Star.
London, England, 1831-09-22 00:00:00

REFORM.

The order of the day for the adjourned debate on the Re-
form of parliament bill being read,
Col. SI I3THORP said, it had been his intention to give
his reasons for his opposing the bill at some length, but he
felt himself too ill to undertake the task, and should tres-
pass no longer on the house than to declare his unabated hos.
tility to the bill, and his fervent hopes that the other house
of parliament would move improvements in the bill which
should change its character, and return it to that house fur
re-consideration.
Mr. C RA 11 PTON (Solicitor-General for Ireland) said,
he had abs aincd from troubling the House en this moment
tous question, but he could not allow it to pass through its
last stage without declaring his firm conviction that the mea-
sure was legal and constitutional, and just and wise. (Hear,
hear.) It was asserted that it was unconstitutional, revolu-
tionary, and destructive to all the ancient institutions of the
country. He thought it would restore and confirm the
constitution, which he bad learned to love and venerate from
his earliest years. (Hear, hear.) But did the Constitution
consist of rotten boroughs, of buying and selling seats
(Hear, hear.) It was not so he read the Constitution.
Any man who sat in that House, not returned by the peo.
ple. was a usurper and a violater of the law. The honour.
able member fur Thetford (Mr. Baring) had said there
were two constitutions in the country ; the one found
in the law-books of constitutional writers ; the other he
called the working constitution ; by which he must have
meant the corruptions of the constitution. The hon.
gentleman had broadly stated that the King and Peers
should have their representatives in that House. That,
however, was not the constitution which the people would
support. The Act of the second of William and Ilary, pro-
hibiting the Lords Warden of the Cinque Ports from inter-
fering in the election of their Members, expressly declared
that the Members of that House should be elected by tile
people only. The nomination system was a direct infraction
of the law and constitution. He could not admit it as a
lawyer—he could not admit it as an honest man.—Near.)—
If Government could not be carried on without nomination
and corruption, it was impossible for honest men to carry
on the Government.— (Hear, hear.) It' it was really true
that the House was to represent the King and Peers as well
as the people, let it be done honestly. Let the King return
foray • embers, let the Peers return one hund:ed and fifty,
let the Colonies return twenty, and let the people return the
rest. What would the House say to a Bill of that kind ? If
that was the working constitution—it was working iniquity.
—( Hear.) Nomination and corruption were indictable at
common law ; yet they were now told they were the vital
parts of the constitution without which it could not exist.—
t was said the bill not only destroyed the old constitution,
but made a new one. There was nothing unconstitutional
in giving representatives to unrepresented places, nor in
limning, nor in extending the franchise. The bill did not
in any instance violate the constitution. It repaired the
ravages of time, and restored what bad been taken away by
usurpation. It might be called revolutionary—he would
not quarrel with wads, but say it was a glorious revolution,
as it: restored the rights of the people. (Hear.) That house
ought to he the intageof the popular opinion and feeliog of
the people. Upon the good sense of the people he relie. ,
slid would always rely. No Government could long sub-
sist in this country against the good sense of the people, and
no such Government ought to exist. The good sense of the
people had decided in favour of the present bill, and it was
truly said that justice ought not to be denied to the people,
even if demanded with clamour. It was prophesied that if
the bill were passed, the Church, the Peerage, and the
Crown, must fall. He believed the prophecy came from a
false inspiration. (Hear.) If the Church of the United King-
dom depended for support on rotten boroughs, it could not
stand, and it ought not to stand. (Hear, hear.) They
libelled the Church who said, it depended on corruption
fur support. (Hear, hear.) He maintained, on the contrary,
that the more the State was purified, the better the Church
was secured. (Hear, hear.) It was said the Institutions
of the country depended for support on the rotten bo-
roughs ; if that were the case, they ought not to be sup-
ported ; but he was confident that by restoring the
Constitution all the' institutions of the country would be best
secured. (Hear) , It was said that if the Bill passed
that house it would not pass the House of Lords. He
should he sorry to suspect for one moment the honour, or
the wisdom, of that noble assembly ; but if ever there was
a Bill sent from the Commons to that noble House, which
they should be delicate even to touch—which they should
'tweet,: criticise—it was the present Bill. The House of
Peers had no more to do with the constitution of that
house, than that hose had to do with the constitution of
the Home of Peers. The Crown created the Peers, and
it issued its writs for the election of the House of Com-
MOD% and the Peers had no right to interfere with its pri-
vilisee. (Hear, hear.) By the common law, the Crown
and that House alone, had the power of regulating the con-
stitution of that House. The union with Scotland, and the
union with Ireland, had mode the concurrence of use house
of Peers necessary for the passing the present Bill; but he
would contend that a main part of the present Bill could be
ear led into effect without the consent of the Peers.—
The boroughs in schedule A, for instance, could be dis-
franchised. (Hear, hear.) Suppose the house were to ad-
dress the Crown to dissolve the Parliament and Issue writs
foe the election of a new one; but not to rotten boroughs or
decayed places—not to green mounds Off mosidering walla—
(hear, hear)—hut to places having conadesenta, including
populous places at present unrepeasommi There was no-
thine in the law or constitution to prevent the presentation
of such an address by dent hems, and nothing to prevent its

Crown acting on it. Writs might also be issued to
towns ; and In that way the house might be made populous.ge
of the public opinion. (Hear, bear.) He knew that could
not be done with the boroughs of Scotland, Ireland, or
Wales, nor with some particular boroughs in England that
had been made the subject of particular statutes. (Hear.)
He said that corruption had never been charged to the noble
marquis, who was his nominee, nor to his constituents, who
were free as any, and Eere numerous; yet he could consent
that their franchise sliduld be thrown to the wind rather
than it should stand in the way of the bill. He had told
his constituents that he would support the bill in all its
parts, and he hoped in fulfilling bis promise that he had
discharged his duty to them, to his country, and himself.
He thought that the time was now cone when reform was
no longer a question of expedience ; they had only to choose
between reform or revolution. The guiph lay before them,
and they must avoid it if they could. The fiat of opinion
had not suddenly assumed its present aspect, but had gra-
dually been gaining strength. It had broken through bar-
rier after barrier, and now had only one hairier more to
break through, which he hoped it would safely overcome.—
The hon member concluded with repeating his unqualified I
approbation of the measure, and renewed his assurance of
giving it his zealous support.
Mr. C. WYNNE declared his astonishment and horror
at the monstrous doctrine which had been laid down by the
hon. and learned gentleman who had just spoken—a doc-
trine which be said, if acceded to, was to declare the House
of Peers of no use, (hear, from the opposition.) and before
proceeding further, he thought they should know how they
stood. They had a right to know from his Majesty's mi.
nisters what they meant to do—(hear, from the opposition,)'
and if they meant to carry this doctrine into practice (hear,
from the opposition.) He thought that the house should
immediately adjourn the debate. (Cheers from the oprosi-
lion.) The house possessed no more power than it had ever
possessed, and if the crown meant, upon an address from
that house to prorogue parliament in the manner laid down,
and the house to sanction it, it was, to all intents, virtually
voting the House of Peers of no use. If the crown, by the
advice of ministers, could refuse to issue writs for boroughs,
he did not know any place that sent members to parliament
which the crown and its advisers could not, upon the same
principle, disfranchise. It was right the house should know
where they stood, and whether or not this was the intention
of ministers. He was more anxious to know it, and was
more alarmed when he recollected that he had heard the
declaration made by one of the law officers of the crown.—
From this, he would pass to the dectrlne of its expedi-
eney. They had been told that the Lords had no right to
reject the measure.
Sir C. VETHERELL here rose abruptly, and stepping
in between the hon. member who was speaking and the
chair, said he rose to a point of order. He deemed it unne.
cessary to protract the debate farther; and he intended to
move that the House do now adjourn the debate on the Re-
form Bill. He did so on the pound that one of the King's
law officers had said the Lords had no right but to accept
the bill on the report of that House; and that the Crown,
on its own authority, had a right to take into its own hand,
and to suspend the issuing of writs to the boroughs of ache.
dule A.

Mr. CA NIPBELL begged leave to rise to order. He
thought, that as the Learned Gentleman was making
a motion, that the words which he used ought to be taken
down.

The SPEAKER explained, that the hon. and learned
gentleman was now only explaining his reasons for making
th. motion.

Sir C. WETHERELL resumed with great warmth and
many epithets. He would be happy to know that the power
did not exist, and then the House would not be insulted and
disgraced by such declarations. If the right hon. Solicitor.
General fur Ireland would acknowledge that his doctrine
was erroneous, he would consent that they might proceed
with the debate. Let them have the Solicitor-General up,
the Attorney-General, or the Noble Chancellor of the Ex.
chequer, let them come forward if they chose in their
robes of office and declare themselves, and let them sot
whether they had three delinquents or only one. If they
gave it up he would be satisfied ; but in the mean time he
would move that the House do now adjourn its debate
on the Reform Bill.

The motion was seconded without observation, but by
whom we did not learn.

The SPEAKER then stated the previous question,', Thm
this Bill do now pass," and it was moved that the House
do now adjourn the debate on the Reform Bill.
Mr. CRAMPTON said, that the Hon and Learned Gen.
tleman had misrepresented every word that he (Mr. Cramp.
ton) had said.—(Cries of no, no.) He had never said that
the Lords had no authority, but, on the contrary, he had
distinctly admitted that they might reject the measure if
they chose. He bad said that at common law the Crown,
with concurrence of that House, might refuse to issue writs.
—(Cries of no, no, no.) He had said that the Crown, upon
an address of that House, could at Common law, independ-
ent of statute law, issue writs—but that was not • violation
of the privileges of the House, because it was only a compli.
ance with the desire of the House.—(Cries of no, no, and loud
cheers.) It was a combination of the powers of the Crown
and the Commons. And by the same law and statutes, if
sheriffs returned Members for such boroughs as were refused
writs by the Crown and the Commons, they had the right
to reject such members. It had been inferred that the crown
had been recommended to adopt that course, but he was not
aware that any such thing had been done; he had merely
made it a speculative case, on a question of law, and he had
used it solely as an argument, and not as a communication
which he had been authorised to make. He considered that
he had an undoubted right to give Ms opinion, and consi-
dering the immense influence of the learned gentleman in
that house, who was a giant in comparison to him (Mr. C.)
he thought the attack had been made for the purpose of
crushing him, an humble individual, and that it had been un-
called
for, and was ungenerous. lie had made no direct
declaration that would admit of the construction which the
learned gentleman had assumed ; he had, as he before stated,
made it a speculative case, and used it as an argument. He
would assure the house, as a man of honour, that he bad
never mentioned the subject to any one before be had done
it to the house ; he had done it of himself entirely, and no
one else was responsible, but he presumed that tbe learned
gentleman had some ulterior view in his proceeding, sad
had selected him as a scape goat. (Cries of No, no.")
Sir C. WETHERELL said, after the explanation which
had been given, it would be equally satisfactory to the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman and himself to refer
to the recollection of others, whether or not he had rightly'
interpreted the words of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman. He proceeded to repeat the words as he had
used them.

Lord ALTHORP said, the Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man (Mr. Crampton) bad, In his explanation, as near as
possible, in his mind, repeated the words he had originally
used, and he (Lord Althorp) thought it singular conduct on
the part of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Sir
Charles Wetherell), because that an Honourable Gen-
tleman might be connected with a Ministry, and in the
heat of debate wake any declaration on a question of law,
that his Majesty's Ministers should be called upon to rise
and make a declaration on that question of law.—(Hear.)
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had most particu-
larly defined his statement in the lint instance, that It was
a speculative case, and he had used It merely as an argue
went; but his lordship had no hesitation in declaring that
he had never been consulted on the question until he beard
it in the house; and in gising his own opinion, that he
considered the question to be altogether unconstitutionaL
,1 (Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said, that after the explanation of the hon.
and learned gentleman, and the declaration of the noble lord,
that lie considered the question an unconstitutional one, he
thought his hon. and leaned friend might withdraw his mo-
tion : but he (Sir R. Peel) was much Indebted ►o the learned
gentleman who had called forth the Satisfactory explanation
and declaration.

Mr. GURNEY rose amidst loud calls of " Question,
question," and proceeded to read the different acts and sta-
tutes which had been alluded to, on which he commented,
but so much confusion and excitement existed in the house,
that he was scarcely heard. He concluded with begging to
offer a few remarks on the general question.
The SPEAKER informed him that that would be out of
order.

Sir C. WETHERELL then rose, and begged leave to
withdraw Ma motion.

Mr. C. WYNN resumed. He had the greatest respect
for the lion. and learned gentleman, and he had thought that
his knowledge of the Constitution was such as might be de-
waded upon. and in taking his view of the law that could
be no security for the House of Commons. He had always
been convinced that some reform was necessary ; and when
he had given his voice in favour of a measure of reform, he
had dose so from conviction ; but he never could have anti-
cipated a measure so extensive. He could not support the
present bill. He expected that a measure would have been
introduced to extend the franchise to the large towns, and
to that he would have given his assent. He would even,
being convinced of the necessity of reform, have gone

beyond his opinion . • or, to enlarge the number of
members, he would have made room for them, but he
could never have thought of taking away the fran-
chise from all the boroughs under two thousand, because he
thought these small boroughs useful to the Constitu-
tion. He objected to the extent of disfranchisement; to the
expense of the machinery ; to the unrepresented state in
which the colonies and other great interests were left:; to '
the lowness of the electoral scale, which in the metropolis
was almost equivalent to universal suffrage; to the nume-
rous and great agomalies which the bill contained. These
were his objections. They obliged him to give his negative
to the measure. He was ready to give his assistance to a
moderate reform. (Cheers from the opposition.)
Mr. ROBERT GRANT considered there could be no
doubt that the bill would work well, when those who formed
the medium in which it was to operate had received it with
such feelings of satisfaction and gratitude. He denh d
that the bill went farther than the expectations of the people.
But if it were even true that a learned lord had not, witch a
member of that house, held out to his constituents so exten-
sive an aineliorntion, it only made him a rare and signal
example of a man in office giving more than he had pro.
mired when out of it. If the bill passes, said the Opposi.
tion, the bill is unnecessary. Then if they voted against
it, and prevented its passing, the bill was necessary. But
the test was a ridiculous one. If a man repented of the
error of his ways, and determined to reform, was the de-
termination sufficient, and was he not to follow it up by
practice? Besides, the house favoured Reform under peculiar
circumstances, under the influence of the King's name, and
of a great popular excitement. (Hear, hear hear.) The
Opposititonista themselves boasted that the Bill un-
der the former Parliament was passed only by a
majority of two. He contended that the Bill was
essentially restorative and cooserva. ire. The house, said the
member for Oxford, was never so independent and enlight-
ened as at present. But had not the people advanced in a
greater ratio ? (Hear.) Was not die house. relatively
speaking, worse than ever? Show the time, said the member,
when there were no close boroughs. Put the backwardness
and uncivilized state of the people rendered it necessary that
at a remote time the aristocrary should return members. IL was
they who then formed the enlightened puhlie : it was they
who fought the battles of liberty. (Hear, bear.) There has
been no dtange, said the member for Oxford triumphantly,
in the framework of the constitution since the revolution. Let
there then he a change now, for one third of the indepen-
dence, of the wealth, and intelligence of the community has
grown op since the Revolution, and the honourable member
says they are not represented ! We are apprehensive, said
the Opposition, of the power that is without this House. ale
(Mr. Grant) thought that a reason for conciliating it. He
contended that the defects in the Constitution were
purely accidental. He should take no other test than the
records of the House. Amongst them was a statute of Ed-
ward 111. declaring that elections should be free. The
Member for Oxford said, the Barons of the Chino, Ports
returned each one Member previously to a Bill abolishing
the practice passed under William 111. Dot the preamble
of that Bill declared the practice to be contrary to the laws
of the kinoticn. The giving of money to the patrons of
boroughs, again said the member for Oxford, was not ille-
gal until the motion made by Mr. Kirwan, and, he
added, answer the speech which Mr. Wyndham trade
on that occasion. He (Mr. Grant) would read the
preamble of the bill which the house passed in conse-
quence of that motion. (It declared the practice of giving
money to any connected with an election, to
be " contrary to the ancient usage and freedom of elections,
to the laws and constitution of the kingdom." That was
his answer to Mr. Wyndham's speech. (Hear.) The hon.
member, in refutation of the assertion tLat the controul ex-
ercised by landlords over their tenants at elections was con.
stitutional,cited several examplesof elections which had been
declared null on account of controol having been exercised.
These facts were plain, and when ;lie hon. members would
not appear to underworld diem, they reminded him of the
senators of Tiburius--" Senatoribus units nieces erat. nisi
intelligere viderenter." Would lion. members proclaim
to the people that all that they had recorded in the annals of
the House were mere moor.shine, mete deception. (Hear.)
He declared that he knew none of his friends at the bar who
would avow as constitutional doctrine sentiments that he had
heard avowed in that house. He considered that the house
were the nominees of the people, not their delegates ; but
that he was not bound by any specific pledge, but by the
stronger ligaments of general sympathy on political subjects.
That was the sort of general pledge that he considered ex-
isted between that house and the people now—nothing more.
(Hear.) He, therefore, deemed that on the subject of pledges
there had been much misrepresentation. He was much sur-
prised at many of the topics that he had heard urged during
the discussion, especially the vehement call on the House of
Lords to reject this Bill. (Hear.) Was that course cones-
tent with principle or practice ? If the advice were adopted,
it would show that the House of Lord., had not the inden.
dence attributed to them. He trusted that their LadAtips
would not show the worst species of cowardice, that of
evincing a course of proceeding from the fear that they
might not be thought to be afraid. (Hear. hear, hear.),
He trusted that they would show a conduct very contrary,
and that they would sanction a measure fraught with
justice, and calculated to promote security. (Cheers.)—
Lard VA LLETORT strongly condemned the Bill, and
'maintained that it bad not the approbation of the country.
It had not been considered by the country in the way that
it ought to have been.—(Hear.) The Bill was fuU of con-
tradictions and absurdities. The measure was of the most
I extravagant character; it surpassed the most extravagant
expectations of the most extravagant reformers : how, then,
could they expect that such a Bill should receive the sanc-
tion of the House of Lords ? If evils resulted, the conse-
quences would be on these who had excited unjust and too
extravagant expectations.—(Hear, and cries of question.)
Sir C. WETHERELL said, that in the progress of the
bill there had been much insult and violence of language
'against those who deemed it to be their duty to oppose this
reform bill. Who had been the cause of that P There had
been direct imputations of corruption against those who re
presented nomination boroughs and resisted the bill—sem.
has who were as independent in mind, spirit, and every at-
tribute, as those who approached that house by mans of a
large constituency. This bill raised the greatest constitu-
tional question that was ever submitted to any parliament_
and yet those who had deemed it right to examine and oppose
it had been exposed to a " schedule" of imputation,
and charge of throwing vexatious delay in the way of the
will of the King, the Ministers, and the people. Was that
just ? And when flowed those imputations, when did
the deluge of eloquence come upoa them from the
other side of the house ? Why, after the bill had
been read a third time. Till then, there was an embargo
laid upon their eloquence—till then there were only votes in
answer to objections. This proceeding was extraordinary;
besides, if the objections were valid, that proof would come I
too late, for the Bill had been read a third time. He should
however proceed to examine some of the characteristic fee-
tures of the Bill. First, be considered his colleague's argu-
ment against the reduction of the numbers of that house re.
mained unanswered. He deemed the argument to be un-
answerable. It had been said, that the house could not pro.
ceed except it had public opinion ; but how was that public
opinion to be collected? He maintained that the house
never could have the sanction of publiopinion in the sense
in which that language was gem/ally used. Mode-
ration
wu recounnentled,hot where was it found? (Hear,
hear.) In dm GovemSent paper, which had recommended
the army to mutiny, if the bill was thrown out ? Was it
it in the tt Friendly Advice to the Peers," or in " What
will the Lards do ?" or in the threat, that if the bill were
thrown out the flames amongst farm produce would
burst forth ? Were these specimens of moderation ? again
the Government approve of these things ? Did they sanc-
tion the threat that the House of Lords should be placed in I
schedule A, if the bill should be thrown out ? Did they
sanction the terrorism of the press--a tyranny beyond the
law ? It was fit that they should know these things. He
hoped the ministers would answer them, because from what
they saw, they were threatened with the infliction of the in.
jurious and mischievous tyranny of the press, which dis-
played a power beyond the vigour of the law. (Hear, hear.)
fie then again particularly complained of the reference made
to the fate of the French peers; it being insinuated that if
the English peers resisted, the like fate awaited them. But
the French nobility did not resist, so that the parallel did
not hold good. The French nobility conceded, and
that concession they were sacrificed. The English peer-
age were desired to concede, and he told them what the
French peers gained by concession. The recommendation
was a curious case. He would also have the English 1
peers look to the example of the French peers, and to re.
collect the cruelty and ingratitude which afterwards followed
the concessions of the ?nods peers. (Loud cheers.) But be
had yet to learn what some of the noble houses in this
country had conceded. What had the House of Howard
conceded 1--(Hear.) Bat be would not go through the
several houses • what they had conceded would form ano-
ther
ScheduieLa sort of Schedule o,"—the represents.
live of nothing (cheers and laughter.) The examples of the
French Nobility were wet what the British House et Lords

..+