HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1830s → 1835 → August 1835 → 27 August 1835 → Lords Sitting
CORPORATION REFORM—REPORT.
HL Deb 27 August 1835 vol 30 cc1026-65 1026
§ Viscount Melbourne
, in moving that the Report on the Municipal Corporations' Bill be received, said, that he begged to guard himself most explicitly against being supposed to give any sanction or any approbation to the amendments which their Lordships had thought proper to introduce into this Bill. In his opinion those amendments greatly diminished the benefits of, and considerably deteriorated the Bill as originally brought up from the House of Commons. He thought their Lordships, in consenting to those amendments, had been agitated by unreasonable fears and unnecessary apprehensions of evils not likely to take place from the measure as it was originally brought under their consideration, and that to those unsubstantial evils their Lordships had applied most inefficient remedies. He thought their Lordships had completely departed from the clear, simple, plain, intelligible, safe, and secure principle upon which the Bill was founded and sent up to their Lordships, and in its stead had adopted a principle comprising complexity, intricacy, and every variety of provisions, none of which would, in his judgment, have the effect which he believed had been intended, but, on the contrary, would be productive of most prejudicial effects upon his country, because nothing was mo e certain than that the law which did not 1027 produce the benefits anticipated from it, the law that failed to guard against the evils which it was designed to remove, was certain to produce other effects not anticipated by those who introduced those laws, effects which were certain to be of a prejudicial nature. At the same time, considering the great importance of this Bill, and the equal importance that the question to which it related should be settled if possible—considering that the feelings of the country had been increased by the sudden and unexpected manner in which the opposition to this measure had been raised in this House, and by the alterations which had been made by their Lordships—he repeated, considering all these important elements, he was for one not disposed to offer any obstacles in the way of now receiving those amendments. At the same time, in so doing he must beg leave to state that he could not answer for the support of the other House of Parliament being given to any of those amendments either in toto, or to any portion of them. He, however, thought it was due to the attention which had been bestowed by their Lordships upon the Bill, that their amendments should be submitted to the mature and deliberate consideration of the other House of Parliament. It was not, therefore, his intention to trouble their Lordships by going into any of the various topics and questions that had arisen on this Bill—a Bill which had been discussed at so much length, but upon the bringing up of the Report he should, nevertheless, feel it his duty to move the omission of those amended provisions of the Bill which appeared to him to be most objectionable, and by such omission to endeavour to place the Bill in the same situation and form in which it was brought up from the other House. He should, amongst others, move the omission of the clause saving the rights of the freemen—a clause, in his judgment, peculiarly objectionable. He should also move to omit the clause recognizing the rights of aldermen for life; and he should also endeavour to replace the qualification clause for the Council in the same state in which it had been brought up from the House of Commons. He did not believe that the qualification clause which had been introduced by the noble and learned Lord into the Bill would at all tend to the object which he felt satisfied noble Lords opposite themselves had in view. It was unsuitable to the state of 1028 many of the towns to which it would under the Bill be applied; for property afforded no certain criterion of talent or respectability, and the effect (as he was given to understand) of a property qualification would in many towns be to exclude persons of respectability and worth, while it admitted individuals of a very different description into the governing body of such towns. The same amount of evil would arise from the qualification clause proposed by his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Devon); that clause was liable to all the objections which could be raised against the other, and would fail in its object. The clause of his noble Friend would exclude no one, and of those it attempted to exclude the majority might be honest men, while those admitted might be fraudulent in declaring themselves to be possessed of property to an amount which they really did not possess. He would not now say more than that he should move to omit these amendments on the bringing up of the Report; and upon the qualification clause, and that relating to the aldermen for life, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House.
Lord Ellenborough
, entertaining very different opinions both upon the amendments made by their Lordships in this Bill, and upon the course which he thought it to be the duty of his Majesty's Government to take with respect to it as it stood, from those of the noble Viscount, was anxious to express his sentiments on these subjects. It might, perhaps, be more convenient that he should postpone his observations, until the verbal amendments had been agreed to, but in this respect he would meet the wishes of the House. When he voted for the second reading of this Bill, he had done so only in the hope that their Lordships would adopt such amendments as would induce him to think it was likely to become a beneficial measure. Those amendments had been made, and he was now ready to agree to the Report, but as those amendments had been discussed separately, and as there had been no general discussion with respect to the Bill in its amended state, it would be well to look back and examine what had been done, and whether any of the amendments ought to be reconsidered and altered. At every step which had been taken in effecting those amendments, those who had brought them forward had been assailed with the strongest reprehension, 1029 had been charged with vexatious opposition—had been told they were mutilating the Bill, and outraging the feelings of the people of England—and that as a House of Lords they were committing suicide by their own conduct. What had that conduct been? In the first instance, had they been wrong in hearing Counsel at the Bar? Their Lordships had a precedent for this course in the case of the measure affecting the hereditary jurisdictions in Scotland—a measure entertained at a time of great agitation, at the end of a rebellion which, if not based upon, was at least assisted by the influence of those very hereditary jurisdictions. In that case, and in such times, Counsel were heard on the measure at the Bar of their Lordships' House, and on this occasion he and those who thought with him were of opinion that the same course ought to be followed, because, as shown in the precedent he had cited, it was the custom in matters of property for this House to hear Counsel, and it was the right of the subject so to be heard. On the present occasion, too their Lordships had also heard witnesses, and this had been made a charge against them. He asked their Lordships whether in a case where property was affected, they could with justice have acted otherwise? And how was property affected in this Bill? By one of its clauses, as it originally stood, properly not held in trust (but still as much the property of those who held and enjoyed it as the property of any individual was the property of that individual) was to be taken from those in whom it was invested and transferred to another. By the same clause the property enjoyed by individual freemen was to be converted into life interests, and sales of those life interests might be forced, and the effect would be that all the common lands enjoyed by, and in the possession of, poor freemen, would be enclosed, and their rights destroyed—all this too was to be done without the consent of the individual concerned, though in the case of a simple private Enclosure Bill the consent of one-half or two-thirds of the persons interested must be proved before the Legislature would interfere. By the same clause, persons who were interested, but might be absent—minors, insane persons, and others incapable of defending their rights, were thus summarily to be deprived of them, and not only that, but half the expenses of the assignment was to 1030 be paid by them. By another clause of the Bill as it came from the other House, leaseholds under corporations at fines certain or arbitrary, or renewable, were converted into leases at rack rents, and the property formerly equal to copyhold was annihilated. Now, if such provisions had been contained in an ordinary Bill of Enclosure, by which such interests were sought to be affected, both Counsel and witnesses would be heard, and he had heard no reason assigned why, on so important and general a measure as the present, the same course should not be followed. It had been said, that in this case it had been adopted for purposes of delay; his answer was, that it had been pursued for the purposes of justice. Their Lordships, having heard Counsel, had then proceeded to consider the Bill with much greater advantages than the House of Commons possessed, for many facts by these means had been made clear to their Lordships, of which the other House was ignorant, and the effect of the evidence adduced at the Bar had been to induce their Lordships to avoid the injustice of the clauses to which he had reverted—evidence which had induced their Lordships to strike out of the schedule many towns to which the principle of the Bill could not possibly apply. Counsel and witnesses having been heard and examined, their Lordships had gone into Committee on the Bill, and had then declared that they would not stir a step until they had first secured the rights and franchise of the freemen, as established by the Reform Bill. Where, he would ask, were the poor freemen to look for support if they could not ask here, in this house of Legislature? "We," said the noble Lord, "form a part of the Legislature, besides possessing a judicial character of the highest degree, we are the hereditary tribunes of the poor, and we take this course in order to protect their rights of franchise and their rights of property, and in securing these we only do our duty." Their Lordships had also most justly followed the principle of the Reform Bill in expressing, by their amendment, an opinion that it was not expedient to leave to the King in ouncil the power of determining the boundaries of the boroughs and towns. Under the Reform Bill it was left to Parliament, and in this case it ought to be left to the Legislature. They had rightly insisted upon this, because under the name 1031 of the King in Council, his Majesty's Ministers might have made those boroughs and towns what they pleased, and have thrown an influence over those places in whatever direction to them seemed fit. Their Lordships had done right in deciding that this duty should be placed, on the suggestion of the noble Duke on the cross benches, in the safe hands of Commissioners under certain instructions issued by Parliament to them; and with regard to the division of the towns into wards, the House had felt that every interest in each town ought to be represented, and with that view had increased that division more extensively than had been provided by this Bill. Neither had he, or those who thought with him on this subject, made any objection to the nature of the qualification of the voters under this Bill. He, however, did not mean to say, that it was a matter of great doubt and difficulty whether that constituency ought or ought not to be adopted, it might be a perilous experiment; at the same time he thought it right, under the circumstances, to adopt it, but in doing so due care should, be taken to prevent fraudulent and fictitious votes. Analogous to the qualification for voting, another was provided by the amendments that all electors should not be qualified to be elected to office, or, in other words, that they being electors were not thereby eligible to corporate offices. This distinction had been drawn, not under any feelings of jealousy, but in consideration of the great funds intrusted to them, and of the importance of the government of the town. With this view their Lordships had introduced a qualification flexible in its character, and equally applicable to all the different towns in the country, but at the same time, on an objection being stated to a portion of that qualification, and under an anxiety to avoid all difficulties, they had closed with the suggestion made on the other side of the House, and had adopted a less efficient, though perhaps more popular, qualification, and thereby had done away, in that respect, with some of the objections which might otherwise have been urged. Their Lordships had next proceeded to consider the nature of the constitution of the council, and it had appeared to them that it was more desirable that the offices should be held for life than that they should be continually fluctuating. They had thought that many 1032 persons of quiet habits and of respectability might be induced to become candidates for these offices if permanent, while, if only annual, they would decline; and when it was remembered that the police of each town was to be intrusted to, and regulated by, its council, it had appeared to them important that in times of difficulty and danger, persons might be found to act without the apprehension of displeasing their constituents. By this Amendment the evil effects of a sudden transition from an ancient to a new system was avoided; the Amendment in this respect was only temporary, and could not interfere with or affect the future working of the Bill. It was both beneficial and salutary, because it avoided giving that which was intended for improvement the aspect of revolution, which the destruction of corporations not proved to have done any wrong would otherwise impart. Such were the principal alterations which had been made by their Lordships in this Bill. It had also been rightly determined, that the magistrates in corporate towns should be named by the Crown, and not subject to the Crown for selection. With the proposed popular right of election it would be perilous in the extreme to the administration of justice to intrust the selection to the elective body. Equally had their Lordships done rightly in postponing to another year the question under what restraints the charities managed at present by the existing corporations should be given to the newly-to-be-created bodies. Such, he repeated were the principal amendments which had been made; he did not deem it necessary to advert to the minor alterations—minor in their nature, but important in their circumstances. He would, however, mention that adopted last night, with reference to church livings in the gift of corporations, and the provision that they should be bestowed only on members of the Church of England. He could not see any objection to that principle, though he at the same time thought that species of property extremely inconvenient, and most undesirable to be held by corporate bodies, and he for one should be glad to see some legislative arrangement by which this system might be altered, and the advowsons sold (the proceeds to be applied to corporate purposes), for he did not think a church living a fit matter of canvass for votes, or that such a means of preferment placed a clergyman of the Church of England the position 1033 which he ought to hold. Such were the Amendments proposed and adopted with every wish to meet the opinions of the House of Commons; and what was the Bill after these Amendments? Was it mutilated? or was it now in such a shape as to make it unbecoming in the House of Commons to accept it? Notwithstanding these Amendments, their Lordships had put an end to self-nomination—had removed the painful sentiment of perpetual exclusion from corporate offices, which must have rankled in the breasts of many deserving the trust; they had adopted the constituency recommended to them by the other House, and they had placed the management of the government of these towns in the hands of individuals who derived such power from the people. While they had effected all this, they had justly and wisely, by their Amendments, refused to give the character of vindictiveness to a measure intended for conciliation. They had refused to make it a measure of ungenerous triumph to one party, and of unmerited degradation, reproach, and humiliation to the other party in these towns. It had been said early, and been said generally, and significantly, that they would not consent to pass this measure, because it was calculated to destroy the Conservative interests in the reformed municipal towns. He believed these apprehensions were greatly exaggerated, for when he had asked the question, he had never received an answer showing those apprehensions were well founded; on the contrary, he believed on conviction that the only strength of the Conservative party existed in an endeavour to supply defects where they really existed, and improving the institutions of the country where it could be shown improvement was necessary. They had no interests distinct from those of the people; they, in common with the people, were exposed to no other danger than that which existed from the continuance of agitation, to prevent which was both their duty and their interest. They had endeavoured to effect this by doing that which they conceived to be right; they had turned a deaf ear to the threats and dangers by which they had been menaced; they had proceeded firmly in their course, not indifferent to consequences, but determined to prove them. They had been told, as he had already said, that their conduct in respect to this Bill was suicidal; he thought otherwise, for he believed by 1034 that conduct they had strengthened their hold upon the affections of the people. No man was more anxious than himself to act in accordance with the feelings of the House of Commons; but it was difficult so to act when measures were propounded, not in accordance with the views of the majorities of both Houses, but to meet the objects and wishes of an extreme party in one branch of the Legislature. Such was the difficulty with which their Lordships had now to contend, and he believed they had answered the best interests of the country by the adoption of the amendments to which he had already adverted. They had considered the subject with the utmost care and anxiety, and he most anxiously desired that the Commons should look to the opinions the House had formed upon the question, with half the disposition to acquiesce in them, that their Lordships had brought to the consideration of the original Bill. He knew not why the House of Commons should not accept the Bill in its present shape, for it was still according to the principle originally sent up by them. In taking this course their Lordships had acted as the real friends of the people. In making those improvements, they had done that which became them—they had given a full, consistent, and constitutional Conservative reform.
Lord Holland
said, that in following the noble Lord, it was not his intention to go into the detail or the grounds of the eulogy which the noble Lord had bestowed upon part of that House. He would wave for his own part that right or title which the noble Lord had conferred upon him as an hereditary tribune of the poor. But as the noble Lord himself had not in that assumed character exercised his veto against the Bill altogether, but had contented himself with sending it back in a mutilated form, he did not rise provocare ad populum. He must say that the present Bill, when it came from the House of Commons, contained a plain and simple plan—its first object was to secure good government for the towns of England and Wales, and to satisfy the inhabitants of those towns that henceforth their affairs would be judiciously administered. One of the means pointed out to obtain this salutary end was, that all persons rated in towns should have a voice in the election of those by whom their local affairs were to be administered, and thus they would have secured to them a responsible instead of an irre- 1035 sponsible government. The noble Lord had given a description of the changes made in the Bill since it came from the other House—but what a difference between its former and its present condition! Every one of its great principles had either been tampered with or destroyed. It was true that one part had been preserved—that was, it still preserved the form of popular election, but it was only the form, for all the advantages of popular election had been done away with and subverted—and allow him to say, that keeping up the form and semblance while they destroyed the substance was the very worst mode by which they could attempt to secure the harmony of those towns for which they were legislating. For his own part, he was convinced that if this Bill should pass into a law, those towns would be more likely to be disturbed and discontented than ever they were before. The parts in which their Lordships had made the greatest change in the Bill were the introduction of the clauses relating to qualification, and the continuance for life of certain officers. He would admit, however, that as to the qualification the evils of the noble Lord's Amendment were much mitigated by the other Amendment of the noble and learned Earl (Devon). Still, however, he objected to qualification at all, and particularly to the qualification introduced, for he felt that, as it now stood, it was impracticable. Perhaps, instead of this being an objection, he should say of it as Soame Jenyns said of universal suffrage, that, instead of its impracticability being an objection to it, he thought it constituted its greatest excellence. All pecuniary qualifications had hitherto failed, the principle of them was contrary to the spirit of the British constitution. He would contend that by common law it was the right of every British Subject who could elect a representative, that he himself might be elected as that representative; and in the case of Horne Tooke, he was old enough to remember that in the discussions whether a person in priest's or deacon's orders could sit as a member of the other House of Parliament, it was contended by Mr. Fox in the Commons, and by Lord Thurlow in the Lords, that the right of electing representatives and representing electors was a right given by common law which could only be restrained by the strong arm of the statute-law. The qualification, then, which 1036 the Amendment established was a restriction on, and not an extension of the people's rights. It was not qualification but disqualification, and a disqualification of five-sixths of the community in every large town. It was as monstrous a proposition, viewing it as an alleged extension of popular rights, as ever came from the pigeon-holes of any statesman. Bad as that was, it was made worse when coupled with the other change, which continued the aldermen for life. But then insult was added to injury, when the further change was added which continued the present town-clerks in their offices for life, for it was in effect saying to the people "This man who acted as your agent, no matter how he may have acted, shall still continue so to act for the remainder of his life, whether you like it or not." This he called a complete revolution in the whole Bill, and he could not but express his astonishment at hearing the noble Baron, with a full knowledge of all those changes, confidently assert that the principle of the Bill was still preserved. "Oh, but," the noble Baron said, "popular election is still left." What was the difference between election and nomination, where the former was not perfectly free? The noble Baron spoke as if his great object were only to get proper men, without considering the means by which he was to get them. Why keep in the principle of election at all, if it was not allowed to be what it implied—a free choice? What was the object of it, if the electors were not allowed—to use a phrase used sometimes there and elsewhere—to do what they liked with their own? The right was worthless, if it did not allow the electors to choose whom they pleased. If a man had a right to pay, he had a right to vote. That principle was admitted even by noble Lords on the other side, but if the inhabitant of a town had a right to elect, by parity of reasoning, he had a right to be elected, unless that right was taken from him by statute law, and this qualification, whilst it tended to give him a right, effectually curbed its exercise. He would not go further into the details of the Bill, but before he sat down he would beg to put a question to the noble and learned Lord at the lower end of the House, who was a great artist, and who both by his tongue and his pen possessed the faculty of making things unintelligible whenever he pleased. He would ask the noble and learned Lord who moved that 1037 Clause by which none but members of the Church of England should vote in Corporations on questions relating to church patronage in the gift of those Corporations, how he was to define who was a member of the Church of England and who was not? Was it a person who subscribed to the 39 articles? or was he to be reckoned not a member of the Church of England who refused to subscribe to those articles? If that were to be taken as a test, he feared that the numbers composing it would be much smaller than those which they had heard of the other day. He knew many individuals, who were strict Protestants and members of the Established Church, who would not sign those articles, because they believed that in signing them they would be signing an assent to the Athanasian creed and the homilies; and for his own part, considering himself a Protestant and a member of that Church, he would not sign an assent to either. There was one of the homilies—that on obedience—which few British subjects in the present day would attempt to sign. How, then, was the noble and learned Lord to know a member of the Church of England? Was he to know it by the man's going to church, or was the person who stayed away from church not to be considered a member? If so, then they must re-enact the non-conformity statute. He would therefore beg the noble and learned Lord to explain himself upon the point.
§ Lord Lyndhurst
was extremely desirous, with respect to the Clause to which the noble Baron had alluded, to fortify himself with an authority for which he conceived the noble Baron would feel a deep respect. He would first read the words, and then state the authority. "I can state with the greatest certainty that the Dissenters of England do not aspire to any of the patronage of the Church, but are ready to follow the example set them by the honourable and learned Member for Dublin, and to agree that Church patronage should remain in the hands of those to whom it particularly belonged—the members of the Established Church." On the same occasion another person made use of these words: "There are livings in the gift of certain Corporations, and under this Bill those livings may be disposed of by the members of a Church to which they are not attached. Now I belong to a certain persuasion 1038 in Ireland, which never had a title to share in the gift of such advowsons; and of this we do not complain. I think that the power of making1 these nominations should be given to the members of the Established Church." He thought the noble Baron would admit that these authorities were entitled to some weight, when he stated that the first was a Dissenter—the hon. Member for Leeds; and the other, the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin.
said, that the noble and learned Lord had entirely mistaken his question. He did not contend that it was absolutely right that a man professing one religion should bestow a benefice upon a man professing another; but he said that in an Act of Parliament, in which they laid down the maxim that no man should vote upon a particular subject except members of the Church of England—the lawyer who laid down that maxim was bound to show that he had some legal means of determining who was a member of the Church of England and who was not. The very mention of the name of Mr. O'Connell seemed to divest the noble Lords opposite of all power of understanding. Did the noble and learned Lord suppose that Mr. O'Connell, for whose great talents and some of whose virtues, as far as he knew him, he had a high respect—[hear, hear].—Noble Lords might cheer, but he could not help saying that the manner in which Mr. O'Connell's name was received in that House was calculated to do him very little harm. He still wished the noble and learned Lord to answer the question he had put to him.
The Earl of Haddington
would not enter, with the noble Baron who had just sat down, into any discussion as to the character, the talents, or the virtues of Mr. O'Connell, nor would he attempt to counteract the effect of those panegyrics which the noble Lord had thought fit to pronounce on the great Agitator of Ireland—the great apostle of the Repeal of the Union; but he felt himself entitled to use the authority of that hon. and learned Gentleman, and also of the hon. Member for Leeds, in support of the Clause which provided that the Church patronage vested in Corporations should be distributed by members of the Church alone. His noble Friend thought the Clause not sufficiently stringent. He was satisfied that it was sufficiently stringent. If an individual, 1039 who was notoriously a Dissenter, offered himself, his notoriety would be sufficient to prevent his voting. If he declared that he was a Dissenter, the Clause would prevent his voting. When the Bill was introduced into the other House, it had been charged against his Majesty's Ministers that one of the objects which they had in view was to lower the rate of qualification for voters at the elections for Members of Parliament. Until that night, however, he had not thought that there was any thing to justify the declaration of a right hon. Baronet, that those who were the authors of the Reform Bill would be the first innovators upon it. But his noble Friend had now laid down a principle which he (Lord Haddington) defied his noble Friend to establish with reference to this Bill, and yet not carry it into operation with reference to that much larger measure, the Act for Amending the Representation of the People in Parliament. His noble Friend had asserted that all who paid rates should have votes in the boroughs for members of the Town-council. If that were a just proposition, then the Reform Act was still unjust. Their Lordships had left the qualification of voters as it came from the House of Commons. His noble Friend asserted that the Bill, as it stood, would be of no value. Of what was it that the people complained? That they had no influence in the election of the Magistrates, and that the present system in corporate towns was a system of self-election which ought to be put an end to. Now he would confidently ask their Lordships if the system of self-election in corporate towns was not as completely put an end to by the Bill as it then stood, as it was by the Bill when it was sent up by the House of Commons to their Lordships? All rate-payers were to vote. One-third of the Town-council was to go out every year, so that there would be an annual and a popular election. But his noble Friend said, that although they had left popular election, they had taken away every thing which could render popular election valuable. His noble Friend maintained that the members of the Town-council ought not to be required to possess any qualification; for that those who had a right to vote for the election of others, had a right to be elected themselves. Was that assertion made in England? Was not qualification now necessary by law in many cases? 1040 Were not Members of the House of Commons required to be qualified in a particular manner? There was nothing new in the principle of qualification which had been introduced into the Bill; for it was according to the strictest analogy with the qualifications he had alluded to. The Members of the House of Commons were required to possess a certain qualification on this principle—that it was they who were to tax the people, and that it was right that those who were going to put their hands into the pockets of the people, should at the same time put their hands into their own pockets. In like manner it was fit that the people should be assured, when they were electing members of a Town-council by whom they were to be taxed, that they were persons who, when they taxed others, must also tax themselves. This was what the people had a right to expect. In his opinion, the introduction of a qualification was wise, and he hoped the other House would feel no difficulty in acquiescing in it. He would not enter into an examination of all the objections which had been urged against the division of the rate-payers into six classes, and the provision that those only of the highest class should be eligible to be members of the Town-council.—These objections had been removed by what he considered the most valuable Amendment of his noble Friend under him. But then his noble Friend opposite came to the climax of his objections to this part of the alterations which had been made by their Lordships in the Bill. His noble Friend exclaimed, "Don't talk to me about qualification; this is disqualification." But was not all qualification, in that point of view, disqualification? Did it not necessarily exclude persons who were not qualified? But his noble Friend was of opinion that their Lordships had neutralized all the benefits which might otherwise have been derived from the Bill; because a fourth part of the Town-council were to retain their situations for life. But what were the objects of this provision? Stability, peace, the preservation of good feelings. A Town-council entirely and annually elected by the rate-payers and out of the rate-payers, would form a republic so democratical and turbulent, that most injurious consequences must flow from its establishment. The effect of the provision of which his noble Friend complained was, that the rate-payers 1041 would be required to elect respectable men for members of the Town-council, who would have a care of their interests, who had a knowledge of the affairs of the town, and who would render themselves permanently useful. It was said that the changes which had been made by their Lordships would annihilate the representative system. That was not the case; but it would establish a system much more analogous to the Constitution of this country than the system which it displaced; it would establish a system bearing relation to a limited monarchy, instead of a system of pure and exclusive democracy.
§ Lord Denman
trusted their Lordships would allow him to say a few words on this important question. In the first place he begged to observe, that he had been happy to hear the word "conciliation" drop from a noble Lord; and he hoped their Lordships would keep that word, and the feeling which it described, in view throughout their proceedings upon the subject. It might be considered presumptuous in him, not having had the opportunity to hear or even to read the debates upon the Question, to offer their Lordships any observations upon it. But still he felt it to be his duty to state, as fully and fairly as circumstances would allow him, his opinions on the Bill as it came from the House of Commons, and as it now stood. In the first place, however, he must express his satisfaction that, with whatever angry feelings the issuing of a Commission to inquire into the Municipal Corporations had been originally treated, those feelings had subsided; and it was now generally allowed to be idle to doubt the validity of that Commission. In fact, recollecting that similar Commissions had frequently been issued during the last century, to say, that the Commission in question was invalid, or that it ought to be treated with contempt, appeared to him to be so disrespectful towards the Crown, and so obstructive of all useful inquiries, that he felt happy in the conviction that he only repeated the universal opinion when he said that such sentiments were no longer entertained. He felt happy in this conviction, because he really did think that if encouragement were given to an opposition to such a Commission, the injurious operation that might take place with reference to inquiries that any future Government might find it 1042 expedient to institute, would be lamentable and melancholy. The second topic on which he would touch was the character of the Commissioners themselves. And here he must say, that in the situation which he had the honour to hold, and which gave him an opportunity of knowing those Gentlemen, the observations which had been made upon them had given him the greatest pain. Those observations were entirely unfounded. He had the honour of knowing many of those Gentlemen intimately, and others from their practice at the Bar. They had been described as entertaining extreme opinions on political subjects. Such an imputation was more applicable to the noble and learned person by whom it had been made. For that noble and learned Lord he had a great respect; he was indebted to him personally for a long succession of kindnesses; if it was a calumny to declare that that noble and learned Lord had changed his opinions on such subjects, he could only declare that he uttered it with perfect good faith, and that he believed that it was the perfect conviction of all who knew that noble and learned Lord. He did not mean to say anything disparaging to that noble and learned Lord, but he must observe, that it was very hard upon Members of the Bar to be so warmly attacked in a quarter in which they had a right to expect protection and favour. The Commissioners were men of learning, they were men of science, they were men of consistent opinions, they were men of honourable sentiments, who had undertaken the duty intrusted to them for the purpose, and with the determination of performing it honestly, to their King and country; and who, he in conscious believed, had so performed it. He did not wish to trespass longer upon their Lordships, on this part of the subject, or he should be desirous to refer more particularly to some of the individuals of whom the Commission was composed. Many of them he knew to be distinguished by practical good sense; they were men whose favorable opinion, whether in public, or in private, or professionally, every one who was acquainted with them must be proud to possess. He did not know all the gentlemen in question, but he had every reason to believe that a better selection it would have been impossible to make. The only practical objection that had been made to them was the danger that their supposed poli- 1043 tical opinions would warp their judgments. On their part, he felt justified in repelling the imputation as totally unfounded. He would proceed to say a few words on the course which had been pursued by their Lordships in calling Counsel to the Bar, and afterwards in examining witnesses. He must take the liberty (with the greatest humility) to declare that, in his opinion, it was the most unfortunate precedent that could possibly be set. Where private property was attacked, those who were the possessors of that property were entitled to send Counsel to the Bar in order to defend their rights. But the question here was—was the measure under their Lordships' consideration a Bill of pains and penalties, or a Bill for the improvement and Amendment of important institutions? Convince him that it was the first, and he would stop immediately, and vote for the rejection of the measure. If it were a Bill of pains and penalties, their Lordships' ought not only to reject the Clauses, but to repudiate the principle. If the Report of the Commissioners (minute parts of which had been attacked, although the great body of it remained unassailed) did not justify their Lordships in adopting the Bill as a measure of national improvement, he called upon them at once to throw it out. But it was evident, that the object of the Bill was to improve the condition of the people, by reforming those local Governments which more immediately touched them and their interests. It was not confined to one part of the kingdom; it extended over the whole. It had reference to a state of things so notorious, that even those who did not rely upon the evidence on which the Commissioners founded their Report, still felt it to be their duty to support the Bill. And what was the quality of the evidence heard at their Lordships' Bar for the purpose of weakening the Report? It amounted to an opinion expressed by the Town-Clerks of the several Corporations, that the Commissioners, in their investigations, had paid more attention to those who took one side of the question, than to those who took the other side of it. This had been repeated so many times, that much valuable time had been lost, both to their Lordships and to the suitors at their Lordships' Bar. He should like to see the essence of the evidence at their Lordships' Bar. Let it be recollected, too, that it was all ex-parte; and although it was on 1044 oath, surely ex-parte evidence was not enough. Was it possible to suppose for a moment that such evidence as that was a ground on which the House of Lords could proceed to legislate? All that was done was to take particular portions of the Report, and to ask if they were incorrect. But unless their Lordships had called in more witnesses, and had heard the other side of the question, all such examination was utterly worthless. The fact was, and it appeared to him to be clearly demonstrable, that nothing but delay had been the object in view. He would proceed to make one or two observations on the alterations which had been made in the Bill since its entrance into their Lordships' House. And first with respect to the rights of freemen. If the preservation of these rights were consistent with the object of the Bill, they ought to be secured. But he confessed, that he entertained a strong opinion on that point. When the Reform Bill was brought forward, it was his decided opinion, knowing that generally speaking the greatest corruption prevailed among the freemen, that they should be disqualified. And he was persuaded, that retaining the rights of freemen in the Bill under their Lordships' consideration, would be to create a constant source of irritation and animosity, and bad feeling, in every Corporate town in the kingdom. To the alteration in the Bill, with respect to wards, he decidedly objected. If it were ultimately adopted, at least without the introduction of a minimum as to the number of votes, the elections could not be expected to be pure. One alteration for the better had certainly been introduced into the Bill. It deprived any one convicted of bribery of the privilege of voting, or of any other privilege in the Borough. He wished the principle to be extended further; he wished it to be enacted, that any man who accepted a bribe should be subject to similar deprivation in every other borough. With respect to the question of qualification, it had been treated so ably and so fully by his noble Friend, that it was not necessary for him to enter upon it. The only argument in favour of the provision respecting it was founded on its inefficiency and imbecility. Indeed so inefficient and so imbecile was it, that perhaps the friends of the Bill would do well not to reject it, were it not that under any circumstances 1045 it was not desirable to establish an evil principle in legislation. And what security was there that the required qualification would actually exist? None but the oaths of the parties themselves. Their Lordships had in various cases seen the danger and difficulty of such a principle. It was one also which would open the door to endless quarrel and litigation. Then as to the change which had been made in the Bill, providing that Aldermen should be elected for life, and that those who were at present in possession of that office should continue during life to retain it. Why it was asserted by the witnesses who had been called to their Lordships' Bar, that there was no discontent among the inhabitants of the various Corporate towns. Now if that were the case, the people, who were of course the best Judges of their own interests, would, if they were satisfied with their existing officers, keep them in at every election. The same was the case with reference to the Town-Clerks. Having stated all these opinions on the alterations which had been made by their Lordships in this Bill, he would go on to say, that after all, if he compared the Bill as it now stood, with the existing law, it would be a great improvement on that law. But when it was considered, that the measure went to create rights, and to establish principles, it was surely desirable, that those rights and principles should be as perfect and as fully acted upon as possible. Their Lordships admitted the principle that, after the first election, all the holders of the offices in question should be liable to quit them. They did not do this on any allegation of particular delinquency, but on the ground of the notoriety of the case; on the universal conviction that in all the Corporate Boroughs of the land it was fit that such a principle should be adopted. Now was it wise, was it prudent on the part of their Lordships—especially looking at all the circumstances of the case, looking at the state of public feeling—having admitted the principle, not to adopt the best means of carrying it into effect, and of rendering it extensively beneficial? Was it not a melancholy thing that the value of a good principle should be thus lost? That the grace of a boon which would otherwise be received by those upon whom it was conferred with thanks, should be sacrificed to a niggardly and distrustful policy? He really should be glad to hear 1046 the qualification and other Clauses made more palatable to the general taste. It had been asserted, that they were sacrifices to the extreme party in the other House of Parliament. He believed, that there had been but one division in that other House upon the measure; and that it had been universally admitted in that other House that the principle of the measure was good. He took it for granted, that there would be an endeavour to compromise the matter; and that there would be a meeting of a deputation from each House with respect to it. If so, he hoped that every Gentleman who might be delegated by the House of Commons would be animated with an eager and sincere desire to do justice to their Lordships' motives, and to accede to such propositions as might appear to them to be reasonable. And he implored such of their Lordships as might be appointed to meet the Members of the House of Commons on the subject to cherish a similar spirit; to look at the great objects contemplated by the measure, and to do what they felt they might in justice do, to forward those objects. It was very easy to conceive, that there might be extreme parties on both sides of the question; and that if those parties were to push their differences to the utmost, that a feeling of animosity might be excited against their Lordships, of which he did not believe, that they were at present the object. On the contrary, he believed that they enjoyed the confidence and respect of the great body of the people; although it might be regretted that they had not taken the side of the people on the great popular questions which had for some years been agitated in Parliament. He trusted that all parties would think of nothing but conciliation; he hoped that they would be inspired with a sincere desire to do all the practical good which it was possible to effect. He trusted also, that their Lordships would pardon the perhaps rather strong manner in which he had expressed his wishes—it had arisen simply from the conviction of his own mind, that a course such as that which he had recommended was necessary to the welfare and safety of the State; and that, so feeling, he should have been trifling with their Lordships, if he had not so said.
meant to abstain from entering on any discussion of the principles or details of the measure, having already 1047 had full opportunity of delivering his sentiments on these grounds. He felt himself, however, imperiously called on to address some few observations to their Lordships in his justification against the charges which had been preferred against him by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman). He was sure that many of those charges would not have been alleged against him by his noble and learned Friend, had he been present during the progress of the measure in that House, because he might appeal to their Lordships whether he had not over and over again stated, that as far as the principles and opinions of the members of the Commission were concerned, he made no matter of complaint against them. God forbid that in this country every man should not be at liberty to entertain, without reproach, those opinions which coincided with, and conformed to his own judgment. He had repeatedly stated that he made no ground of charge against the Commissioners on this head. He had, when alluding to the Commission, taken occasion to say, that with many of its members he was personally acquainted, and the result was, that he could bear his testimony to their being not only men of integrity and honour, but men of learning in their profession. He appealed to their Lordships' recollection, whether he had not made that statement. But he had certainly stated, as a matter of charge against his Majesty's Government, that they had selected, in the formation of that Commission, gentlemen of one class of political opinions, and one class of opinions only. Again, with regard to another part of the accusation which his noble and learned Friend had preferred against him,—he had stated that he had preferred charges against the Commissioners, not arising out of any general circumstances, but for misconduct in the discharge of the duties imposed on them. Now, he begged to say, in answer to that accusation, that he made no charge whatever against the conduct of a single Commissioner, except what was founded on the evidence taken at their Lordships' Bar. He defied any noble Lord, or any individual whatever, to accuse him justly of having thrown out any unfounded charge—of having made any charge which he was not warranted in making, and which it was not his duty to make, as arising out of the evidence taken before their Lordships. They found in the Report of those Commissioners, charges of the 1048 most serious nature preferred against individuals and public bodies. Then came to their Lordships' Bar, petitioners complaining of those charges, stating that they had not been guilty of the offences alleged against them—that their conduct was correct, and that they were desirous of being heard in opposition to those allegations which had been made concerning them. How were we, then, to proceed? There was none of the evidence, taken by those Commissioners, laid before us. He called on the noble Viscount (Melbourne) to lay all the evidence upon which the Reports were founded, on the Table of the House. He declined doing so, and it was withheld. Desirous of knowing whether the evidence really supported the charges and the conclusions laid down by the Commissioners, as their Lordships could not obtain that evidence itself, they thought it right to hear those persons who were accused in the face of the country of the gravest and most serious offences. Various witnesses were accordingly examined; they exceeded thirty in number, he believed; their Lordships heard their evidence, and the manner in which it was given, and he asked whether they did not, in every instance, acquit the persons of the charges which were preferred against them? In any statement which he had made with reference to the Commissioners, he had uniformly appealed to the evidence given by the witnesses at their Lordships' Bar; and he should have neglected his duty if he had not pointed out the manner in which the charges, contained in the Report of the Commissioners, were met and overset; although in doing so, he might have indirectly reflected on the conduct of the Commissioners, by whom these charges were made. His noble and learned Friend had alluded to opinions which he stated were formerly entertained by him, as a matter of accusation against him; but his noble and learned Friend had not condescended to adduce a single fact in support of his charge. I have nothing, therefore, (continued the noble and learned Lord) to meet. I do recollect, however, that in the other House of Parliament my noble and learned Friend did, during my absence, bring a charge against me of a somewhat similar nature to that which he has to-night preferred; and (if I can rely on the accuracy of those who report the proceedings of that House) the only fact which he brought forward in confirmation 1049 of his statement was, that I supported some of the opinions of Sir Samuel Romilly. I suppose my noble and learned Friend alluded (I cannot assert positively what was his meaning) to my having supported the views of Sir S. Romilly with respect to the amelioration of the criminal code. Now the fact was, I supported some of the attempts which that learned individual made to ameliorate the criminal code—I opposed other attempts of his for the same object. That, however, was the only direct charge which my noble and learned Friend then alleged against me, with reference to the general accusations which he preferred. When a fact is stated, I know how to meet it; when any particular opinion is impugned, I know how to rebut the allegation; but whilst my noble and learned Friend throws his arrows in the dark, I know not, what to combat. I have been on terms of intimacy with my noble and learned Friend for a long period; I went the same circuit with him; I have been engaged in conversation with him at different times; and if he speaks of a period of twenty years past, I can only say that I am unable to recall to my recollection the particular opinions which I might have entertained or expressed with reference to political measures; but I can assert, that I never belonged to any party or political society whatever. In the absence of any specific facts, I am driven to the conjecture that my noble and learned Friend alluded to my conduct at the time Lord Sidmouth was at the head of the Government; during that time I had some connexion with some persons in that Government; and my disposition and wish were so far from thwarting (as the noble and learned Lord would seem to imply,) that I was desirous to support the course of that particular Government. I then never embarked in politics; I did not belong to any society or party; and I never wrote a political article on either side of any question which might then have been agitated. This was my conduct until I came into the other House of Parliament, now twenty years ago. From that period my life has been before the public; my course has been direct and straightforward. I have always belonged to the same party, and I have entertained the same opinions from that time to the present. Previously to the time of my entrance into Parliament, what expressions I uttered on individual measures it is impossible for me to state, 1050 but I can unhesitatingly aver that I belonged to no party, and that I was attached neither to the Whigs nor to the Tories, nor, as my noble and learned Friend would insinuate, to the Radicals. This is a plain exposition of my political life. My noble and learned Friend, alluding to discussions on measures more than twenty years ago, states no fact—no opinion, or anything in favour of the deductions which he has now drawn. I beg pardon for trespassing on your Lordships' attention for so long a time, in a matter purely personal. I adhere to the intention which I expressed at the outset of my observations, of not going into any discussion of this measure or its details, having heretofore fully availed myself of the opportunities which were presented for that purpose.
If my noble and learned Friend has understood me as having alluded to certain opinions which he has been supposed to entertain, with a view of conveying a calumny against him, I can only say, that it is a calumny which has often been repeated, which I stated, believing it to be true, and which I should now believe to be true, were it not for the assertion of my noble and learned Friend. And really I feel somewhat astonished that when the question is, as to what really were the political sentiments of my noble and learned Friend, he should plead forgetfulness with reference to the opinions he entertained, twenty years ago undoubtedly, but still when he was of the mature age of thirty. Up to the period that he came into Parliament, the universal impression of those who lived on terms of close intimacy with my noble and learned Friend was, that his opinions were (not with reference to any one particular measure on any one occasion) generally and unequivocally what would now be called liberal. Those opinions were not uttered merely in the presence of those who were intimate with him, or in the course of private conversation, but they were avowed rather as if my noble and learned Friend felt a pride in entertaining and avowing them. And I will take the liberty of telling my noble and learned Friend, that though his great talents must have ultimately secured to him the rank which he holds, yet that he undoubtedly owed his first advancement to his devotion to those who entertained the most liberal opinions in politics. With regard to my noble and learned Friend's opinions respecting Lord Sidmouth's Ad- 1051 ministration, it was the conviction, I venture to say, amongst those who knew him best, that he was favourable to the sentiments of the Opposition of that period. I beg to be understood as standing corrected in that opinion; and I shall only, therefore, remind my noble and learned Friend that stronger proof of his being a Whig, or more than a Whig, could be adduced with respect to himself, than as to those Commissioners against whom my noble and learned Friend has really "scattered his arrows in the dark."
, I don't understand what my noble and learned Friend means by the term "liberal opinions," when he says that I owed my political advancement to those who professed them. Up to the time of my entering Parliament I was engaged in my profession, and I had no object out of it. I received a note from Lord Liverpool, asking me to call on him. I went to him, and was quite surprised when he asked me if I had any objection to enter Parliament. I required some time to consider, and the result was, that I consented and went into Parliament. That was my first embarkation upon the stormy sea of politics—one very uncongenial to my feelings—very foreign to my habits, and on which I am engaged on this occasion purely accidentally.
If I said that my noble and learned Friend owed his advancement in political life to his coinciding with those who entertained liberal opinions, I meant to allude to his professional advancement. My memory, however, deceives me very much if those who encouraged his rising talents and stimulated his early and constant attention to his professional pursuits were not inclined to do so by their impression of his liberal opinions in politics.
I was never engaged but in one political defence. That was on the trial of Watson. On that occasion Sir Charles Wetherell called on me as a common-law lawyer, and asked me if I would agree to join him in the conduct of that defence. After taking a short time to consider, I answered that I would. Now that is the real history of that transaction.
The Earl of Radnor
observed that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) could not say that he had brought no accusation, except what was founded on the evidence taken at their Lordships' Bar, against the Commissioners, for he called them the 1052 bought accusers of the Corporations. On what was the Report of these Commissioners to be condemned? On ex parte evidence, on which, if the noble and learned Lord was sitting in a Court of Justice, he would not have hanged a cat. Now he would just give two instances of that evidence, with a view to show how loth they should be to attach any weight to them. One of the witnesses from Shrewsbury had stated that the Dissenters were at that school taught the prayer-book of the Established Church, and obliged to go to Church. Now he had received a letter from Dr. Butler, stating there was not the slightest foundation for such an assertion. It had been stated also that the exhibitions were confined to Burgesses. It happened that there were only seven which were confined to Burgesses, and there were nine exhibitions, four scholarships, and one fellowship, which were not confined to Burgesses. A noble Earl opposite had denounced the principle that taxation and representation should be coeval. It was no doubt true that there were some exceptions to that rule; but exceptio probat regulam, Certain he was that the inhabitants of the towns would feel it to be a monstrous grievance that they were deprived of their fair and legitimate control over the affairs of the place which they inhabited, and where whatever property they might have was deposited.
§ Lord Ashburton
could not help observing that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Denman) had, without having attended to the course of their proceedings, introduced a degree of violence and personality into the debate of that evening, of which, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had seen no example. The noble and learned Lord had directed his attack, not only against nothing which was under discussion that night, but against opinion said to have been entertained twenty years ago, and the ground-work of the attack was that his noble and learned Friend was selected by Lord Liverpool (doubtless with democratic intentions) for a vacancy in Parliament, and that he was associated with that atrocious Radical, Sir Charles Wetherell, in his defence of Watson. He deprecated the practice of recurring to one's early life with a view of charging an inconsistency of opinion. He had himself entered political life with liberal views, but never 1053 with extreme ones; and if his opinions had undergone a change of late, it was because he had at the outset of his career much less apprehension of the dangers of democracy than he entertained at present. He always held that the institutions of the country being mixed, and a balance of power maintained, a man might, as Burke explained, and beautifully illustrated, take, under a system of checks and balances, either the side of the Crown or the people, as his feelings of independence and honesty might prompt. Their Lordships would, he contended, have disgraced themselves if they refused that simple act of justice, the hearing witnesses at the Bar, who were not called with reference to the policy of the measure, but in defence of their own rights and privileges. The noble and learned Lord said that when this measure came from the Commons it presented itself in "beautiful simplicity." He would not charge the noble and learned Lord with entertaining extreme opinions; but his assertion respecting this measure, as it came from the Commons, was a stronger proof that he entertained extreme opinions than any which he had brought against his noble and learned Friend. If it were "simplicity," it was a democratic simplicity, and was calculated to establish as levelling a democracy as ever existed, and one which was totally inconsistent with the monarchical or mixed form of Government in this country. Though evils belonged to all systems of Government—monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy—a large share might be assigned to democracy; and the concessions which were made to the latter power under this Bill were absolutely incompatible with any power on the part of the Crown. The measure as amended was not, on the whole, satisfactory to him, and if the House of Commons did not pass it in that shape, he should feel no disappointment. He admitted fully that a cordial co-operation with that House was desirable, and to attain it he should be willing to make considerable sacrifices; but in reference to the present measure he should not be grieved if they were not to accept it; and if thus the formation of a complete municipal constitution for the country—a matter which was one of the greatest importance that Parliament could enter into—were put off for another year. The proposition which ought to be made to Parliament for that 1054 purpose should be far more complete and better considered than that which had been submitted to it. The establishment of new Corporations was a subject which ought to be legislated upon with more precision than the Bill had proposed; the power, indeed, which it was to give to the Crown to create them at its own discretion was a monstrous one. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the present Bill in no manner touched the Corporation of London, which possessed more exclusive privileges of an objectionable nature than any of the Corporations of small towns which were affected by it. The Bill allowed the greater nuisance—for nuisance it really was—to remain, either because its promoters were afraid to touch that Corporation, or because they had been obliged to bring forward their measure crude and undigested, in their eager hurry to propound some plan of so-called Reform, for the purpose of keeping the movement alive. For his own part he wished to express his thanks to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) for the pains which he had been at to amend' the Bill, and render it somewhat safer in its character; and he certainly did think that to the alterations which he had introduced no objection could be made by any one desirous of seeing the Municipal Institutions of the country established and preserved upon a popular basis. Popular election was the root of the system contained in the amended Bill in every point, with the exception of the qualification. The self-elected Corporations were to cease their existence as soon as a few individuals should die off—a condition founded no less in wisdom than in justice to those individuals against whom as a body, be it remembered, no ground of delinquency had been established.
Lord Brougham
would not have risen but for some of the observations of his noble Friend who had just sat down. His noble and learned Friend then upon the Woolsack (Lord Denman) had been brought into some little conflict with another noble and learned Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst), in consequence of some misunderstanding. In that conflict he (Lord Brougham) should have deemed it improper, as it would have been painful, to interfere, if his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) who had as little to do with it as he himself, had not thought fit to dash 1055 in where he had been afraid to tread. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had been charged by his noble Friend with having introduced personality into the discussion, as if he had volunteered a gratuitous attack on his noble and learned Friend opposite. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack seemed to him to have had one purpose, and one only, in view: he had learned, that in his absence a denial of a very peremptory nature had been given to certain statements of facts, having reference to some supposed opinions of his noble and learned Friend opposite at a previous period, and that those statements had been declared to be a calumny, that is to say, not only injurious but false. His noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack had therefore said, acting not upon the offensive but entirely upon the defensive, that he had made those statements believing them, in his conscience, to be true; and certainly no man at all acquainted with his noble and learned Friend could doubt for one moment that he would have stated anything as true which he did not believe. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Ashburton) had certainly no right to rush in and interfere; but perhaps he had thought that it might be his turn to be next attacked, as it was called. With reference now to the measure itself, his noble Friend had characterized it as being, in its original state, fraught with the spirit of pure and levelling democracy; but it had, he said, by the changes introduced into it, been rendered somewhat safer. On the first position he was entirely at issue with his noble Friend. He denied that it was a measure of pure and levelling democracy. If universal suffrage, without qualification for the electors or the elected, had been made the groundwork of a new Parliamentary constitution—if the constitution of the Peers had been levelled—if only one House of Parliament, so chosen upon universal suffrage, had been left to remain, then undoubtedly he could have seen and lamented that bugbear which scared and terrified the affrighted, and, as he thought, unsound imagination of his noble Friend. His noble Friend, however, forgot the extreme difference between the case which he fancied and that which was now before the House, namely, the formation of a system for meeting the question of how best to manage the parish vestry business of Municipal Corporations, How the 1056 management of the business of actual parish vestries had proceeded upon similar principles to those here proposed, every one well knew. The parish affairs had improved greatly, the amount of money raised had been much reduced; in short, the economy of the parish had been consulted almost beyond the most sanguine expectations of those by whom the system had been framed. Then, secondly, his noble Friend said, that the evils of that pure and levelling democracy had been remedied by the alterations introduced into the Bill. Now if there were one part of the measure approaching more nearly to pure and levelling democracy than another, it was that which allowed suffrage without qualification—beyond, at least, the payment of rates. Again, his noble Friend would say, that the amenders of the Bill had provided checks and securities; and his principal check was one which, he himself admitted, would lose its force from year to year, namely, the retention of the Aldermen during the period of transition, as it was called, from the old to the new constitution. By that worst part of all those bad changes, every one of the Corporations would have in them a body amounting to one-fourth of their number—wholly irremoveable—filled with the old self-elected leaven—and who being tainted with all the habits which the self-electing practice had fixed in them, would perpetuate the worst abuses which had arisen from it in the worst times. The Commissioners were accused of having brought charges against Corporations and individuals connected with them. They had never charged Corporations or Corporators—neither man nor thing, without calling upon the persons concerned to come forward, and allowing them to hear and examine the witnesses from whom the allegation proceeded. Would any noble Lord rise in his place, and give him the name of any Corporation or Corporator in whose case an accusation had been made, without all the parties affected by it being allowed to be present? That was a large defiance.
rose to reply to the challenge of the noble and learned Lord. He begged to instance the case of Sutton Colefield. The Commissioners received evidence against the Corporation, but when the deputy stewards appeared and offered their evidence, which they did without giving notice, it was refused.
§ The Duke of Wellington
said, that an 1057 inquiry took place into the cinque ports, and he was inculpated and charged; he was in the country at the time, and was not called on to answer the charges made.
The Earl of Falmouth
said, before he made the observation he had to offer to their Lordships, he begged to ask the noble and learned Lord whether, in the challenge he gave, he confined himself merely to those cases in which evidence was given at the Bar?
To be sure; I know of no others.
had been about to say, that he was accused in the case of Truro, and received no notice of the proceedings of the Commissioners. He was prepared to put questions to the witnesses, who came to London with a view to answer the charges that had been made; but that case was not gone into.
thought he might answer the three noble Lords in one. The noble Duke described himself as charged and accused, but he saw nothing in the Report which made a charge against the noble Duke, and the Commissioners would no doubt be much more surprised than he was when they heard of the noble Duke's statement. Was not the noble Duke aware that such an inquiry was about to take place? It was no very private affair. The inquiries were not carried on in a corner with closed doors; no one was prevented from appearing. [The Duke of Wellington never heard of it.] The terms of his defiance were to call on the noble Lords toshow, if possible, that at any place any person or corporation was charged without being allowed to be present when the charge was made, or witnesses examined. The population was thirteen or fourteen millions, and did the noble Lords mean to say that there was to be personal notice in every case? Noble Lords knew that he had been accustomed to this sort of interruption in the House of Commons for many years. They might go on till five o'clock in the morning if they pleased. He knew what it was to address a mob—he had done it in all parts of the country. He had addressed various mobs. He hoped and trusted he should continue to address mobs hereafter as heretofore. He thought it was the duty of a public man to meet his fellow-citizens, and he had no objection to meet a mob either in Parliament or out of Parliament. This, however, he must say, that the most irregular 1058 of the assemblies he had addressed were not of that kind, the name of which consisted of three letters, and which were to be found out of Parliament; for he had met more, and addressed more irregular, intolerant, unlistening, bad-hearing, confident, erroneous, easily carried away, easily caught, easily entrapped by a temporary statement, and led astray by a fleeting notion that it would serve their purpose—he had met more and addressed more mobs of this description during the last four years than he had ever met or addressed out of a House of Parliament. Now, perhaps, the noble Lords would allow him to go on. Very possibly the noble Duke did not receive notice of the meetings of the Commissioners; but would the noble Duke show him that their arguments were ever conducted with closed doors, or that permission was ever refused to any person to be present. The noble Lord opposite had expressed a wish that the House of Commons should meet the majority in this House half way; but he feared the noble Lord really meant that the House of Commons should meet their Lordships the whole way—that they should concede everything—that they should come and bow down before them. The noble Lord said, if the House of Commons were but half as well disposed to concede and conciliate as their Lordships were, then the happiest results might be expected. Whether the happy result the noble Lord anticipated would be the consequence of his conditions being fulfilled, might admit of a question; but if the degree of concession and conciliation exhibited by their Lordships in the last fortnight or three weeks towards the House of Commons, and the favourite measure of the people was what was to be halved by the other House, it would not be very easy for that House to meet their Lordships in the course they had taken. Any line of conduct more extraordinary to panegyrise had never come under his observation. That in certain quarters of this House there should be great delight that this Bill had met with undivided, unmitigated hostility to its principle, and that it had been ruined by the alterations which their Lordships had made in it, he could understand; but the ground taken by the noble Lord opposite was not that—he talked of conciliation, of a wish that their Lordships should be met half way by the House of Commons, as if they had them- 1059 selves made some great sacrifices for the purpose of conciliation. Now he wished to know how they could have done less in that respect than they had done?—he wished to know how they could have taken any course which would have retained less of the Bill, or would have made more changes in the Bill, and which would not have had the same effect as if they had altogether thrown it out? They had adopted the elective franchise, but that was the whole; and if they had not, they should have thrown it out on the second reading, which, as it was, he contended would have been the more intelligible, as it would have been the more manly course. The noble Lord had professed a wish to consult the interests of certain classes of the people. Yes, but what classes? The people who were with him—the corporation classes. That was what was meant. One noble Lord described the House as composed of the hereditary tribunes of the poor. He had heard it called a grasping and usurping and encroaching oligarchy, but that it was an hereditary tribune of the people, and the poor he never, in the wildest dreams of any man's fancy, had heard it called. No doubt their Lordships stood out for the rights of their fellow-citizens; for the rights of their fellow-mayors, of their fellow-town-clerks, and of their fellow-recorders, they would stand out. The interests of these people their Lordships would stand by as if they were their own. The noble Lord had declared the readiness of their Lordships to correct abuses directly they discovered them, and no doubt this was true; but unfortunately there was this great difference between the vision of their Lordships' and that of the House of Commons—the one was nearly as blind as the mole, and the other as sharp-eyed as the eagle. Their Lordships could see no danger till it struck the very ball of their eye, while the more prudent Reformer cast his eye abroad and met the coming storm with timely and effective reforms. Their Lordships said, that they gave reform to England and Ireland, and what harvest did it bring? In the seed-time there were new discontents, and new demands for change. Let them reform in time and they would have no seed-time to dread. Their great mistake was, that they would not put their sickle in the harvest in the proper season, but allowed it to fall and rot upon the ground, after which it was of course in vain that 1060 they attempted to garner it up to any purpose of supply to a reasonable demand. Their error was that they would not reform till it was too late; they would not do good till they were compelled by necessity to do it; they would do nothing voluntarily—nothing with the grace of concession. What they did they deferred till all the grace which would have attached to it was lost. Their reform came not only too late to satisfy the people, but owing to the manner in which it was conferred made them perhaps despised rather than beloved. This was a most mistaken policy; for their Lordships would have found that by timely concessions they might have given less, but more would be demanded when they refused to give in time that which was just. There was no greater folly, he might say insanity, than delaying that which they knew they could not postpone except for a while. Their Lordships, no doubt, did not like to be admonished and warned; if they were warned, they complained that they were admonished; therefore he would neither admonish nor warn them; but he would say what he considered it most expedient that they should do. He knew that they would despise and scoff at his opinion, and tell him that it was ridiculous for him to utter it; they would tell him so, by means of the majority which gave them such great support, and which so intoxicated them with confidence that it made them deaf and blind to all that was passing in every corner of the world. Nevertheless, he would give it to them as his opinion that they would find it more expedient to give up the qualification of the sixth—that having excited universal distrust and aversion. He would ask them to give up that qualification, and the substance as well as the appearance of continuing the Aldermen and continuing the Town-clerks. Or if the continuing of the Aldermen was limited to one year, hateful as it would be to the country, and odious in itself, he thought the people might, after deliberate reflection, reconcile their minds to it. But to keep the Clause as it stood, continuing the Aldermen for life of the old Corporations would be to impregnate the whole with the worst taint of the worst provisions of the rotten system, and would be so great an outrage on the people as to excite the deepest disgust, and place the fate of this Bill in the other House of Parliament in worse than jeopardy. That the other House would deliberate and respect- 1061 fully consider this measure as sent down to them by their Lordships he believed, but its rejection appeared to him to be inevitable; and his only hope was, that a conference would be holden between their Lordships and the Commons in which both parties might each be induced to give up somewhat of their peculiar views and to avoid the danger which he apprehended from any other course.
The Earl of Winchilsea
complained of the noble and learned Lord, that he had used language in speaking of their Lordships which was of a most unjustifiable character. He could not sit still under such imputations. The noble and learned Lord had debased not only their official characters as Members of this House, but also their characters in other capacities. The noble and learned Lord had done every thing he could to degrade their Lordships, and he had said that in the House which he would not have dared to say out of it.
The Marquess of Clanricarde
rose to order. He hoped his doing so would give the noble Earl time to recollect himself. He was sure the noble Earl did feel for the character of the House, and the noble Earl must be aware that the words he had uttered could not tend to maintain its character. The noble Earl had charged the noble and learned Lord with having done all in his power to degrade the House. Under these circumstances he felt it to be his duty to move that the order of their Lordships, which related to the use of personal expressions in the course of their debates, be read at the Table by the Clerk. He must say that if this language was to be held in this House there would soon be an end to all argument, and to all legislative and rational proceedings. He moved that the 15th standing order be read.
§ [The order was read accordingly by the Clerk. It declared that noble Lords should remark on the arguments used in debate, and should not extend their observations to the expressions of Members; and it prohibited all remarks of a personal, insulting, or offensive description.]
observed, that it was evident that the noble Earl laboured under a misapprehension as to what had fallen from him. The noble Earl laboured under strong excitement, and had made use of language which he was sure the noble Earl, on reflection, would regret. ["No, no!"] Then he was not at liberty to take the lan- 1062 guage of the noble Earl in good part as he had done. He had observed the noble Earl to laugh at him, when he stated that he had misapprehended what had fallen from him. The expressions made use of he would not say were the most offensive that he had ever heard in Parliament, but certainly they were the strongest terms that he had ever hand used in either House of Parliament. He had not taken offence at what had fallen from the noble Earl, because he knew that the noble Earl spoke whilst labouring under strong feelings of excitement, and had utterly and entirely misunderstood the motives which had actuated him (Lord Brougham) in what he had recently addressed to the House. "As to saying that I"—so concluded his Lordship—"that I utter things in this House that I would not utter out of it—[oh!]—I would not take the trouble of answering it."
admitted that he had risen under excitement. He could not sit and hear their Lordships' House compared to a mob, and charged with being influenced by sordid or interested motives, without repelling an accusation which, if true, would entitle their House to the contempt of the world. If this accusation were deserved, they were indeed arrived at an awful and momentous crisis; the question was, therefore, one which he wished to see brought to a calm and, he hoped, a favourable issue. This he did maintain, and with that he would take leave of this matter, that, whether this great constituency were to fall or not, there was that within the subtle speech which they had just heard from the noble and learned Lord opposite which was calculated to awaken the worst passions in the public mind, with respect to a legislative body which, he maintained, was still entitled to and did enjoy, the esteem and respect of a large and influential majority of the community. As he believed it was understood that no discussion was to take place on the third reading of this Bill, he should take the present opportunity of declaring the strong opposition which he entertained against this measure. The noble and learned Lord opposite had advocated the constitutional principle of this Bill, but he (the Earl of Winchilsea) had consulted several legal authorities, of equal eminence with the noble and learned Lord, and they were all of opinion that the leading principles and features of this Bill were the 1063 most unconstitutional that had ever been entertained by Parliament. He had already declared, and he now repeated it, that he was not inimical to Municipal Reform; on the contrary he was prepared to give his cordial support to any Bill for the purpose which might be framed upon a constitutional basis. He thought, for instance, that the extension of certain privileges which were now enjoyed by a few might be beneficial, and also that a new and improved arrangement of corporate property might, in many instances, be adopted. But whilst he would do all this, he would not permit the rights of freemen, as they descended to them by virtue of the bequests of the original donors of the corporate estates, to be in any way estranged from them; and it was because he viewed the present Bill as a direct attempt to infringe those rights of property, that he was determined to give it his most strenuous opposition. He could not but object also to the whole course of operation by which this measure had been brought before them. This Bill originated in a Commission of Inquiry instituted, not by the Parliament of the nation, but by the Crown; and he questioned very much whether, having due regard to the rights and interests of the country, that House could permit itself in any way to establish a precedent of the sort, giving the Crown a right to establish proceedings of an inquisitorial nature in respect to any portion of the property of the country. Having protested against this precedent, and stated his objections to the Bill now before them, he had only to add, that he should certainly divide the House, though he stood alone, upon the question for the third reading.
§ The Report was received.
said, that as it did not appear that there would be any necessity for further debate on the Amendment he intended to propose, he would at once proceed to make it, without any observations. If, however, any serious objections were made to the proposition he intended to make, he should feel it necessary to trouble the House with some observations. Before he made his Motion, he hoped he might be excused for expressing his regret at some of the language that had been used in the course of the evening, and the tone that had prevailed in a part of the debate. He was far from wishing to do anything calculated to exasperate the public feeling, or to do anything to prevent the 1064 Bill, as it went from their Lordships' House, from receiving elsewhere the fullest and calmest consideration; at the same time, when he referred to the strong language used in the course of the debate, he felt that it was but a piece of justice to his noble and learned Friend to say, that he had heard nothing in his speech which could justify the strong language used by the noble Earl. He did not hear his noble and learned Friend impute any sordid motive to any of their Lordships; and the word "mob," which he had used in the course of his speech had been applied in a similar way before, and he was sure that the noble Earl was aware that when his noble and learned Friend used it he had been interrupted. He could quote authorities to prove that the term had been used as applicable to any assembly, whether composed of peers or other men—for the former were actuated by the same views, and influenced by the same motives as other men. He recollected that the celebrated Lord Chesterfield, in one of his letters to his son, alluding to the success of one of his great speeches in that House, which, after attributing it wholly to the beauty of the composition, and to the grace of the delivery, proceeded to say, that any popular assembly was a mob—like a mob was touched, and like a mob would be moved or actuated. Therefore his noble and learned Friend was not singular in the use of the term; and when he said that the same views and principles applied to them as to others, he could not be strongly condemned. He would not pursue the subject further, but he trusted that all strong and excited feelings would pass away, and that they would proceed with the further consideration of the subject with that coolness which its nature required. He had intended to move the omission of the second clause of the Bill, relating to the permanence of the rights of freemen, but he should not do so, as he found that it could be done in the third reading. He thought it better to proceed to that part of the Bill which required most attention. He meant the greatest innovation that had been introduced in the principle of the Bill—that which had produced the greatest alarm throughout the country, and which had tainted and affected the whole of that new constituency which this Bill proposed to introduce into boroughs—he meant that which made Aldermen for life, and that the Aldermen next chosen 1065 were to be those who were now members of the old Corporations. The 6th clause enacts this, he should, therefore, move the omission of the word Aldermen in it, and those words referring to their appointment for life. A similar omission must be made in the 25th and 26th clauses, and he should also move the omission of the 27th clause, which related to the same subject, and which enacted that the first body of Aldermen must consist of the present members of the Corporation. Upon the whole question he thought their Lordships had already heard sufficient discussion on what they had to decide, he, therefore, thought it unnecessary to address any further observations to them.
§ Their Lordships divided on the question that the word "Aldermen" remain in the 6th Clause: Contents present 103, Proxies 57–160: Not Contents present 46, Proxies 43–89: Majority 71.
List of the NOT-CONTENTS,
Peers Present.
DUKES. Segrave
Grafton Strafford
Richmond Ducie
MARQUESSES. Say and Sele
Lansdowne Thanet
Queensbury Lilford
Headfort Dunally
Westminster Plunket
Conyngham Brougham and Vaux
Breadalbane Templemore
Clanricarde Torrington
EARL. Mostyn
Lichfield Poltimore
BARONS. Ripon
Melbourne Denman
Auckland Leitrim
Glenelg Scarborough
Duncannon Foley
Holland Charlemont
Radnor Gardner
Hatherton BISHOPS.
Howard of Effingham Chichester.
Barham Limerick
Cloncurry Hereford
Albemarle Bristol
Paired Off,
DUKE. Errol
Norfolk BARONS.
MARQUESSES.
Winchester Belhaven
Tavistock Dunmore
EARLS. Dinorben
Roseberry Dundas
Morley Craven
Essex Howden
Suffolk Suffield
Burlington Egremont
Sherborne Seaford
Proxies.
DUKES. Fingall
Sussex Durham
Bedford Camperdown
Devonshire Ludlow
Sutherland Burlington
Cleveland Nelson
Argyll VISCOUNTS.
MARQUESSES. Lake
Anglesey Clifden
Wellesley BARONS.
EARLS. Godolphin
Shrewsbury Dacre
Mulgrave Stourton
Shannon King
Fitzwilliam Yarborough
Oxford Arundel
Grey Lyttelton
Ranfurley Dormer
Huntingdon Lynedoch
Granville Western
Chichester Glenlyon
Derby Kinnaird
Carlisle Falkland
Cork BISHOP.
Gosford Norwich
§ The Amendment rejected, as were the several other Amendments mentioned and proposed by Viscount Melbourne.
§ Some verbal Amendments were agreed to.
Back to GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.