Connell_ said, "That he looked upon the plan as large,
liberal and wise, and he should give it his most decided and anxious
support, for in fact it was an effectual measure of reform. It was well
known that he was a Political Reformer, and that he was in favour of
Universal Suffrage and shorter Parliaments; yet, though the measure
did not embrace these points, it was still very liberal, and would be
an experiment to prove whether any further extension was necessary.
He was delighted with the mode in which the noble lord had treated
the close boroughs; he had applied the pruning knife to the rotten
boroughs with a thorough masterly hand. Every part of the constitution
was violated by their existence. We could venture to say that the mound
of Sarum was a Constitutional Borough? Why should noble lords have the
right to send members to sit in that House? Good God, was it to be
sounded in their ears that the Lords were to send their members, one
after another, in the most open and avowed manner into that House for
these rotten and close boroughs; and was he to be told that they were
about to commit robbery; that they were guilty of an unjust seizure of
franchises? But who were the robbers? He never heard of a grant of a
Charter from the Crown, or any Parliament, empowering any individual to
send members to Parliament. No, the franchises were granted to them,
and it was not that this act seized and destroyed them; but this act
was intended to lay hold of the spoliaters of them. That House had no
right to question the privileges of the House of Lords, but it had
as good a right to do it as the lords had to spoliate the privileges
and liberties of the House of Commons. The people out of doors talked
good sense, they say, 'you have got our property, you have spoliated
our liberties, but you must disgorge them.' God help those members
who could crawl into that House and then talk of coming in without
stooping. He would ask the hon. members for Bowbridge and Aldborough,
if they could stand forward and advocate that system, which in the
rotten boroughs gave annual debaucheries, and every six years (for 14
days) all that bribery, and corruption, and robbery could inflict,--was
it fit that such a system of misrepresentation should stand any longer?
Were not the nomination boroughs openly sold, and was not the price
of them as well known as cattle in Smithfield? In 1822, the votes
against Reform and Retrenchment gave a return of 19 votes out of 20,
by members representing places not containing an average population
of 500 persons. When they talked of the excellent working of the
present Constitution, he would whisper a single word into their ears,
'Ireland,' that country, of whose people perennial starvation was the
lot; he would call upon them to secure to that country the blessings
of good Government, and to give to that House a fair and honourable
representation."
_Mr. Coke_ said, "That he had been a member of that House for more
than half-a-century, and during that long time he had watched the
proceedings of parties, and the results of great questions, and he must
say that every day he was more and more convinced of the necessity for
reform. When he had heard that the noble Lord had made a resolution to
do away with rotten boroughs he felt great confidence in the measure,
and was convinced of the necessity of giving the administration his
warmest support."
_Colonel Tidthorp._ "Although there were many blemishes in the existing
representative system of the country, he could never bring himself
to consent to a remedy by the means of taking away the franchise,
at one whole sweep, from so many people who had never abused the
constitutional trust reposed in them. He could not but pronounce the
measure in this respect to be most unjust and tyrannical."
_Mr. R. Grant_ said, "That they were told that the Reformers
entertained the most extravagant expectations, and that the only use
that they intended to make of the present concessions was to render
them subservient to the attainment of objects, remote, dangerous,
and undefined. Had not the history of mankind assured them that the
most effectual mode of resisting unreasonable demands was, to concede
everything which reason and justice could claim. The people of England
were entitled to the whole House of Commons, but in the debate they
had been told that they were not to look for any such thing, that
the Commons House of Parliament had never existed in the British
Constitution, and that the House they had was not the House of Commons,
but was something belonging to the Three Estates, it was the House of
the King, of the Lords, and the Commons!!! In noting this argument he
considered that he gave it its most complete refutation; the House to
which he belonged was the Commons House, and nothing else, Peers and
Bishops could not sit in it. It was vain to talk of maintaining the
doctrines which had been broached in this discussion, in the present
diffused state of knowledge throughout England, with the immense number
of schools in every part of the kingdom, with the prodigious increase
in Mechanics' Institutions, and with all that could give an impetus
to the human mind, it was vain to talk of arresting progress, or of
blinding men to what interested them so deeply. The present state of
the popular enlightenment demanded an improved legislature, and it
would be at once dangerous and absurd, and unjust, to resist such a
demand."
The main features of this great Reform Bill were the disfranchisement
of rotten small towns and places which had fallen into insignificance,
and confer such franchise upon large towns and populations which
hitherto had not any representation. The 40s. freehold vote for
counties had existed for upwards of _three centuries_, but it was
supplemented with a £50 occupation clause, and all borough votes were
fixed at a £10 rental.
The effect of this sweeping measure was that 56 small towns and places,
having a population of less than 2000, were entirely disfranchised.
Thirty towns, having a population under 4000, hitherto sending two
members to parliament, were reduced to one member; twenty-two large
towns, not having had a representative, were supplied with two members
each; twenty other smaller towns were allotted one member each. The
remainder of the seats were added to the counties, some of which
obtained two additional members, and others only one member.
The Reform Bill passed the House of Lords, on June 4th, 1832.
The debate on the Reform Bill in the House of Lords was of a very
excited character, considering the usual gravity of the lords, and the
following recital may be worth perusal:--
"The death of George IV. occurred on the 26th June, 1830. The question
of Parliamentary reform belongs probably to the succeeding reign of
William IV., at the opening of which--after the dissolution and general
election--public feeling ran so high, in consequence of the declaration
of the Duke of Wellington against reform, that the King was warned not
to venture into the city to dine with the Lord Mayor. The scene in the
House of Lords on the occasion of the King coming down to dissolve
parliament is described as being 'riotous.' Lord Wharncliffe rose to
propose his motion affecting the estimates; the Duke of Richmond was
determined to defeat the motion, and interrupted the noble lord by
calling attention to the fact--on a point of order--that noble lords
were not in their places, and moved that standing Order No. 1 be read,
which renders it necessary that noble lords 'shall sit in their proper
places.' The opportunity seized for this intentional interruption arose
out of a noble earl having sat next to one of the junior barons of
the House. Lords Londonderry and Clanricarde simultaneously rose to
'order,' Lord Wharncliffe protested, and Lord Lyndhurst delivered a
violent attack on the Duke of Richmond, to which the latter retorted
by threatening that if this 'tone' were repeated he would move that
Standing Order No. 1 should be read, and further, 'that the order
should also be read which forbids the use of intemperate and offensive
language in the House.' Violent rage and angry gesticulation, it is
reported, ensued. Lord Wharncliffe again attempted to resume his
address, when the Lord Chancellor cut short his remarks by clutching
the seals and darting out of the House. As the King advanced the noise
of the altercation became distinctly audible to him, and he asked,
'What's that, my Lord Chancellor?' To which the Chancellor replied,
'Only, may it please you, sir, the House of Lords amusing themselves.'
The King having ascended the throne, the 'Commons' were summoned to
the Royal presence. The Usher of the Black Rod (Sir Thomas Tyrwhit)
on proceeding to fulfil the Royal command, found the Commons in a
'state of turbulence and disorder.' On the presentation of a petition
for reform Sir Richard Vyvyan arraigned Ministers in an 'offensive
speech.' Uproar ensued, amidst which Sir Francis Burdett rose to order.
The Speaker declared Sir Richard in order, when Mr. Tennyson disputed
the propriety of the Speaker's decision. The Speaker decided that Sir
Richard was in order. The latter then remarked upon the proceeding of
any member questioning the decision of the 'chair.' What followed is
very remarkable. Lord John Russell at once rose 'to complain that any
member should be blamed for so doing,' and 'denying that the decision
of the chair was necessarily imperative in the House.' The entrance of
the Usher, above mentioned, put a stop to these turbulent proceedings,
and the King informed his 'faithful Commons,' in a shrill angry
voice, that he came down with a view to the 'instant dissolution' of
Parliament. After all, our Parliamentary ancestors were not the orderly
beings now-a-days represented; nor is it deemed desirable that their
turbulent example should be imitated. The ancient Borough of Dudley
obtained one member by the Reform Bill, but in Charles I.'s time it had
two Members of Parliament."
Dudley, like most rising towns, was keenly observing these great
political movements, and as far as its influence went in the county
elections on the reform question, it was considered that the reformers
of Dudley were mainly instrumental in unseating _Colonel Lygon_ at the
county election on May 11th, 1831.
In anticipation that the town of Dudley was to have a representative in
Parliament under the Reform Bill, efforts were made by both political
parties to secure a preponderance of power and influence in this
question, and we quote a requisition to the Mayor, in 1831, to hold a
public meeting to consider this business.