ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Lord HOLLAND and the Duke of NɛwCASTLE rose together, but on the Duke of Newcastle's withdrawing,

having given support to his Majesty's Govern- thought proper to call those boroughs rotten ment when he thought it deserved support,- nomination boroughs. Now, whilst they were if ever there was an occasion on which, men talking of rotten nomination boroughs, he ought to have been exempt upon such an insi-wanted to know whether no such boroughs nuation as was conveyed in the speech of the would remain after this bill was carried? It noble and learned Lord, the present was that was well known that there would. He thought occasion, and he and those with whom he had that at a future stage of the bill he should be acted during the two last sessions of Parlia- able to prove at their Lordships' bar that a ment, were the men who ought not to have nomination borough was even created by it. been exposed to such an unfounded and un-(Cheers from the opposition.) In conclusion, worthy imputation. (Hear, hear) It had been he stated, that though he was a decided enemy said, however, that this amendment is brought to the bill, he should proceed in the committee forward merely because we are enemies to the by fair means to make it as perfect as its many bill. He avowed his enmity to the bill-he extraordinary provisions would allow. was convinced that, do what their Lordships might with it, it would never be anything but an evil to the country. (Loud cries of "Hear.") His opinion was, that when they should have Lord HOLLAND proceeded to address their amended this bill as far as it was capable of Lordships to the following effect:-He was amendment, they would find a crisis hanging very anxious, he said, to endeavour to assign over the country which this bill would have a few of the many reasons which induced him occasioned, and which it would not leave the to give his vote against the amendment which Government with the means of averting. had been so ingeniously put forward by the (Cheers from the opposition.) But when noble and learned Lord opposite. He felt a once the bill had passed the second reading, strong desire to address their Lordships on the and a majority of their Lordships had decided present occasion, though he confessed that, that its principles were fit to be acceded to, from personal reasons with which it was imand that its details should be considered in a material to trouble their Lordships, but of committee, he felt it to be his duty, as a peer which personal indisposition was one, he was of Parliament, to come down to the House not sure that he should be able to go through and to consider the principles of the bill, and the task which he had voluntarily imposed to make it a measure, so far as it was capable upon himself. He was anxious, he repeated, of being made a measure, fit for the House to to address their Lordships from the perfect pass and for the Governinent to carry into ex-persuasion that the amendment proposed by ecution. He could not help observing with the noble and learned Lord was one which, if some surprise, that neither the noble and unfortunately it should be adopted by a malearned Lord nor the noble Earl who had fol-jority of their Lordships, would entirely do away lowed him, had said one word in answer to the speech of his noble and learned Friend, who had shown that, according to ali precedent, according to all analogy of law, and according to all the acknowledged maxims of the constitution, the first principle which ought to be considered in this bill, was the principle of enfranchisement, and that the second was, whether disfranchisement ought or ought not to follow it. To the argument of his noble and learned Friend, the noble and learned Lord opposite, who was a great lawyer, and capable of giving an answer to any argument which could be answered ("Hear, hear," from the opposition), had not said a single word. He had left the argument as it stood, and that was a decisive proof that the argument was unanswerable. It was not with any dirty view of defeating the bill by a side-wind (cheers from the ministerial benches) that he supported this amendment. The question for their Lordships to consider was, whether they would first vote one clause, by which, one after another, fifty-six boroughs were to be disfranchised, and then another by which thirty more were to be partially disfranchised, with out knowing what the extent of enfranchise ment was to be, and without having decided whether they would go to the full length of the bill itself. And why was all this to he done? Because certain persons in the country

with the great good which they had recently effected by giving their assent to the second reading of this bill. (Hear.) Of this point he was thoroughly persuaded, that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord was inconsistent with the past decision of their Lordships. (Hear, hear, and cries of "No,” from the opposition.) He did not say this unadvisedly and though they might not be satisfactory to their Lordships, he would state the reasous, such as they were, which had induced him to come to that conclusion. He thought, then, that this amendment was inconsistent with the recent decision of their Lordships, that it was irreconcilable with all reasonable and constitutional principle,— aud that it was fraght with the greatest evils, as it was calculated to disappoint the expectations of the Commons of England, taking that term either in its confined sense of the House of Commons, or in the more enlarged and liberal sense of the constitution,-namely, that of the people of England. (Cheering from the ministerial benches.) He repeated that this amendment was inconsistent with the decision to which their Lordships had recently come, and for the reasons which he would now briefly state to them. He imputed motives to no one: he did not say that the intention of the noble Duke in supporting this amendment, or that the intention of the noble and learned Lord in

66

exercise a calm and unbiassed judgment. (Hear, hear.) The three principles of this bill were, as their Lordships all knew, disfran

proposing it, was to act directly against what they considered to be the principle of the bill; but in his view of this matter, the postpone ment of the consideration of the disfranchise-chisement, enfranchisement, and extension of ment clause would be tantamount to a vote the suffrage. He believed that to correct and against the principles of the bill. But when pacify the present uneasy state of the publie their Lordships were talking of the principles mind the first of these three principles was of the bill, prudential motives should lead them the most important of all. (Loud cheering to consider not what they themselves consider- from the ministerial benches.) In saying ed to be the principles of the bill, but what the this he did not mean to disparage the importframers of the bill considered them to be, and ance of the two other principles, for to every still more what the House of Commons con- tittle of them both he was a sincere friend, sidered them to be. (Hear, hear.) Now what determined that they should suffer no impairwere those principles? The principle to which ment. (Cheers.) Still he could not refrain the noble and learned Lord had principally di- from telling their Lordships that if they hesirected his attention was this :-Said the noble tated about passing this clause, which involved and learned Lord, "Let disfranchisement be the first principle of the bill, they would dethe consequence of enfranchisement, and then teriorate all the good which the bill was calyou will act constitutionally, and according to culated to confer upon the people, and would precedents." Comical precedents indeed they embitter the enjoyment of it to coming genewould be which had always been rejected, and rations. But, good God! to hear in that yet none but such precedents could the noble House what he had heard upon this subject and learned Lord quote. But," continued had produced upon his mind emotions of surthe noble and learned Lord, " if you act thus, prise to which he should find it impossible to you would be acting reasonably;" and then give adequate expression. First of all, he had he held out to the House a distant hope that been told that disfranchisement was such inhe would agree with it in voting for the priu-justice! (Cries of "Hear," from the oppociple of the bill. He (Lord Holland) would sition benches.) Then he had heard, in contend that the precedence of disfranchise-common with their Lordships, changes perment to enfranchisement was one of the prin-petually rung upon the great advantages ciples of the bill,-nay more, that it was that which the country derived from these nomivery principle which had rendered the bill so nation boroughs! And then, too, he had palatable to the people, and had made it effec- to listen to the very ingenious argument tual for two great and magnificent objects of the noble and learned Baron opposite, which the bill contemplated. One of them intended to prove the way in which these adwas of a temporary character, and yet of great vantages operated,-an argument founded on urgency and importance, for it was nothing the most visionary principles, untenable even less than the reconciliation of the people to in theory, directly opposed to the practice of the ancient and noble institutions of their the constitution, and irreconcilable with the country. (Cheers.) The other was the revision, opinions of all the great men who had ever correction, and improvement, of the ancient written upon this subject. The noble and principle and practice of the constitution, by learned Lord had spoken with great indignarendering it the true conservative principle of tion of proceeding to disfranchisement, unless the country, which it had always been sup- an abuse of the franchise was proved against posed to be by the collected wisdom of many those who exercised it, or unless a strong case individuals who were then no more. (Hear, of necessity was made out in justification of hear.) He was not bound to look merely at it. Now on that point he would turn the nothe words in which this motion was couched, ble and learned Lord over to a measure of his he was also bound to look at its tendency. own. The noble and learned Lord had disHe was sure that the noble Duke had no dirty franchised, at one fell swoop, ten thousand views on this question; but when men had times as many persons as this bill disfranchised. strong opinions on any subject in their minds, (Loud cheers from the ministerial benches.) it was impossible for them to look upon that The rights of those individuals to their sufsubject with the same feelings which actuated frages rested not only upon Acts of Parliathose who adopted contrary opinions regarding ment, but upon the common law of the land, it. The noble Duke, and those noble Lords from which indeed we derived all the advanwho acted with him, said that they were now tages which at present distinguished us. The ready to give effect to a principle of which noble and learned Lord, and the noble friends they had previously expressed their detesta by whom he was then surrounded, had distion. Now he would ask the noble and learned franchised the forty-shilling freeholders. He Baron opposite, whether, as a lawyer, he (Lord Hollaud) had reluctantly supported would advise him to consult a person how to that measure of disfranchisement, because be do a thing, when he was aware that that per- thought, upon the whole, that it would be son hated the thing which he asked him to attended with more advantage than disaddo. (Hear, hear) He meant to impute novantage,-in a word, that it would prove the unworthy motives to a person in such a situation, but this he would say, that it would be impossible for a person so circumstanced to

less of two evils. The noble and learned Lord, then, had disfranchised all the fortyshilling freeholders of Ireland. The noble

[ocr errors]

Lords opposite had no occasion to chuckle | man at this time of day be so foolish as to and rub their hands, and say that that mea-maintain the idea that the rotten boroughs sure was carried because it was intended to were created for the purpose of enabling some diminish Catholic influence. They must not of their Lordships to maintain an interest in lay that flattering unction to their souls, for the other house of Parliament? Dr. Paley was, the bill disfranchised not only the Catholic, he believed, the first writer of distinction who but also the Protestant freeholders-nay, it had broached this doctrine, and a doctrine disfranchised the Protestant freeholders un- more fallacious in principle, and more injuri der circumstances in which they possessed ous in practice, could hardly be devised by the claims not only on the justice of the country, art of mau. There was no borough attached but also on the good faith of those who dis- either to the title or to the princely possession franchised them,-it disfranchised the forty- of any of their Lordships; there was no boshilling freeholders who had bought their rough which belonged to that House as a freeholds from the Crown, and who had given House: it was true that the boroughs had proan additional value for them, for the purpose duced an effect upon that house; and perhaps of obtaining a vote, within a very short period one of the greatest evils of the borough system of the time of their disfranchisement. Yes, was, that it had produced a stronger effect in spite of all that the noble and learned Baron upon that House than it had even produced had that evening advanced on the score of upon the other House of Parliament. To bordisfranchisement, his bill disfranchised 400,000 row a phrase from one of the many able and Irish forty-shilling freeholders, without prov- eloquent speeches which his noble friend on ing delinquency against them, or calling upon the woolsack had made on this subject, he any of them for their defence at the bar of would say that "the corruption of the bothat House. (Cheers.) He had never heard rough was often the generation of the peer." the noble Duke opposite speak with more (Cheers.) But did the noble Lords opposite, effect, or display more talent, thau he did who expressed such generous aud chivalrous upon that occasion. The noble Duke had a sentiments respecting the dignity of that audifficult cause to handle, but he handled it gust assembly which he was theu addressingwith a master's hand. The noble Duke said, did those noble Lords mean to assert that it -aud he (Lord Holland) did not intend was right that the aristocracy should be the to quote the noble Duke's words, he spoke gaudy insects generated by the filth and ordure from a recollection of their substance merely, of the rotten boroughs?" He was prepared to -the noble Duke said, and said very justly, show, at a fitting season, from the re"After all, when we speak of these per- cords of history, that the effect which the sons and of the hardship of taking their rotten boroughs had produced in franchise away from them, we must re- way upon the House of Lords was far collect that they are so circumstanced that greater than the effect which it had prothey do not exercise their franchise independduced in giving members of the House of ently,--that they let it depend not on their own will, but on the will of others, in open violation of the principles of the constitution." Apply that language to these boroughs, and ask yoursives whether, if the bogtrotter with his 40s. freehold is to be deprived of his suffrages on account of his independence on his landlord and his priest, it is right for you to say, "We will not take away the franchise from the electors of St. Mawes, because they belong to and are dependent upon a great Lord." (Cheers from the opposition.) Whilst on this subject, he could not refrain from observing that their Lordships had been harshly treated not only by the friends, but also by the enemies of this bill. It had been said that the interests of their Lordships were affected by it. He (Lord Hollaud) had often asked the question, how were they affected by it? He had asked that question in public,-he had asked it, too, in private. He had got no answer to it in public, but he had sometimes heard an answer to it in private. Now if the answer which he had heard given to it in private had been repeated in either house of Parliament 20 or 30 years ago, when he first came into Parliament, he believed that the man who uttered it would have been called to order, and would have had a good chance of being also sent to the Tower! Good God! Could any

this

Lords an influence over the other House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He contended that the principles of the bill,-at least what the House of Commons understood by its principles, and what he himself had understood by them when he gave his vote for the second reading of this bill,-he contended that the principles of this bill were disfrauchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of the suffrage; and that one of its subsidiary principles was the order in which its three great principles stood. (Cheers.) Men of honour might say, "You take that view of this bill; but you are calling upon us to do that which we conceive to be unjust, and which we therefore cannot do." Now there was a quarter from which this argument would not come with a very good grace; for he recollected certain circumstances inducing certain men to do that which they considered wrong before it was done, and were not prepared to defend now that it was done. He would, however, admit that the plea which he had just advanced would have been sufficient to justify any noble Lord in not supporting the principle of the bill upon its second reading. But he asked their Lordships whether, after they had sanctioned the view taken of the bill by the House of Commous, by agreeing to the second reading, they deemed that it would be

either to get rid of it entirely, or to maim and mutilate the bill in such a manuer as would render it the scorn and not the delight of the people? (Great cheering from the ministerial side.) If such be their intention not even avowed to themselves, if such be the secret wish of their hearts,-the best mode of accomplishing it is that which they have proposed,-to enfranchise first, and to disfranchise afterwards. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord was neither more nor less than this:-" Postpone your conclusion, and I'll give you any premises you may desire; but then, when I have done that, I'll make your conclusion as trifling and insignificant as possible." He (Lord Holland) acquitted the noble Duke most fully of any dirty views in supporting this amendment: but this he was compelled by a sense of duty to say, that whether it were a dirty way or a clean way, the present was the most effectual way to defeat this bill; and being so, he felt it necessary to give his decided vote against the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. (Cheers.)

wise, prudent, or decorous, unless a strong case of necessity were made out, to tamper with that which the House of Commons, aud, what was perhaps more material, the people of England, considered as the principle of the bill? (Hear, hear.) He again repeated, that in considering this amendment, he was bound to look at its tendency and effect, rather than at is professious. The noble and learned Lord had told them that he bowed with deference to the decision of the House on the second reading; aud yet what course was he now pursuing? The whole of his argument was directed against the principle of disfranchisement. "I will admit," said he, "of disfrauchisement as a consequence of enfranchisement, but as a principle, I abjure, abominate, and detest it." But what said the bill which their Lordships had now read a second time? That disfranchisement was the principle of the bill; and that enfrauchisement, if it were not a consequence of, was at least subsequent to, disfranchisement. The noble and learned Lord, however, called upon the House to postpone disfranchisement. Postpone disfranchisement! The request was, The Duke of NEWCASTLE next addressed in sooth, a very modest proposal. A noble their Lordships, but we only heard one or two Earl, who had taken a part in the discussion, detached sentences of his speech, and have no and whose conduct he did not very strongly idea how he applied them. We understood him approve, had said,-" This is a very simple to say that he opposed this bill, because he matter, and makes very little difference whe-considered it revolutionary. As he deemed it ther you enfranchise first, and disfranchise preguant with danger to the best interests of afterwards, or vice versa." He (Lord Hol- the country, he would not endeavour to amend land) had said enough to prove that he did its clauses, but would rather seek to crush not think it a very simple niatter. Was it a them every one. With regard to nomination simple matter, he would ask, either in the boroughs, he would agree to any measure feelings of the people, or in the effect which which would bind the patron down, and preit would produce upon them? Did their vent him from exercising undue influence over Lordships think that those who were at- the voters. He would go along with any tached to the bill and looked forward with noble lord who should propose a measure to an earnest and ardent desire to its ultimate that effect. The noble Duke concluded by success would consider the postponement of saying that he had felt it his duty to state the the disfranchisement as a trifling matter? He spirit which would regulate his conduct in the shrewdly suspected that they would not. They committee. would feel that the postponement of that Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that although a clause proved the existence of a strong feeling difference of opinion might prevail with reof hostility in the House against the prin- spect to the correctness of the opinions enciple of the bill. (Cheers from the ministerial tertained by the noble Duke who had just benches.) But what said the noble Baron addressed the House, there was no noble Lord who had risen to speak on the subject of the who would not be disposed upon this occasion, currency, and of whose speech he had unfor- as upon all others, to do justice to the candour tuuately heard nothing but a few disjointed and manliness with which the noble Duke had fragments? He used as an argument, which avowed his sentiments. (Hear) For his own was good to those to whom he addressed it,-part, he entertained as much apprehension namely the enemies of the bill,-he used as with respect to the measure, however it an argument this extraordinary assertion," might be altered consistently with its fixed think that if you postpone this clause, there is principles,-as much apprehension as the noble great probability that there will be no dis-Duke did. Nothing which he had heard, nofranchisement at all" (hear, hear); and then thing which he had read, had produced the the noble Baron expressed a hope that some least change in the opinion which he originally trick might be performed, some adjust-entertained as to the changes which would ment or classification of boroughs might be necessarily be consequent upon the passing of devised,-which would do away with disfrau- the bill. At the same time it was impossible chisement altogether. After such a declara- for him not to see that the position in which tion, coming with so much frankness from the question stood was most materially altered such a quarter, could he entertain a mo-by the dissolution of Parliament, which was ment's doubt that the object of those who acquiesced in by his Majesty. He had also on proposed the postponement of this clause was a former occasion, taken the liberty to impress

selves prove injurious. (Hear.) No man desired more than he did to witness the reestablishment of that confidence and good humour amongst all classes of the people, which the measures of Ministers had for a time destroyed, but he would not consent to effect even that desirable object by establishing a precedent which would shake the foundation of every thing which was valuable in our social system. He therefore supported the principle advanced by i noble and learned Friend, that disfranchisement was contrary to the practice of the constitution, and should only be resorted to in cases where a commanding reason required it. He regretted that the noble Baron opposite did not make the, speech with which he bad that night favoured the House upon the question of the second read

answered; but he rejoiced that he did not deliver his speech at the time the question of the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders of Ireland was under consideration, lest his reasons might have induced the House to reject that measure which he considered necessary as a safeguard, He could assure the House that he and the noble Lords with whom he acted were disposed to deal fairly by the bill, and endeavour to render it a measure under which it would be possible for the Govern ment to be carried on; and for his own part, if the amendment proposed by his noble Friend should be agreed to, he would suggest to the House to proceed immediately to the enfranchising portion of the bill, and he would pro pose the names of the towns to which he thought that, in respect not only to population

upon their Lordships' minds, how much more the position of the question would be altered if their Lordships would consent to read the bill a second time. The question was now presented to their Lordships under circumstances different from those in which it had before stood. The principle of the bill had received the sanction, not only of the House of Commons, but of the House of Lords, in the independent exercise of their functions, not having, be thanked God, for the honour of those who were in his Majesty's councils, and for the permanent safety of the constitution, their numbers swelled by persons sent amongst them for the sole purpose of passing this measure. (Hear.) The bill had been read a second time by the sanction of an independent majority of the House, which carried with it greater authority than a majority ob-ing, for then his arguments might have been tained under other circumstances could possibly have possessed. He felt that he now was in a greater measure controlled by the vote of the House. Their Lordships having decided to read the bill a second time, it became his duty, as a peer of Parliament, to endeavour in committee to render the measure as safe as he could. When the bill should be reported, another question would arise. It would then be his duty to consider whether it would be more safe to pass the bill altered as it would be, than it would be to run the risk of the consequences which would follow from the rejection of the measure. In the committee, however, he should feel himself bound by the decision of the House upon the question of the second reading. He would propose nothing, he would support nothing, inconsistent with the three principles of the bill, namely, disfranchisement, enfrau-and taxation, but also on account of other pechisement, and the extension of the suffrage. It was impossible that those persons who voted for the second reading should not have foreseen the extent to which the application of those principles might be carried; aud of course they would not support any amendment which would have the effect of materially altering the bill from the state in which it stood on the second reading. It was his duty now to endeavour to amend the bill consistently with its three principles, reserving to himself the right of voting against the measure on the bringing up of the report, or on the third reading, if he should consider it safer to reject it than to pass it. The question which had been submitted to the House that evening was one of great importance, not so much with respect to the bill as with respect to the past Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, that noble Lords and the future. To agree to the disfranchis-opposite argued the question unfairly when ing clause in the manner proposed by Mi- they said that those who supported the amendnisters was an invasion of private rights, and meut were desirous of getting rid of disfranwould form a precedent for an attack upon chisement. In voting for the amendment he property of any description. He would never was actuated by no such motive. He objected consent to such a course of proceeding. He to proceeding with the disfranchising clause should regret if, as the noble Baron said, the in the first place, because by so doing they Commons of England should be disappointed would cast a slur on all previous Parliaments. that their Lordships did not proceed exactly On a former occasion, he said that he would in the way which Ministers proposed; but it agree to nothing which would affect the was his duty not to indulge the people in that principles of the bill. He now repeated that which was not reasonable, and would to them-declaration. He was prepared to go the full

culiar circumstances, it would be expedient and right to give representatives. (Hear.)

The Earl of WINCHILSEA said, that he would vote for the amendment proposed by his noble and learned Friend, which was consonant with his own views of the subject. The noble Baron opposite had referred to the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders of Ireland as a precedent for the disfranchisement proposed by the present bill; but the cases were not parallel, for a reason was assigned for the former disfranchisement, whilst none whatever was offered for the latter. Although he supported the amendment, he wished it to be understood that he was fully prepared to vote for giving representatives to the great and important towns.

« 前へ次へ »