§ The House resolved itself into a Committee.
The Chairmansaid, the question before the Committee was, that, at line sixteen of the old print of the Bill, and at lines thirteen and fourteen of the new print of clause twenty-one, the following words should be omitted—"Shall, by reason thereof, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, if such rent shall be payable more frequently than once in every half year."
§ The Question, "that these words be omitted," was carried.
§ The next question was, that the following words in their stead should be inserted down to the end of the clause—"Shall, by reason thereof, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, if, by any agreement or contrivance, or by virtue of any Act of Parliament or otherwise, the landlord shall be liable to the payment of the rates for the relief of the poor in respect of such premises; but that, nevertheless, where, by virtue of any Act of Parliament, the landlord shall be liable to the payment of such rates, it shall be lawful for any such tenant to claim to pay such rates, and upon his actually paying the same, to acquire the same right of voting as if his landlord had not been so liable for such rates. Provided also, that the premises, in respect of the occupation of which any person shall be deemed entitled to vote in the election for any city or borough, shall be the same premises, and not different premises respectively occupied for any portion of the said twelve months; and that, where such premises, as aforesaid, shall be jointly occupied by more than one person, each of such joint occupiers shall be entitled to vote in respect thereof, in case the yearly value or yearly rent of such premises, or the yearly value in respect of which they shall have been assessed or rated as aforesaid, shall be of an amount which, when divided by the number of such occupiers, shall give a sum of not less than 10l. for each and every such occupier, but not otherwise.''
Mr. Wasonsaid, that there was a local Act in Liverpool, under which the landlords of houses of a certain class compounded with the parish for the poor-rates to which such premises were liable, the tenants paying a nett rent. As this clause stood, the tenants of such houses would be deprived of their right of voting.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that it was absolutely necessary to make the payment of the rates the distinctive qualification, in order to avoid still greater difficulties which would arise were the clause otherwise framed. If the landlord paid the rates, it must be left to him and his tenant to make their own arrangements with respect to any alterations that might be necessary.
Mr. WasonBy the clause, the tenant must pay the rates to the parish, but as the landlord has already paid them, they ought to be paid to him.
§ Lord AlthorpIf tenants themselves paid their rates, they must pay the full sum charged, but where the landlord paid them, the parish usually compounded with him for a certain sum, sacrificing a part in order to ensure the remainder. The doubtful responsibility of persons in such situations formed one reason for excluding them, and the difficulty of ascertaining the particular parties another.
Mr. Ewartsaid, there would be 3,000 voters in Liverpool, who were affected in this manner by the local Act. The Attorney General, whom he had consulted, was of opinion, that they would not be injured by the clause before them.
Mr. WasonNo individual among these persons could know the amount of rate to which he was liable, as his landlord compounded for houses in the gross.
§ Mr. Charles Calvertsaid, that there were premises in parishes in Southwark similarly situated to those of which the hon. Member had spoken. The parishes had been compelled, in self-defence, to procure an Act authorising the practice. It would be only necessary, however, for persons so situated to go to the Overseer, and get themselves rated, in order to be entitled to vote.
Mr. Wilkssaid, as many large towns were similarly circumstanced, he would propose, as an Amendment, that the clause should be so framed, that those who had a claim to be rated, should have only to go to the Overseer and be rated, in order to establish their right of voting.
§ Lord Althorphad no objection to such an Amendment.
§ It was accordingly proposed as an Amendment, that after the words "pay such rates," in the line twenty of the new print of the Bill, the words "in respect of such premises" should be inserted, and that instead of the words which immedi- 672 ately followed in the same line, viz. "and upon his actually paying the same, to acquire the same right of voting," the following words should be inserted—"and upon his actually paying the rates, to which he shall have become liable."
§ The clause, as amended, was put.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellfound much difficulty in understanding the clause relating to joint occupancy. He desired to know, if more than one person could vote for a house, and by what qualification they were to do so? Was it because they were all liable to contribute to the poor-rates, or pay a portion of the assessed taxes which the whole premises were rated for, or because they were all liable to the same landlord?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that either of the three qualifications mentioned would give the right of voting, to which he would add a fourth, and that was the payment of such a proportion of the rent as amounted to 10l. He had thought all those qualifications had been well understood.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussontook an objection to the wording of that part of the clause which related to the joint occupancy of houses, which he thought liable to abuse. For instance, in a house rated at 100l. a year, nine persons might obtain a right of voting without paying any rent whatever. A person desiring to advance the interests of a particular party at an election might take a house of that value, of which he paid the rent alone, but into which, as occasion might require, he could introduce nine other inmates, each of whom, by the provisions of this clause, would thereby obtain the right of voting, even if they were not rated to any parochial or other taxes.
The Attorney Generaldid not conceive the objection of the learned Member valid; but, to remove all doubts, he would insert the words "owner or tenant." instead of "occupier," as an Amendment.
Mr. Alderman Woodwished to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether each proprietor of a counting house was—quoad the counting-house, and without reference to his paying taxes—to have a vote for the Representative of the town or city in which the counting-house lay? This was important to know; because, in the city of London, it was a common practice to let out one large mansion in chambers, each chamber ranking as a counting-house, the proprietor of the mansion paying all taxes and pa- 673 rochial rates; so that if, according to the clause as it stood, each proprietor of a counting-house, for which he paid more than 101. or 20l. per annum rent, was entitled to a vote, though he paid no taxes, it could only be to the detriment of the resident Liverymen who paid taxes, and unless such persons were made liable to the taxes for the city, he must, in performance of his duty, move an amendment to the clause.
The Attorney Generalsaid, the Bill would not disturb the existing law with respect to the right of the proprietors of counting-houses to vote, apart from the consideration of paying or not paying parochial rates.
Mr. Alderman Wood,in this case, understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to affirm, that the holders of such counting-houses, not paying parochial rates, as he had specified, would have votes in the city of London. He objected to this, and as a remedy, therefore, he would move as an Amendment to the clause, when the report of the Committee was brought up, that no counting-house, not paying taxes and parochial rates, should entitle its holder to vote under the present clause.
Lord John Russellconceived, that the hon. Alderman's Amendment would be supererogatory, inasmuch as the Bill provided, that no holder of a premise to receive the right of suffrage could exercise the right, without paying a certain amount of parochial rates.
§ Mr. Alderman Venablesprofessed himself ready to agree to the clause, as amended at present, if it would have the effect of making it necessary that persons should pay a portion of the rates and taxes to entitle them to vote, as in the case of partners. Otherwise he should certainly support the Amendment of his worthy colleague.
Mr. Alderman Woodcontended, that the clause was most unsatisfactory in the wording, and he should certainly, as he had already stated, on the bringing up the Report, move an Amendment which would meet the difficulties he complained of.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he felt much gratified at finding two Aldermen of the city of London who were not so thoroughly satisfied of the merits of the "whole Bill," as to give their assent to such a clause as this, and he congratulated one of the worthy Aldermen (Alderman Venables), 674 upon having manfully and honourably asserted his independence before the London Committee of Public Safety, who had laid their sapient heads together, and professed to keep a watchful eye upon the Reform Bill, the House of Commons, and the Ministry. He was glad also that the Committee of Public Safety had found, that the "whole Bill" would introduce a class of voters into the city of London which they were not desirous of having, such as lodgers and the holders of smaller parts of houses.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonbegged to know, whether every person who was to have the right of voting must be rated to the poor as a necessary qualification?
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, this part of the clause, if that construction was put upon it, was wholly at variance with the provisions of the previous part of it, by which they had provided, that none but rate-payers should be entitled to vote.
Mr. Wilkssaid, if the clause remained as it stood at present, it would cause the greatest abuses. At a general election, nothing would be more easy than for persons who occupied some of the very large old mansions which remained in the city of London, and which were perhaps rated at 200l. a-year, to create a number of fictitious votes, simply by inviting their acquaintances to live with them for a time, and by this means give them the right of voting as joint occupiers, although, in point of fact, they paid neither rents nor taxes. Under such a system, it would be impossible to calculate the extent to which corruption would be carried. The ostensible object of the clause was, to allow partners to vote. He was ready to acknowledge that was proper, but he strongly objected to give the right of voting to mere lodgers under the guise of joint-occupiers.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, it was clear, as the clause now stood, that any man who occupied a floor in a house let into compartments, if he paid at the rate of 10l. a year, would thereby acquire a right to vote.
§ Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, that a very slight alteration would render the clause satisfactory. What was wanted was, to give joint-occupying tenants the right of voting, and he thought every difficulty would be overcome by substituting the words "joint tenants of "the same landlord," for the 675 words proposed by his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the alterations proposed would only add to the difficulties. The clause was monstrous as it stood, and its evils would only be increased by the alteration. It would, indeed, be almost impossible to determine correctly who were entitled to a vote, and the consequence would be, that the splitting of votes would be carried to an unlimited extent.
The Attorney Generaldefended the view he had taken. He did not think the alteration recommended by the hon. and learned member for Newark would be an improvement, because every object proposed would be obtained by the words "owner or tenant." His object was, to secure the right of voting to occupying partners, and not to occupying tenants. And if the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite would be content to take the common meaning of words, they would see there were no difficulties but of their own creating.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that the clause, then, as amended, would, upon the Attorney General's shewing, enable persons holding houses to make an indefinite number of voters.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he wished an answer to this question:—If a speculator in houses took a house, and paid the whole of the rates and taxes himself, and let that house to several tenants, were those tenants to have votes? Again, as there were several thousand persons non-residents in the city, but who occupied counting-houses there, for which they paid no rates, and who would be entitled to vote for the places in which they actually resided in the vicinity of London, he wished to know, were such persons also to vote for the city? He believed (notwithstanding all the attempted explanations of all the lawyers in the House, which were so conflicting and obscure as to prevent him being satisfied), that all such persons, provided they paid 10l. a-year for such counting-houses, would be so entitled, and as it would be exceedingly unfair to the actual rate-payers to have such an influx of voters, he must endeavour to remedy it.
§ Mr. George Robinsonsaid, the worthy Alderman would be perfectly justified in taking any steps to prevent such an abuse, if the clause really bore such a construction as had been put upon it.
Lord John Russellsaid, as he understood the clause, tenants so situated would not have a vote unless they became ratepayers.
Mr. Alderman Woodwould wish thoroughly to understand if such was really the case, for not one in ten of the occupiers of the larger houses in the city paid rates. They were generally let out in chambers, and the person who hired the house, on the speculation of letting them to commercial persons, usually paid all the rates.
Colonel Daviessaid, the clause as it stood at present, would admit the manufacture of fictitious votes to an enormous extent.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellbegged leave to direct attention to the extraordinary discrepancy between the version which the hon. and learned Attorney General, and the noble Paymaster of the Forces, gave of the present clause. The former said, that all the proprietors of counting-houses, or chambers styled as such, would have votes even though they paid no parochial rates, while the noble Lord flatly contradicted his fellow-labourer in the cause of the Bill, and said no, unless they paid a certain amount of taxes. Was ever such a thing witnessed before, that members of the same Government should thus flatly contradict each other on a simple question of fact? It was insulting to the proceedings of the Committee, after two Ministers had put a certain construction on a clause, for a third Minister to get up and contradict that construction. Was it not a glaring instance of the crude and unstatesman-like mode in which the whole measure was concocted?—in other words, a proof of the necessity of its being thoroughly revised before they proceeded further?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, there was no contradiction. He had said, that being rated to the poor was not necessary to obtain a vote, for, although a tenant might occupy, yet, if there was any collusion or contrivance by which the landlord became liable to the rates, the mere occupancy did not give a vote. When these circumstances were considered, it would be seen, that he was precisely of the same opinion as the noble Lord.
§ Mr. Alderman Venablessaid, that was the way he had understood the clause, until doubts had been thrown over its operation, which doubts had not been removed, 677 as no distinct answer had been given to the objection of his worthy colleague.
§ Sir Edward Sugdencontended against the construction put upon the clause by the noble Lord. It provided, that if the landlord, of any premises was liable for the rates, the tenants had no votes, but the tenant could claim to pay the rates, and, by so doing, obtained the right. This question then followed, was the landlord liable for the rates by Act of Parliament? He considered he was so, but not in the sense this clause gave. Suppose a house was let for 10l. a-year rent, and the landlord was liable for the rates, the tenant by claiming to be rated himself, established thereby a right to vote, but according to this clause, hereafter a man might have a house worth 200l. or 300l., and let it out in floors or chambers, each tenant paying more than 10l. rent. How were the rates to be paid? Was each tenant liable to the whole, or only a part, and how were they to be divided, and into what portions? As neither of these plans could be effected, the man would lose his right to vote, and this was the way the noble Lord and his friends contradicted each other, one said, persons so situated would have votes, the other maintained they would not.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, their object generally was, that when a tenant only occupied without paying rates, he could have no right to vote, but as there were local Acts of Parliament, by which the landlords of houses under the value of 18l. per annum, were liable to the rates, it was in such cases only, that they wished to give the tenant the privilege of voting on claiming to pay the rates.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenmust repeat, that the clause was very obscure. How would it operate, he requested to be informed, in such cases as the landlord paying all the rates upon a large house divided and let to separate tenants? There could be no appertainment of rates to each, and such a case was very different from Chambers in Inns of Court, where each set was a distinct tenement, and distinctly rated.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, as he understood the question, it was, that if a man paid 10l. a-year rent and upwards, that gave him the right to vote, but this general right was qualified by certain local Acts of Parliament, which rendered the landlords of houses under the value of 18l. liable for the rates. Whatever these might amount 678 to, the tenant ought to have a corresponding reduction of his rent. If he claimed, by the payment of these to be entitled to vote, and if he did not obtain this, he was hardly treated. Considering these circumstances, he wished to suggest the propriety of adopting the system pursued with respect to the qualification for jurors, which was assessment to the poor-rates at a certain sum. If that were done, great difficulty would be overcome. He said this, however, assuming one uniform qualification for voting to be desirable, which he certainly did not think. God forbid an uniform right of voting ever should be established—but if it were, liability to the poor-rates was the simplest and the best criterion. Another test might be had in the number and size of the windows of a house. The clause, as it stood, would give a man who paid a certain amount of rent and taxes, a vote; but another who paid more to his landlord in rent, than his neighbour paid in rent and taxes, would have no vote because his landlord paid his rates.
§ Lord Althorpcould not see the utility of the suggestion. The landlord and the tenant had the power of making their own arrangements.
Colonel Daviessaid, that in Southwark, Liverpool, and other places, the landlord was compelled to pay the rates for all houses let at a rent under 20l. a-year, and therefore the tenant would have no means of acquiring a vote.
Mr. Wilkssaid, there was no local Act of the description alluded to, that did not allow a tenant to deduct the amount of his rates if he paid them.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was in error, for there was nothing in the present Bill to authorize a tenant to subtract the amount of his rates from his rent. Ministers, according to their version of the clause, said, the tenant must pay a premium for the right of voting in the shape of poor-rates, the hon. Member said the contrary, he wished to know which was right.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he had asked the question before, whether a tenant would become liable to extra payments on obtaining the right to vote; he had received no answer, but now it appeared, the tenant was to pay, and the sum taken from the pockets of the poor was to go into those of the landlords.
§ Mr. Serjeant Wildeasked what the 679 question was which was then before the Committee. He believed, that they were upon the last provisor of the clause; but he was not so certain, as a multitude of topics had been introduced, which were quite irrelevant to it.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that upon a clause, by which they were constituting a new election system for the country, it would be very hard if they were to be tied down, during the discussion, to the strict letter of it. He wished to know whether the noble Lord, in framing this bill, had at all considered how far the 59th George 3rd c. 12. operated upon this particular clause. This clause gave a right to vote to every 101. householder, on the ground that such individuals formed a sufficiently enlightened part of the community to entitle them to that privilege. The preamble to the 19th and 20th clauses of the 59th Geo. 3rd expressed a very different opinion of them. He would take the liberty of reading it to the Committee. It was as follows:—"Whereas in many parishes, and more especially in large and populous towns, the payment of the poor-rates is greatly evaded by reason that great numbers of houses within such parishes are let out in lodgings, or in separate apartments, or for short terms, or are let to tenants, who quit their residences, or become insolvent before the rates charged on them can be collected; and it hath been found in many instances the persons letting such houses do actually charge and receive much higher rents for the same, upon the ground and expectation that the occupiers thereof cannot be effectually assessed to the poor-rates, and will not be charged with, or required to pay, such rates, and do thus obtain an advantage to themselves, &c. &c.: for the remedy thereof, be it enacted, that the owner or owners of any house being the immediate lessor of the actual occupier, which shall be respectively let to the occupier thereof, at any rent or rate not exceeding 20l. nor less than 6l. by the year, shall be assessed to the rates for the relief of the poor." The Act of the 59th George 3rd which was a deliberate act of the Legislature, evidently looked upon those 10l. householders as anything but an intelligent and a respectable class. The very next clause of that Act was as follows:—"Provided also, and be it further enacted, that the goods and chattels of every occupier of any such house, &c., which shall be found in and about the 680 same, shall be liable to be distrained, and sold for raising so much of any such rate or assessment, being in arrear, as shall have become due during the occupancy of the person or persons whose goods and chattels shall be so distrained, &c. Provided also, that every occupier who shall pay any such rate or rates, or upon whose goods or chattels the same or any part thereof shall be levied, shall and may deduct the amount of the sum which shall be so paid or levied out of the rent by him and them payable, and such payment shall be a sufficient discharge to every such occupier for so much of the rent payable by him as he shall have paid, or as shall have been levied on his goods and chattels of such rate, and for the costs of levying the same." So that the law of the land was, that if the occupier claimed to pay the rates, or paid a sum of money to redeem the goods distrained, he could clearly do it. Now, if the occupier of a 10l. house paid the rates, he had the right by law to deduct them from his rent; and if he did deduct them from his rent, he ceased to be a voter. There was evidently a collision between this clause and the 59th of George 3rd. He was convinced that, unless some arrangement was made between these two conflicting clauses, much confusion would arise. He hoped, that before the noble Lord brought up the usual report on this clause, he would make some arrangement which would remedy this anomalous condition of the Bill. The rates of course must be paid, but he was inclined to think, that the tenant who, on the faith of such an understanding as that supposed by the hon. Member opposite, paid paid the rates for the purpose of voting, would have a right to recover from his landlord, or the poor tenant would have no protection; and if he made the deduction in some cases he would lose the right of voting. Suppose, for example, a tenant had a rent of 13l. a year, for a house on which his landlord was liable to 41. a year rates; if he deducted these he would lose his right of voting. Another difficulty appeared to him to be this. A case might arise in which a landlord had made a general composition for paying the rates for an entire row of houses, so that it would become a hard matter to ascertain the amount of rate which had been paid for any particular house as a portion of the whole.
§ Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, that, as the 681 clause was now worded, the rates must be paid in order to entitle the tenant to claim his vote: but the tenant of a 10l. house, as well as the tenant in joint occupancy, would be entitled to recover from the landlord, if he paid the rates beforehand for the purpose of voting. It frequently happened, however, that there were a number of small houses, of different sizes, of which the landlord paid the rates of all in one sum, by composition. Now the only difficulty he felt was, as to the ascertaining of the proportion of rates in such cases, so that the tenant might be able to recover his vote, for he was inclined to believe, that in all cases the tenant could deduct the amount from the landlord, or recover it at law.
Sir Robert Peelwas afraid, that this Bill, which used the words of the 59th George 3rd, would give the tenants who paid their rates to secure a right of voting, a title to deduct that sum from their rent. It would be better, therefore, to give them this right of voting on payment of the rates expressly under the present Bill.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the true statement of the case was really this: The clause, as it at present stood, allowed the tenant to vote on paying his rates; but at the same time (and the noble Lord (Althorp) admitted it) the tenant, when he had so paid, was not entitled to recover the amount of the rate from the landlord, or empowered to deduct it. He really thought, that, after differences of opinion expressed by all the Gentlemen connected with the law, respecting the true bearing and effect of the clause, the noble Lord should not press it, without having previously attempted to make it somewhat more intelligible.
Mr. Wilksobserved, that the clause was undoubtedly not very clear; but he thought it better it should pass than the tenant be deprived of the chance of a vote.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that if the clause was permitted to stand, they would be compelled to pass an Act to declare that it was not intelligible as it at present stood, and to make it intelligible. The Ministers were, however, deceiving the people with hopes that could not be realised. They proclaimed to the people of Manchester and Birmingham, that they were giving them a great boon in the 10l. qualification, but it would be found, when the Act came into operation, that few or none 682 of that class of persons, it was so worded could take advantage of it. It would deceive people into the belief, that they became entitled to a vote under its provisions, but neither layman nor lawyer in that House was able to say how this was to be accomplished, or by what means they were to become enfranchised. Under the clause, as it now stood, the tenant might gain a vote by paying his rates, but then he could not recover from his landlord, so that he was driven to the necessity of losing his vote or his money. The Government expressed a great respect for the rights of the operatives, and he admitted, that they were a highly intelligent, respectable, and trust-worthy class of the community. But how did the Government treat that class, with all their popularity-hunting professions of regard to their interests? Why, they deceived and deluded them with the prospect of advantages which they were not to enjoy. Although he did not profess so much, yet he would deal more fairly with them. He would not say to them, "You are to have a vote," and afterwards leave them to pay a pound in the shape of rates, which it appeared they had no power to recover. The opinion which a learned Serjeant and eminent Pleader gave on the subject was, that the tenants might pay their rates, and he was inclined to believe (a style of language very common with the learned Serjeant's profession, when they gave an opinion)—he was inclined to believe they might afterwards recover by an action at law. The noble Lord had much better deal fairly and openly with the numerous and respectable class of operatives who would be affected by this clause, and tell them, "You may be very respectable persons, indeed, but, gentlemen, give me leave to tell you, you must, in order to become entitled to your votes, not only be assessed for 101. but you must also pay a rate of 11. in order to become possessed of your vote." If the noble Lord were to send down word to the operatives of Birmingham and Manchester, that such was the condition under which they were to be enfranchised, and that clause twenty-one was thus found to be a gross delusion on the people, he believed, that the Ministerial excitement would he much less vivid and animating than it now was. He had been always opposed to the avowed principle of this clause; but then he would not as an honest man, practise any delusion to de- 683 ceive the people, or to give effect to his opinions. The whole clause seemed to him to be contrary to parliamentary good faith, and he should have been wanting to his own conscience had he not expressed his opinion of it.
§ Mr. Praedsaid, that by the first part of the clause the elective franchise was given to the lowest class of voters, and by the latter part of it a most respectable class of persons were excluded from voting. He differed from the hon. member for Boston inasmuch as he thought, that unless the clauses were amended, it would be unintelligible, and not to be executed.
§ The original motion agreed to.
§ Mr.Mackinnonmoved, as a proviso to the clause, that no person who receives rent from lodgers in any house, shall be qualified to vote for such house, if the yearly rent of such house were under 20l. His object was, to exclude persons from the elective franchise who occupied only small houses, and let the principal part of them to tenants, so that, in fact, they paid but a small amount of rent if any, the aggregate being made up by their lodgers.
§ Lord Althorpobjected to the proviso. If the principle of the hon. Member's proposition were good, he ought to carry it much further, for many persons who paid 50l. a-year rent and upwards received the whole from lodgers.
§ Mr. Mackinnonsaid, his object was, to prevent persons of the very lowest class, who might rent a house at 10l. a-year, and let it out in small tenements, at very small sums, to others of their own description, from having a right to vote. He presumed that these were not the class of persons to whom the noble Lord intended to extend the franchise. There was a great distinction between such persons, and those who inhabited large houses, which they partly let out in lodgings.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysupported the Amendment, but would be disposed to extend it to the keepers of all lodging-houses, unless they had a clear interest in the premises, or occupied so much of them as was worth at the least 101. a-year.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, this principle would exclude many most respectable householders, who let part of their houses to lodgers, particularly tradesmen in some of the principal streets, who actually obtained more from their lodgers, including the furniture supplied to them, than their rent amounted to.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, they were deciding a question, arising out of a certain qualification which the noble Lord himself had fixed at 101., and he considered no person ought to have a right to vote, unless he paid that sum, over and above what he received from lodgers.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, there were very many most respectable persons, who made a living by letting parts of their houses, and providing for their lodgers. Surely the hon. Member could have no intention of excluding such persons from the franchise.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Mr. Mackinnonalso moved, as a proviso to the 21st clause, that in all cities or boroughs, which contain from 300 to 500 houses of 101. rent, the qualification to vote may remain as stated in this section, but in those cities or boroughs which have from 500 to 1,000 houses of 101. rent, the qualification to vote shall be 151. yearly rent, and that in those cities or boroughs which have 1,000 houses or upwards, the qualification to vote shall be 20l. rent. The hon. Member observed, that the persons who paid only 101. a-year in large cities or towns, were of a different class in general from those who paid the same rent in small towns; and if the right of voting were given to the 10l. householders in large towns, it would place the election for those towns wholly in the hands of that class, which, in general, consisted of the least intelligent persons.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that as this involved the discussion of the 101. qualification, which had been so fully discussed, and on which he had spoken at least twenty times last night, he hoped the hon. Member would not think it disrespectful to him, if he now confined himself to saying, that he saw no ground for altering the opinion he had already given against the principle of the Amendment.
Mr. Ellisopposed the Amendment, because it would tend to prevent a popular constituency being established.
§ Mr. Trevorsupported the Amendment, on the same principle as that which led him to object to the whole of the 101. clause.
§ Colonel Sibthorpalso supported the Amendment. He must remonstrate against the noise and inattention in the House, which, notwithstanding all the efforts of the Chairman (of the severity of whose task he was fully aware), prevented hon. Members from being heard,
§ Sir Charles Wetherellregretted the practical test which Ministers applied, to try the given phantom of respectability and intelligence. A more bungling test could not be devised of giving the franchise than that of uniformity of rent.
§ Mr. Mackinnonwould prefer having his Amendment negatived to withdrawing it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. Hughes Hughes rose to move his Amendment, which, he said, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Stafford, he should vary from his notice. His object was, to protect the poorer classes of tenantry, who, having for several years paid their rents regularly to their landlords, might nevertheless receive notices to quit on the eve of an election, for the purpose of depriving them of their franchises. His Motion now was, to add to the clause a proviso, "that notice to quit, given between the period of the dissolution of one Parliament, and the election of a Member or Members to serve in the succeeding Parliament, for any city, town, or borough, or during any vacancy of a Representative for such city, town, or borough, to a weekly tenant, or a tenant liable to quit at a week's notice, shall not have the effect of depriving such tenant of his right of voting." He had thus altered his Motion, because he had understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman, that to take from the landlord the right of giving notice to his tenant would be an improper interference between the landlord and tenant.
§ Lord Althorpobjected to the proposition, the effect of which would be, to give persons a right of voting after they had lost possession of the tenement in virtue of which they were to vote. Besides, one principle of the Bill was, that the voter should be compelled to swear to possession; how could this be done in such a case? He admitted, that there might be some inconvenience as the matter stood; but, upon the whole, he thought that the inconveniences that would attend the adoption of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would greatly preponderate.
Mr. Hughes Hughesdid not see any difficulty which, by an alteration of the terms of the oath, or by some other means, might not be obviated. If a tenant was driven out by his landlord, he surely ought not to lose his vote. They were not yet come to the registration clauses, when, if the Committee adopted his Motion, they 686 could alter them, to meet the cases that were likely to arise under it. It had been truly stated, that landlords, possessing large numbers of small houses, occupied by weekly tenants, would either compel such persons to vote as they might direct, by threatening to eject them, or, if they were not disposed to obey, to carry their threats into execution, and so neutralize their votes.
§ Mr. John Campbellsaid, this Amendment was different from that of which the hon. Member had given notice, and rested altogether on different grounds. It would take away all qualification whatever. If a man was to have a vote, because he had paid the rent of a house up to a certain time, you must give a vote also to the man who had the reversion of a house, dependant on the death of another. It would be a most dangerous precedent. He could not, therefore, support the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. Huntnext moved, "that all persons who shall be excluded from voting for Members of Parliament, shall be exempt from the payment of taxes and rates, and from serving in the militia, and be protected from being compelled to serve in the navy, under the Impressment Law." The principle on which he made this Motion was, that Taxation and Representation ought to go hand in hand. In our Law Courts it was supposed, that every man should know the law, and no man could be allowed to plead ignorance of the law, as it was presumed he had helped to make it by himself or his Representative. He wished to make this a fact instead of a legal fiction, by giving every man a right to make the law through his Representative, or exempt him from the payment of taxes to which he had never consented.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the principle of the hon. Member did not go far enough, for he ought to hold, that a person who did not vote for a Member of Parliament was not bound to obey the law.
§ Mr. Huntthought the noble Lord was correct, and that was one reason why he wished for Universal Suffrage.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. Praedmoved, that at the end of the clause there be inserted—"Provided always, that no person shall, by reason of anything herein contained, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, who shall, within twelve calendar months next previous to the 12th of November in 687 the present year, or next previous to the last day of August in any succeeding year, have been in the receipt of parochial relief."
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he did not object to this Amendment.—Agreed to.
§ The question was then put, "That clause 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. John T. Faneopposed the clause, on the ground, that it would destroy the chartered rights of all the boroughs in England. They had been told that charters and prescriptive rights were usurpations; but he could not take that view of ancient institutions. The present clause was as bad as Universal Suffrage, and he should oppose it.
Mr. Stuart Wortleycould not allow the clause to pass without making a few observations. It appeared to him extraordinary that the framers of a new Constitution should have gone so much further than was necessary. The clause under consideration contained in itself proof of the rashness of those who had made it. It was necessary, he was ready to admit, in the formation of the new system, to enfranchise large towns, but the noble Lords had gone beyond that necessity, and proceeded, on the most vague foundation, to change our whole political system. Their proceedings justified the most serious apprehensions. Two classes of boroughs were to be provided for, but it could not be necessary to give the elective franchise to the 101. householders throughout the kingdom. His Majesty's Government were not justified in proposing the 101. clause to Parliament. A great number of houses in large towns were not rated at all. It was said, 101. householders would produce a respectable constituency, but that he considered a complete delusion. He did not know where his Majesty's Government collected information upon which they could say that class of voters would form a respectable constituency. In England and the principality of Wales, the number of houses below 30l. a year amounted to 257,000, whilst those above 301. did not exceed 200,000. The consequence would be, that the dense body of 101. householders would have too great a preponderance, and bear down the interest of the freeholders. There was a woful deficiency of information, in the Ministers. The Committee, acting as Senators, ought to look with great apprehension at the change to be effected in the Representation, 688 and they could not see their way clearly because they had no information to be depended on. The pretence for the measure was, the facilities in the present system for corruption; but the new system would afford greater facilities. It would be unfair and irrational to suppose they could sit in that Committee and suffer such a clause to pass without giving their opinions against it. He had done his duty in opposing it to the utmost of his power, and would continue to give it his decided opposition.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the principle of the clause had been repeatedly discussed. He was ready, at the same time, to admit, it was the most important clause of the Bill, and involved considerations of the highest interest. He denied, that his Majesty's Government had gone beyond the necessary provisions required by the state of the country. He was ready to admit they had received valuable suggestions from the hon. Gentlemen opposite, which they had availed themselves of, to make the operation of the Bill more complete. He was convinced it was necessary to adopt some systematic plan of voting, founded upon so extensive a basis as would satisfy the majority of the people. The Ministers had been charged with carrying this principle too far; but in reply he would say, that when the change of Administration took place, a violent excitement prevailed in the public mind, which it was necessary to allay. This was the principal cause why the present measure was submitted to the House, with the hope and expectation that it would be final, and prevent such continued discussions, which caused great inconvenience, not to say danger. With regard to the two classes of boroughs mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and following out the principles he had laid down, they found that one set of them could not be formed so as to have an efficient elective body; these they disfranchised, and to the other, where there existed sufficient materials as a foundation for that purpose, they added adjacent districts, sufficient to make up a good constituency, by measures already well known to the House. A third set of boroughs contained a large and wealthy population, but as the franchise in them was confined to a few persons, they determined to include in it the great body of respectable householders, and he thought there could be no doubt that this was a most beneficial alteration. They had laid down a uniform system of 689 voting for all the places so created, to represent all interests, and to proceed on such a broad basis as to make corruption difficult or impossible. The hon. Gentleman had charged the Ministers with proceeding on vague information. They had not, it was true, provided such minute details as had been required, but they had obtained sufficient to enable them to take a comprehensive view of all the cases they had to consider. They had again been charged that their uniform system would, in large towns, create a numerous and disorderly constituency, and in small ones would so much contract it as to leave out many respectable persons. Probably the latter accusation had some foundation, but he had no apprehensions of the former. The number of towns in which the constituency would be involved in difficulty would in amount be very small. It was a mistake to suppose, that increasing the constituency increased the chance of riot, for, in truth, during an election, riots might be occasioned as well by those who were not voters as those who were. With respect to county Representation, no change whatever had been made in the rights of freeholders, except by adding copyholders and certain classes of leaseholders, which, he thought, was a judicious measure. The Ministers intended, that in the newly-created boroughs all those classes of persons resident within them should have votes for such places, but in consequence of the amendment of the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Chan-dos) having been carried, they proposed that certain classes of such persons, viz: those who possessed freeholds under a given value, should continue still to vote for the respective counties, as a balance to prevent the agricultural interest in the county having the whole influence in the returning of county Members. It could happen only in very few places, that the counties would be injured by the constituency withdrawn to be added to the towns. Nor did he anticipate, that the manufacturing interests could prevail to such an extent, which seemed to be feared by hon. Gentlemen, as would enable them to overwhelm the agriculturists; for the larger number of freeholders connected with towns would vote for such places in consequence of the occupancy of premises within them. The way to consider this clause was, to consider the state of the public mind on the question of Reform, and he did not think they would have 690 given any satisfaction if they had not gone as far as the Bill proposed. To propose a plan short of this would have given rise to many objections, without satisfying the people. They universally called for Reform, and had shown a want of confidence in the House of Commons as at present constituted: that was in itself a sufficient answer to such hon. Gentlemen as asserted there was no occasion for the measure. As to corruption, the difficulty of it would be increased in proportion to the number of voters. There was little chance of corrupting 12,000 or 20,000 voters. The objection applied more strongly to small places, but even there the 10l. franchise would produce a respectable class such as would not be found liable to corruption generally, although individual instances might at all times be expected. As to large manufacturing towns, so far from being an objection, he thought it desirable that wealthy men, or the masters of extensive factories, should enjoy considerable influence in such towns. Property would, and ought, at all times and places, to have such influence.
§ Colonel Lindsaysaid, this 101. franchise was the principal foundation of the Bill, and contained the principle of the new constituency, by which it was proposed to alter all our established institutions. The noble Lord described it as calling into existence a new body, which was to represent the wealth, character, and intelligence of the country, and the test was, the occupancy of a 101. house. The question, therefore, was, the kind of constituency that ought to send Members to the House. Was the foundation solid, or was it built upon a shifting sand, that would not sustain the edifice to be erected upon it? Of what class, therefore, was this boasted constituency framed? What sort of persons were the bonâ fide occupiers of 10l. houses? He never could allow that such persons represented the feelings and intelligence of the people, and he believed even this qualification might be easily evaded. The noble Lord said, the tests were, rent, rates, and taxation. Suppose a person pays a rent of only 5l., if he is willing to pay a rate upon 101. he may vote; and the persons who levied the rates would make no objection to such an arrangement, for it would be advantageous to them. Thus, supposing the rates were 3s. in the pound, a man would have to pay only 30s. a-year to entitle him to vote, 691 in addition to his 51. rent, or even less. A landlord who owned many small houses in a borough, by resorting to a fraud of this character, might influence and control the election. What was to prevent a landlord from drawing up false leases? This had been done, as was fully proved in the case of the Dublin election, which had been brought under their notice a few days before, in which case fictitious freeholds had been manufactured to a considerable extent. It was much easier, however, to commit a fraud as to a leasehold than as to a freehold, and therefore there would be much greater facilities for making pretended voters. It would be impossible to ascertain who paid 10l. rent. It must give rise to endless litigation, and the Bill would become, what it had been described to be, an attorney's bill. In large towns this qualification would amount to Universal Suffrage, and in other smaller places a respectable class of persons would be excluded; and thus discontent and heartburning must be produced. Liverpool and Dublin proved, that numerous voters did not prevent bribery. Indeed, he had been much surprised at hearing the noble Lord, in the face of the evidence that had recently been before them, assert, that numerous constituencies were not likely to be corrupted. Surely the noble Lord could not mean to declare, that those places had not numerous constituencies; and by the Bill the evil must be increased, because attornies, who had local knowledge, and to whom it would be made a matter of advantage, would in future canvass, and frequently be the candidates, and not the aristocracy. Many boroughs which were now open would be made rotten by such means, for the parties who were so much interested would find means to bring the registration under their power. He had stated, over and over again, that he was a friend to Reform, but he was bound to oppose a Bill like this. He regarded this clause as the key-stone of the whole fabric, for suffrage would be extended by it so as to amount almost to Universal Suffrage. It opened the door to frauds of all descriptions, by allowing lodgers, and persons living in particular portions of houses, under the same landlord, and who paid at the rate of 10l. a-year, a right to vote. This part was so extremely objectionable, that he did yet hope the noble Lord would consent to regulate the exercise of this privilege by further restrict- 692 tions, or he was satisfied it would, ere long, lead to Universal Suffrage and the Vote by Ballot. He feared, at all events, that the results would be fatal to the Constitution, and would be deplored by posterity. He would, therefore, oppose it to the utmost extent of his power.
Mr. C. W. Wynnagreed with the noble Lord that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill. He was sure, therefore, that no surprise need be manifested at the time that it had occupied the attention of the House. The general principles of the clause, as well as its various details, had been debated with great talent by both sides of the House, and he felt assured that his noble friend would admit, that many of the suggestions thrown out were well deserving of his serious consideration. He could not agree in the principle of the Bill, for although he admitted the necessity of yielding to the wishes and demands of the people on the subject of Reform, yet it was altogether unnecessary to go the whole length of the present Bill. He was not an enemy to the democratic branch of the Constitution, but the system of Government to be formed by the Bill gave an undue preponderance to that branch. The House was to adopt this system in the room of one under which all the various interests of the country had flourished and increased—in the room of that which afforded an adequate Representation to all the various classes of the community—the House was to adopt a system of Representation, based on an untried, and, therefore, dangerous foundation, in the place of one which, from its very anomalies, had afforded an accurate Representation of all classes and interests. No reason had hitherto been shown to justify so extensive a change. The noble Lord said, that it was necessary to satisfy the wishes and expectations of the people, and that a measure of less extent than this would not have been sufficient for that purpose. He did not think that such would have been the case, for he believed, that the country in this case, as in all others that had occurred for many generations, would have been led by the Parliament, and would have placed perfect reliance on the wisdom and integrity of the Legislature. The object of the noble Lord and the Government appeared to have been, to adopt that system of Representation which appeared 693 to them best in theory, rather than to have considered how much, and what changes, the interests and feelings of the people actually required. It had frequently been observed, with respect to the population of the large towns, that the lower class of voters were not proof against the influence of corruption, but were open, in a peculiar degree, to the influence of hasty and ill-judged impressions. His noble friend spoke of the intelligence and knowledge prevailing in the large towns; but it appeared to him that his noble friend greatly overrated this, as well as the effect that it would have. It ought to have been the object of Ministers to have framed a measure which would have been most likely to produce the system of Representation best adapted to the present state of the country, and not that which would merely qualify large masses of the people to vote. From the very circumstance of their being constantly engaged together, and congregated in large masses, the inhabitants of the large manufacturing towns were apt to adopt extravagant notions, and to act in an absurd, if not a dangerous, manner—in proof of which assertion, he would merely refer to the No-Popery and Cheap-Bread and No-Corn-law mobs of our own time. It might be said, that the inhabitants of the towns were more intelligent, and, generally speaking, better informed, than the people of the country. He was not inclined to dispute that; but he was well assured, that excitement in the country never bore any proportion to that which existed in large towns. He utterly denied the principle of his noble friend, that an increase of numbers would produce a more independent body of electors. He was sure, if his noble friend referred to the experience of past ages, he would find, that corruption had often prevailed to a greater extent in the larger than in the smaller towns. In the cases of Liverpool and Dublin, the grossest corruption and the most barefaced bribery existed? Was it not recorded in the evidence laid on the Table a few days before, that in the city of Dublin, at the recent election, no less than 150 persons were guilty of the grossest corruption, accompanied with the greatest fraud? Again, in the case of Liverpool, the bribery was not committed with hundreds, but with thousands of the voters, and he believed the hon. 694 Member behind the noble Lord (Mr. Ewart) could furnish very accurate and very serious information on this point. He was old enough to remember the celebrated Westminster election in 1784, when Mr. Fox contested the Representation of that city. Between 9,000 and 10,000 voters were polled, and when the parties were nearly balanced, the bribing was carried on in the grossest and most open manner, and to an extent until then unexampled. After this, could it be contended that corruption would not prevail in large constituencies? In all places where the parties were nicely balanced, however numerous the constituency might be, corruption would exist. It was a very favourite doctrine with some persons, that those who offered the bribes ought to be punished, rather than those who received them, and if persons were prevented from offering bribes, corruption would not prevail. But he remembered the reply of Mr. Windham to the observation of another Member—"That the constituent body was corrupt from the top to the bottom." "You would speak more correctly," he answered, "if you said that the constituency was corrupt from the bottom to the top." It might be said, that this measure would prevent corruption being so great in the small boroughs: he had doubts on that point. For instance, in the paper intituled Further Information, lying on the Table of the House, it was stated, that the borough of Wallingford contained 287 resident householders, and of these 218 were 10l. houses. Now it was notorious, that in this place a single vote had been sold for 20l., and a double vote for 40l. And as there were 210 persons who would be entitled to vote as occupiers of 10l. houses, he wished to ask, even with the addition of the few voters that would be taken from the surrounding districts, whether there was any increase of security against the prevalence of corruption? Would this Bill destroy the present character of the borough, and prevent the sale of a single vote for 20l., or of a double vote for 40l.? or would it prevent the "Miller," as he was there called, from going round to distribute the wages of corruption among the voters? He had never been an admirer of the system of scot-and-lot voting—and he knew that many Members had expressed the most violent objections to it—but he believed the system of 10l. householders would be 695 so near to scot-and-lot voting, that it would be liable to all the objections that could be urged against the latter, with the additional one, that it would induce the occupiers of houses of less than 101. value, to commit a collusive fraud, for the purpose of obtaining the right of voting. He was sure that this would be the case in the large towns; and in places like Wallingford, the very circumstance of having the privilege of returning Members to Parliament, would occasion the rent of every house to be equal to the sum proposed as the qualification. According to the document to which he had already referred in that place, the circumstance of receiving a bribe at the election for a vote, is an inducement to give a higher rent for a house; and thus, houses that in other places would not let for 51. or 6l. a-year, in that town let for upwards of 101. Suppose that in one of the large manufacturing towns, a manufacturer had a number of houses let to his workmen at a rent of from 51. to 61. a-year; if he was desirous of commanding a number of votes, how easy it would be for him to raise the rent of those houses to 101., and, at the same time, give each man 2s. a-week additional wages. A combination of a few masters, under such circumstances, might obtain complete control over the return of Members; and he was afraid, that this practice would be carried to a much greater extent than the noble Lord anticipated. He was satisfied, also, that this system would lead to the utter demoralization of the people in the smaller boroughs; introducing a system of bribery and corruption, that would be attended with the most pernicious consequences. It had been well and truly said, that the money thus received never did any good to the receiver; on the contrary, it did much harm, for it encouraged habits of idleness, and disregard to a man's independence. He was aware that what he had said was not likely to have the slightest effect on the votes of the Members, but he felt, that it was his duty to point out the probable effects of the clause to the House, and to enter his solemn protest against it.
Lord Loughboroughsaid, he must protest against the whole of this clause, which in its effects would be, he feared, most disastrous to all ranks in the community. He could never believe the Bill would be ultimately satisfactory to the people, and 696 he believed, that the great majority of the lower orders considered it only as a stepping-stone to Universal Suffrage. Nothing could be more unfair than to make the payment of rent the test of independence or property. The man in a small borough, paying 51. or 61. a-year, might be more independent than those who paid 101. in populous places. Persons with 200l. or 3001. a-year in such places lived in houses under that value. Men of limited income were naturally disposed to get a house at as low a rent as they could. Now the tendency of the Bill was, to exclude this class from the right of voting. He knew that many operatives in Nottingham had small pieces of garden-ground near the town, and he was certain they would be obliged, if this Bill passed, to give up their gardens. They could not hold both house and garden together. As he could have no hope of succeeding, he would not propose an amendment: but he must protest against that part of the clause which made it necessary for the voter to have paid up his rent before he voted. The consequence would be, to increase the expense to the candidates; and the rent as well as the rates must, ultimately, be paid by them. In this view he supported the member for Preston, because he thought him right, and he believed him to be honest. By allowing joint occupiers to vote, they opened the door to all sorts of fraud. Returned, as he was, free and independent, by the borough of Great Grimsby, he must enter his protest against this most unnecessary, most revolutionary, and most Republican, measure.
§ Clause agreed to. House resumed; Committee to sit again on the following day.