§ Mr. Stuart Worthy moved the order of the day for bringing up the report of this bill. He was placed in a singular situation by the absence of the noble lord who had brought in the bill, and who in consequence of the amendment which he (Mr. S. W.) had moved being carried, had given up the measure as lost. The bill being thus left to him, he hoped the House would allow it to be re-committed, as it was understood to provide, that a person to be entitled to vote must hold a house of the annual value of 20l. This was not what he meant. What he proposed was, that the vote should be given to householders paying scot and lot on an annual rent of 20l. for house, or for house and land together, so that the party should bona fide pay poor's rates on 20l. per annum.
Mr. Hobhousefelt that many who had supported this bill while it was in the hands of the noble lord who had brought it into the House, now that they saw it had got into the hands of those who were unfavourable to reform, might reasonably oppose it. From the first he had felt that this measure was not that which would satisfy the wishes of the country: nevertheless he had ^supported it, to show that those who supported radical or any other reform were not so uncompromising in their character as to accept of nothing because they could not get all they desired. He then noticed the reflections thrown on the people of Westminster on a former night, and declared that for propriety of conduct, integrity and discernment (except in the choice of one of their representatives), he knew of no body of men who better deserved the approbation of their countrymen. The objections which had been made to popular elections he regarded as a calumny, not on the people of Westminster, but on the people of England generally. The hon. member who had thrown out the reflections on the people of Westminster, had taken his information from a source that was false and infamous, on which he hoped he would place no future reliance. The hon. member for Taunton had said it was notorious that that individual would be most favoured who could talk most nonsense.
§ The Speakersaid, it was disorderly to refer to what had passed on a former debate.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that as the rule of the House was imperative, he must, without receding from his argument, adopt a different mode of enforcing it. He should now only suppose it to be the case, that language or sophistry which had been employed by him should appear sense to one man, whilst in the judgment of another it was mere nonsense. Was it any thing remarkable that this should happen at Westminster? Had no such contradiction ever been heard of at Taunton It had been rumoured that the people of Taunton, who had not scot and lot, but who, some of them, being in the interest of the opposition candidate, had not scrupled to draw along as his ensign, a loaf almost as big as a mountain, adorned with four cupids. He mentioned this anecdote at least on as good authority as that on which the hon. member for Taunton had attributed to the electors of Westminster a love of annual nonsense. The course which the question of reform had taken, was to him satisfactory, as the people had now been taught round whom they ought to rail, and who, when the time of trial came, would not be found wanting in their cause.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had inspected the accounts of a Westminster election some years ago, and could bear testimony to the correctness with which every shilling of the money expended on that occasion was accounted for. He knew of no instance of the poor rates being paid for any elector who favoured the popular candidates, and believed every voter for sir F. Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse on the late election would have been insulted by such a proposition. He would accept the present bill as a boon, small as it was, compared with what had originally been intended by the noble lord who brought it into the House.
Mr. Gurneysupported the bill in its present shape, but regretted the alterations that had been made in it.
§ The report was then received, and the bill re-committed.