ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

years ago, explained to the House the | see how this result was to be brought about reason why it was his duty to give effect to unless through the medium of small bothe promises which have been held out on roughs. The right hon. Gentleman the the subject of Reform. It was very kind Chancellor of the Exchequer it might be and very considerate, and no doubt ex- said, in words which were applied to anoceedingly well intended on the part of the ther great statesman, that all parties were right hon. Gentleman, to recommend us to proud of him; and though he had quitted withdraw the present measure. But if we one side of the House and gone to sit at were to fail in prosecuting our duty, I the other, he congratulated his new supthink we should hear from him comments porters on possessing such a distinguished upon the course which we had pursued. advocate. But were they quite sure that My earnest hope is that this question may that imagination, which in early youth had now be settled. I think it was our bounden been dazzled by the splendour of Canning, duty, in this the first Session of a new and now in its maturer years was caught Parliament, to submit the question to the by the glitter of Birmingham, had finally best of our judgment and ability to the settled? Were they quite sure it would House. And I earnestly trust that by not make another gyration? With a verthe moderation of all parties, and by that bal alteration, he would address to them on which the right hon. Gentleman has advice similar to that which fell from the justly as well as confidently relied-the injured father of Desdemonagood sense and right judgment of this House "Look to her, Moor; have a quick eye to see; -the present Parliament may be able, in the present Session, to bring to a just and satisfactory conclusion the long agitated question of a Reform in the representation of the people.

MR. WALSH said, he trusted the House would extend its indulgence and kindness to him while he addressed to them a few remarks. This was not the first time that the small boroughs had been attacked; they had survived former assaults, and he trusted they might survive the present. These boroughs had never wanted able and eloquent defenders, and among the most eloquent and most able was the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite. In 1859 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said

"I must frankly own it appears to me that to proceed far in the disfranchisement of small boroughs is a course injurious to the efficiency of

the House of Commons. You must not consider

in this matter the question only of the electors. You must consider quite as much who are likely If you have nothing but large and populous bodies to return Memyou will not find

to be the elected.

bers of Parliament

it possible to introduce adequately into this House the race of men by whom the government of the country is to be carried on."[3 Hansard, cliii. 1054.]

In the course of a speech made last summer the right hon. Gentleman, in addressing, he believed, the electors of Chester, held similar language, and said if this country wished to be served well it must return young men to Parliament; and, with all deference to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had said, except in the case of some few favoured individuals, he did not

She hath deceived her father, and may thee." To exhibit the vicissitudes of party warfare and to show how difficult it was for even our most distinguished statesmen to keep their hold upon the larger constituencies, he need only remind the House that the late Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and many others had been unable to keep their hold on the large constituencies, and would have been kept out of Parliament but for the smaller boroughs, and that it was owing to the little borough of Tiverton that the singular wisdom and genial authority of Lord Palmerston were preserved to that House so long. Since the Reform debates had commenced the Opposition had been deluged with good advice by Gentlemen sitting opposite, who suddenly manifested the most affectionate interest in their well-being as a party. Their advice, however, partook largely of the character with which in childhood they had all been familiar. Having in vain besought the Conservative party to shut its eyes and open its mouth and swallow the good things Lord Russell would send it, they were now told how much better they would be from taking the dose, they were promised a nice game of Downing Street afterwards, and that the Reform stick should be hid away in the cupboard. But he contended that any settlement to which the House was asked to agree ought to be fair and to have some prospect of finality about it. This Bill affected the seats of seventy-nine Members, forty-eight of whom were Conservatives, and thirty-one Liberals; and nothing had surprised him more

bers, cuts off a very large proportion of Members who sit on this side the House, while the obvious and intelligible limit of 10,000 would, I believe, deal with exactly the same number of Liberal and Conservative seats. I will not ask why almost all the seats thus placed at the disposal of the Government go to places which will support this Government. I will not ask why, after the returns of population and electors which have been made with such care, we should go back five years, to the last census for the purposes of this Bill, and make no use of the knowledge we have of the numbers or character of our electors. I will not ask what precedent there is for the obnoxious proposal of grouping boroughs already represented, and thereby increasing all their alleged defects and taking away their obvious benefits. Going more into detail, I will not ask why Bewdley, with its decaying population already under 7,000 is left untouched, and with its 391 Liberal electors not

than the number of 8,000 which had been bitrarily fixed upon as being the minimum fixed on as the electoral limit. In these population which is to return two Memdays of decimal figures 10,000 would surely have been the natural limit. But on looking through the Returns with the assistance of Dod, a very easy explanation presented itself of the grounds for select ing 8,000 in preference to 10,000. He found that the seats with a population of between 8,000 and 10,000 which would have been affected by choosing the higher number were seventeen, and of these sixteen were held by Liberals and only one by a Conservative Member. The modera tion, therefore, of the Government in fixing the limit at 8,000 no longer surprised him. He had only one more observation to address to Members who, like himself, represented one of the doomed boroughs. It was quite evident now that it was a question between their existence or that of the Government, and not merely of those boroughs in the present schedule. because once the principle established that mere numbers were to overrule the property and intelligence of the country, boroughs of 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000 inhabitants grouped with Droitwich with its 407 Conmight number their existence by moments. Let them not be killed in detail. Very often offence was the best defence; let them join, therefore, in defeating a measure which, he believed, would be subversive of the best interests of the country, and in furnishing the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. J. Stuart Mill) with a practical illustration of the way in which a minority could make its wishes respected and its interests cared for, even in the face of a powerful majority.

servative electors; these two towns being ten miles apart and in the same county, while Woodstock is brought twenty miles from its own county to be amalgamated with Wallingford. I will not ask why Brecon and Radnor, with their population under 8,000 and their Liberal representatives remain unaltered. The Government has reserved to itself the right of dealing arbitrarily with all these questions, and let us not blame them too much that their justice is tempered with the charity that begins at home. But, when a strict and definite rule is laid down, and when, curi

MR. ARKWRIGHT: I can fully understand the very great difficulties which a Government must encounter in endeavour-ously enough, the only exceptions made to ing to deal with such an important and intricate subject as that of the Re-distribution of Seats. I can well believe that an Administration, however conscientious, must inevitably lay itself open to the charge or at any rate to the suspicion of inconsistency and unfairness, considering the numerous and conflicting interests which this Bill touches; and considering too how much, as in this case, is left to the arbitrary discretion of its promoters. I should, therefore, be unwilling to attach too much importance to the curious chain of concidences which in the Bill now before the House does, undoubtedly, expose it to the accusation of being formed as a party measure. I will not unduly insist on the curious fact that the figure of 8,000, ar

it are made to the disadvantage of Conservative constituencies, then, I say, it is time for every honest man, and for every Member who has an especial interest in the seats injuriously affected, to come forward and demand an explanation of the circumstances. The Government Bill lays down the rule that every constituency which had in 1861 a population of more than 8,000 is still to retain its right to return two Members to Parliament. By this rule the towns of Chicester, Guildford, Lewes, Malton, Poole, Stamford, Tavistock, Wycombe, and Windsor, all of which have a population between the mystical number 8,000 and 10,000, keep their privilege; well and good. Now, there are ten groups of boroughs which have more than 9,000

MR. JOHN HARDY said, it was hard that the borough of Dartmouth, which he represented, and which had been tampered with by the Reform Bill of 1832, should again be singled out for attack. If the right hon. Gentleman who framed the Bill had grouped Dartmouth with other towns on the coast having similar interests, such as Brixham, and Paignton, and Teignmouth, he might not have complained; but what had Dartmouth to do with such

inhabitants. It is obvious, therefore, that by this rule all the groups should at least retain the above-mentioned privilege; but, an exception is made, and these ten groups, not one of which would return two Liberal Members, and certainly five of which would return two Conservative Members, are not to have two representatives unless their population amounts to 15,000. Now I ask how, in the name of consistency and fairness, can this exception be supported? I will take the case of the group of bo-way-side boroughs as Ashburton and roughs in which I am personally interested, Ludlow and Lominster, and ask why are we not to have two representatives unless we have a population of 15,000? Is it because our electors are few? Our united electors number 765, while not one of the ten privileged towns I have named has more than 719. Is it because we are accused of corruption and undue local influence? Such a suggestion has never even been whispered, and while the names of Windsor and Lewes, of Tavistock and Malton, are so notorious, we can safely say that that is not the reason. Is it because we are decaying places? No: both constituencies are flourishing and increasing steadily in proportion, while the comparatively recent railways are just beginning to develop new sources of wealth and influence. Is it because we have no vested rights. At this moment Ludlow and Leominster return four Members to Parliament, and in the latter place, at least, we point back with pride to a long line of distinguished representatives. No! the only method on which this spoliation of small boroughs has been conducted is

"The good old rule, the simple plan,

That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can."

We small boroughs hold in our hands a
banner. It is not so imposing and brilliant
as that which still floats from the Treasury
Bench. Our warriors are few and compa-
ratively unskilled in the combat, but we
have the advantage of having justice on
our side, and we wage the battle of right
against might. This Bill may be passed
through the House by a small majority,
and we know the tender mercies that are
extended to the weak in Committee; but
I shall have this satisfaction, that the first
words I have uttered in this House-words
which if this Bill become law may be my
last-have been against as illogical and
tyrannical an injustice as has ever been
contemplated by any Government.

Totnes, the last of which was of no good repute, and the other was so completely out of the way-for nobody went therethat if a man found himself there by chance he would have to ask where he was. Dartmouth, too, was one of those boroughs which had won its charter and done the State some service long before many of the larger boroughs had been heard of ; and, although a man ought to submit to see a small borough disfranchised with equanimity, if the country were likely to be benefited by the sacrifice, it was rather hard to have one's seat handed over to a Democrat, and to be called upon to make way for the Scotch Radicals. For his own part, he was not in favour of making any addition to the number of Members already in the House. The House could not well contain a greater number, and the great majority of the present Members were unable to express their opinions on any important debate. But, beyond that, the Bill was full of anomalies, which he would illustrate by the single instance that one Member was to be taken away from the cathedral town of Lichfield, while Tamworth, with 200 or 300 electors less, was left untouched. When the Franchise Bill was brought forward there was the usual cry that it was an honest Bill. But he called nothing honest that did not tell the truth. He would not detain the House longer, as he would have opportunities of attacking its details in Committee, but he could not avoid taking this opportunity of expressing his opposition to the Bill.

MR. KER expressed his dissatisfaction with the mode in which it was proposed in the Irish Reform Bill to deal with Downpatrick, the borough which he represented.

MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Member was not in order in discussing the Reform Bill for Ireland, as that measure was not before the House.

MR. KER, under those circumstances, would reserve his observations till the Irish Bill came on.

which the House stood with regard to the Motion of which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had given notice. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice that in the event of this Bill being read a second time, he would move

"That it be committed to the same Committee

with the Representation of the People Bill, and
that it be an Instruction to the Committee that
they do make both the said Bills into one."
The course to be followed with regard
to this Bill might be materially affected
by the decision which the House might
arrive at on the Motion of the right
hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The right
hon. Gentleman was not then in his
place, but it would be convenient that
the House should know in what position
they would stand in the event of this Bill
being read a second time without a divi-
sion. There was no disposition, as far as
he knew, on that side of the House to ob-
ject to the second reading; but they
would be glad to know whether the Motion
of the right hon. Gentleman could be made
when the Committee on this Bill was fixed;
whether the Government were prepared to
assent to that Motion; and if it should be
agreed to, in what position the House
would be as regarded any Amendments on
the question, "That the Speaker do leave
the Chair." He was not aware that it was
intended to move any Amendment on the
Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair,
but it was desirable there should be a clear
understanding as to the position in which
the House stood. There was no wish on
the part of the Opposition to gain time or
take any unfair advantage of the Govern-

MR. DUTTON said, he was not disposed to object to the second reading of the Bill, because he was of opinion that a Committee composed of half-a-dozen Members from each side of the House might in a very short time make this Bill into a very useful measure. His own opinion was that instead of grouping boroughs already enfranchised, it would have been a wiser course to have partially disfranchised all boroughs of under 15,000 population, and thus acquired sixty seats, which could have been distributed among the populous places which were at present unrepresented. He thought that the system of grouping boroughs adopted by the Government would be very unsatisfactory to the residents in these boroughs, and most inconvenient to the hon. Gentlemen who represented them. In some cases of proposed grouping it was extremely difficult to see any reason for the grouping, geographically or otherwise. In reference to his own case, he could not conceive why Cirencester, Tewkesbury, and Evesham should be joined. The people of those towns knew nothing of each other, and any person going the round of the three towns would have to travel over several branch lines, to go a distance of forty miles, and to change carriages five times. In reference to two boroughs in his own county, Lymington and Andover, he thought that it would have been far better, instead of being grouped, that they should have one Member each, and that unrepresented towns should be thrown into groups. In reference to the distribution of seats he found that South Hants was not to have a third Member, though from the large population and from the rapid increasement. of the constituency in consequence of the large towns, such as Portsmouth and Southampton, that division of the county had upwards of 100,000 inhabitants, more than the number considered to entitle other counties to the extra Member. He was glad that the Bill was to be allowed to go into Committee, and he had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side in a spirit of fairness, and that on the other hand the proposals of the Government would receive due consideration; for without mutual concession no measure of this kind could be carried, and he was anxious to see the much-vexed question of Parliamentary Reform settled during the present Session.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he should be glad to know the position in

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he thought the question of the hon. Baronet was a perfectly fair one. When introducing the Bill he said that as regarded the question of procedure he would endeavour to gather the feeling of the House, and he naturally looked to the termination of the discussion on the second reading as the period at which the Government would have received a sufficient indication of that feeling. They had supposed from the course matters had taken previously, that there would have been a longer discussion on the second reading; but the information they now had led them to believe that it would, on the whole, meet the views of the majority of the House if the two Bills should be combined together. As a matter of fact, he believed that was the only point which had remained

in any doubt; and on the part of the Go- | extent at the disposal of the Crown; and vernment he had to say that he was pre- that likewise was liable to so much abuse pared to accede to the Motion of his right that at length Parliament determined that hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. the whole of the revenue should be paid He supposed that Motion would be made into the Exchequer, and that only a certain on going into Committee, which, with the sum should be placed at the disposal of the permission of the House, he would fix for Sovereign for the purposes of the civil Gothat day fortnight. vernment, or, as it was described, for the expenditure of the Civil List. In the early part of the reign of George III. even that modified system still left the door open to very great practical abuses. It was found to be so difficult for the Sovereign to resist the arts and importunities of persons about the Court that large sums had been granted by way of pensions, and that all sorts of secret contrivances were resorted to to conceal them from the knowledge of

MR. SPEAKER, in reference to one of the questions asked by the hon. Baronet, said, that an Instruction to the Committee was not in the nature of an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee; and, therefore, Amendments on that Motion had not been interfered with by the Instruction.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed the public. It was therefore determined for Monday, 28th May.

[blocks in formation]

MR. AYRTON said, that among the other provisions of this Bill was one giving power to Her Majesty to retain Claremont for her life. He had wished a few nights ago to make a few remarks when the Report on that Bill was considered; but having understood that it was not intended on that occasion to proceed with the Bill, his accidental absence had deprived him of an opportunity of doing so. He now, however, wished the House to consider seriously what they were about to do in this matter. They were violating a very important principle which had been laid down with reference to the disposal of public property and public revenue by the Crown. It was a long time since the Crown had possessed the power of disposing at its pleasure of the lands or the revenues which constituted its hereditary revenue. It was found that so many abuses had crept in through the freedom in that respect which had been reserved by the Sovereign, and that he was liable to so many importunities, that Parliament was at last compelled to enact that no grants should be made of Crown lands to any person except under the most stringent conditions. But the general revenue was also in former times left to a large

that the best mode of securing the due appropriation of the money set apart as a Civil List for the benefit of the Sovereign and the use of the nation was, as far as possible, to repress the practice of allowing the Sovereign to grant any monies or pensions to any person whatever except under conditions then laid down, of the most preof checking abuse was to prevent any pencise and stringent character. One mode sion being granted secretly, to be paid in a covert manner; and it was required that every pension should be paid to the Exchequer. It was further provided that no grant should be made except upon a Message sent by the Crown to Parliament, in order that it might be patent to the public to whom any such grant was made. That extended, however, only to the larger class of pensioners; and all those under £1,200 were still left at the absolute discretion of the Crown. But, to restrict the power of the Crown to grant these pensions, the Civil List was divided into classes, and a certain sum only was placed at its disposal to be appropriated according to its pleasure for pensions or other gratuities. That state of things continued, with some modifications, until the accession of the present Queen, when a new arrangement was entered into, by which the practice of putting a large sum in the gross at the service of the Crown for pensions was abolished, and the still more precise method was adopted of allowing the Queen to grant pensions to persons who had earned them by some kind of merit to an extent not exceeding £1,200 in any one year. That system, therefore, having been found necessary in order to prevent the misappropriation of the public revenue, it had resolved itself

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »