§ Mr. Rossrose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to regulate the Admission of Freemen in Cities and Boroughs." The objects he had in view were, to diminish the expenses candidates were put to at elections, by being made to pay for the admission of freemen, and for bringing them down from town to the election. There were many towns which had a far greater number of non-resident freemen than resident freemen. Dover had one thousand two hundred resident, and one thousand eight hundred non-resident freemen; Lancaster had only five hundred residents and three thousand non-residents. For all these non-residents the candidate was obliged to pay the expense of coming from London to the city or borough to which they belonged, and not only that, but often the expense of taking up their freedom. It thus happened, that, in years of contested elections, from five hundred to one thousand two hundred freemen were admitted, whilst in other years there would not be more than a dozen. He proposed, therefore, that all persons entitled to take up their freedom should be bound to do so twelve months from the time of their becoming entitled 1235 to do it. The hon. member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
§ Lord Nugentdoubted whether the bill would effect the objects of the hon. member; namely, the correction of the abuse of the creation of freemen during the poll or immediately before it, and the expense of bringing up voters. It might injuriously affect the rights of persons at present out of the country. He had himself, last session, introduced a bill on the subject; but he would rather see the matter in the hands of the hon. member than his own, and he would give him every assistance in his power in framing the provisions of the bill.
Lord Lowthersaid, they had so many election bills at present before the House, that he thought it would be impossible to do justice to them all. Besides, he thought the bill now proposed would be perfectly ineffective. He considered it to be one of the many attempts at petty legislation respecting the right of voting, which the House was almost daily in the habit of witnessing. He should oppose the introduction of the bill.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveyopposed the bill, as not only inadequate to the object proposed, but as greatly aggravating the evil it was designed to remedy. He was far from believing that all admissions were at the expense of the candidate; at least his own experience falsified the statement. But if it were so, the proposed bill would increase the expenses of an election; for as every man who claimed the right of admission would be anxious to possess it, he would go to the place in which it originated at an expense, the reimbursement of which he would expect whenever a contest arose, and thus throw on the candidates the charges of two journeys when one would suffice. But he was chiefly opposed to every measure of this sort because it began at the wrong end. If it were really an object to prevent the payment of admissions by candidates, why did not the hon. mover propose a bill by which the candidate should be compelled to swear that he had not by himself, nor his agents, paid or promised to pay, and that he would not hereafter by himself, or his agents, directly or indirectly, pay for the admissions; and, further, fix a high penalty on the detection of the offence, of which the mere receiving the money should be evidence? This would be an intelligible remedy. But it was quite the fashion of 1236 modern reformers to relieve members of parliament from expenses by curtailing the few existing rights of the electors—a plan to which he would never assent; and, therefore, without any disrespect to the hon. member, but to save him and the House trouble, he should oppose the bill in the outset.
§ The motion was negatived.