HC Deb 27 August 1831 vol 6 cc722-39

The House went into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.

Mr. Bernal

was about to read the 22nd clause, when,

Mr. Estcourt

said, that as his Amendment went to get rid of the clause altogether, and must come in after the words, "be it enacted that," he should at once move that Amendment which was—"That nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to take away, or in any way to abridge or affect any corporate or other right of voting for Citizens or Burgesses to serve in Parliament, save and except only such rights as appertain to boroughs enumerated in schedule A." This, it would be observed, preserved the existing rights of all freemen and corporate bodies, and prevented them from expiring with their present possessors. In order, however, to make his Amendment consistent with the framing of that particular part of the Bill which provided for the registration of voters, it might be necessary to add "Provided, also, that no person shall be permitted to vote at any election for any Citizen or Burgess, to serve in Parliament, unless he shall have been duly registered after the manner prescribed in another part of this Bill." This Amendment could not interfere with the principle of the Bill, and it only dealt with the voters in cities and boroughs as the Bill dealt with voters in counties. He did not see why the rights of voters should not be permanently preserved in cities and boroughs as well as in counties, and if the Ministers were sincere in the desire they had expressed to increase the constituency of the country, he did not see how they could oppose his Amendment. The professed objects of the Bill were, to allay the evils of nomination, returns by close corporations, and the expense of elections. The first was attained by disfranchisement, the second by making additional voters, and the third by taking their votes from non-residents. He hoped the House would bear in mind, that the Government professed not to interfere, further than to attain these desirable objects. The Amendment he had to propose, would by no means disturb these views; he only wished to preserve the right of voting to members of corporate bodies attached to the places enumerated in schedule B, and the effect probably would be, to add in each of them thirty or forty voters to the 300 to be provided through the operation of this Bill. As the enlargement of the constituency was another professed object, he thought his proposal rather tended on the whole to carry the measures of Ministers more completely into execution. It had been stated by the noble Lord, when he introduced the Bill on the 1st of March.—"It has been a point of great difficulty to decide to whom the franchise should be extended. Although it is a much-disputed question, yet I believe it will be found, that in ancient times every freeman, being an inhabitant householder resident in a borough, was competent to vote for Members of Parliament. As, however, this arrangement excluded villains and strangers, the franchise always belonged to a particular body in every town—a body undoubtedly possessed of property for they bore the charges of their Members, and on them were assessed the subsidies and taxes voted by Parliament. But when villainage ceased, various and opposite courses seem to have been pursued in different boroughs; in some extending the liberal principle, that all freemen were to be admitted; householders of all kinds, down to the lowest degree, and even sometimes beyond, were admitted; in others adopting the exclusive principle, that strangers and villains were no part of the burgesses, no new corporations were created, and the elective franchise was more or less confined to a select body. These differences, the House will be aware, have led to those complicated questions of right which we are every week called upon to decide, and I think no one will deny, that our election Committees often have brought before them, and been obliged to settle, questions that are at once the most vexatious, the most difficult, and the most useless."* From these premises, the noble Lord argued, that it was expedient to adopt one uniform course, and simplify the whole system. The statement relating to the difficulties was, he thought, rather exaggerated by the noble Lord. He had examined the records of former elections, and had found, that not more than four cases of this description were, upon an average, to be decided on after each election. These data did not furnish sufficient grounds for the sweeping alterations proposed to be made. It was, unquestionably, a most desirable object, to abate every difficulty in deciding questions relating to disputed rights, but it was an odd way to effect this, to abolish rights that had been long settled, and were thoroughly understood, and substitute a new mode of voting, so complicated, that after the many explanations that had been attempted of it in that House, it was not yet understood by many hon. Members, of whom he professed himself to be one, and which he believed would increase the number of disputed cases four-fold, without any precedent to guide them in their solution. He wished to uphold all ancient privileges, but to apply an antidote to the corruption of close Corporations. The rights which it was proposed now to abolish in towns, were, those of voting in respect of freeholds, copyholds, leaseholds, and burgage tenures, all of which were to be done away, and the right was to be transferred to * Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. ii. Third Series p. 1069. the 10l. householder. The people were attached to their rights, not from any corrupt motives, as had been calumniously declared, but they admired and revered, and loved them for their antiquity. This was the fact. As they had been handed down from father to son, from generation to generation, so the people desired that they should continue to descend to the remotest posterity. How many an honest tradesman felt himself elevated in dignity and importance, by being elected to the office of Chief Magistrate, which, although honorary, was a great incentive to industry and good conduct. Such persons would, no doubt, inhabit a house, to entitle them to a vote under the new qualification, but he wished such individuals as he had described—and the members of most Corporations were of that character—to have votes in virtue of their office, which should be continued to their successors. They had allowed this in the county constituency, by the 40s. freeholders being suffered to retain and perpetuate their franchise; he only desired the same favour to Corporations, many of which had never abused their rights and privileges. Thinking this clause would inflict gross injustice on the class of persons he had referred to, and on Corporations generally, he would press the Amendment he had already proposed.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, he approved generally of the Amendment, but did not like the condition of registration attached to it. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell), the merit and the zeal of whose services he was ready to acknowledge, was presented by the city of London with a gold box, having inscribed on it, the words "Magna Charta and Reform." Now, by Magna Charta, the franchises of all cities, towns, and boroughs, were to be inviolably preserved. The noble Lord, therefore, could not accept of the double compliment paid him by the city, and if he accepted the Reform, he must give up Magna Charta. He objected to the personal disfranchisement of voters, on the same ground that he opposed the disfranchisement of boroughs in schedules A and B. Previous to the introduction of this Bill, he never heard any objection to the mode in which corporate rights of election were exercised, except on the ground of non-residence, and the consequent expense to the candidates. These were the only ar- guments he ever heard advanced in support of this part of the Bill. His hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General), told them the other night, that the wider the constituency was spread the better, and the greater chance there was of independence. Maldon contained from 3,000 to 4,000 electors, the greater part of whom would be disfranchised, on the ground of non-residency. It was only by a mere accident, that he was not now Representative for the city of Oxford. He was well acquainted with that place, and he could state as a fact within his own knowledge, that four to one of the freemen of that city would not be entitled at all to vote by this Bill, because they were lodgers. This commutation into 10l. householders would in Oxford, and in all cities and large towns, greatly diminish the number of voters. In fact, the Bill was not yet at all understood, and it was impossible it could be, altered and re-altered as it had been in every part by Ministers. They were presented that day, with quite a new set of alterations in a separate sheet, or what printers called a fly-sheet. Bristol, Lancaster, and London, would be in the same predicament as Oxford, and it seemed as if the measure only now began to be truly understood in the city. He would put it to the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who he supposed had votes for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—he would ask them, why Masters of Arts not resident should be entitled to vote, while non-resident freemen of cities and boroughs were robbed of their rights? The Bill, as it first stood, disfranchised nine out of ten of the members of the Universities, but a clause was afterwards introduced to save them. Why, then, rob other non-resident voters of their rights because they happened to be manipulating painters, plumbers, glaziers, or any other class of tradesmen? He confessed himself utterly unable to discover upon what ground it was, that Masters of Arts, belonging to either of the Universities, should enjoy the right of voting though non-resident, and that freemen of towns should be robbed of that right, on no other ground, than because they happened to be non-resident. Why allow the right to remain in an Attorney General, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a First Lord of the Admiralty, or a Paymaster of the Forces, and deny it to a tradesman, who obtained his living by honest industry? This measure took away not only the rights of non-resident freemen, but of such as were inhabitants of cities and boroughs; whilst the corresponding franchise in counties was preserved, thus making a distinction for which no argument had been adduced, and at the same time inflicting an injustice upon commercial people. He did not mean to deny, that some inconvenience and great expense had been experienced in bringing non-resident voters to the poll, but that evil might be remedied by a separate enactment, without the necessity of such a sweeping disfranchisement. Surely the existence of a defect did not invalidate the right, but yet, instead of attempting a remedy, the noble Lord and the supporters of the Bill, proceeded at once to the annihilation of the right altogether. Instead of the pruning-knife, they used the axe, and whilst they professed a wish to plant and propagate the tree of freedom, they were, in fact, cutting it down, by the extinction of rights and liberties which had been long, and he would say beneficially, used by a large and respectable body of Englishmen. Now a great deal had been said of the necessity of having respectable voters, and those who made the remark ought to be consistent, and, like him, to keep in mind the respectability of non-resident freemen. Thus, in whatever way the Bill and the arguments used in support of it were viewed, they presented nothing but inconsistency and injustice, and the promoters of it would soon find, that it could not answer even their own expectations. The Bill, however, was by some designated as another Magna Charta; and the noble Lord opposite had a gold box lately presented to him by the Corporation of the city of London, on which were inscribed the words "Magna Charta and Reform." But if the present Bill passed into a law, which was not quite certain, he was sure the noble Lord would have to drop the words "Magna Charta," if not "Reform." It had been said, that this Bill was popular; he believed it was becoming less so every day; in fact, he began to think it was becoming unpopular, for it was now seen, that under the mask of extending popular rights, it extended those of the higher orders, whilst it annihilated or abridged those of the lower classes. Of all the clauses in the Bill, he thought the one before them the most obnoxious, and it should have his opposition; while the Amendment of his hon. friend, with the exception of the latter part, which, as it was not necessary, he hoped his hon. friend would strike out, should have his cordial support

Lord John Russell

observed, that there was nothing he admired more in the conduct of the opponents of this great measure than their versatility. After opposing one clause, on the ground of the Bill being obnoxious, they turned round and opposed another upon a totally different ground. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, now stood up for the freemen, and complained, that the Bill gave privileges to the higher classes, whilst it destroyed those of humbler men. The hon. Member, when he made that statement, must himself have forgotten what he had said a few nights ago, when he deprecated the flood of democracy, with which he said the Bill would deluge the country. One or other of the grounds taken by the hon. and learned Member must be indefensible, which he should leave to the hon. Member to decide. The hon. Member who proposed the present Amendment, had treated it as if it were altogether an act of disfranchisement, and in consequence of that, he (Lord John Russell) begged to call the attention of the Committee to the distinctions which had been made between this part of the Reform Bill and the former part of it, namely, the boroughs contained in schedule A. With regard to nomination boroughs, his Majesty's Ministers had thought, in certain instances, that there was no medium to be adopted and that, if it were wished to destroy nomination, those boroughs must be destroyed altogether; but with regard to the persons having at present the right of voting, it was to be observed, that, according to this clause, there was no person having at the present moment the right of voting, or any freeman now alive, whose rights would be seriously injured by the present Bill. The question therefore was, whether, having established by the 21st clause, a new right of voting for all cities and boroughs in England, the House would extend that right to persons not now in existence, combining with them the present existing rights. The objection to that was, that rights of this description were liable to the greatest abuse, and that, if they were permitted to exist, it would be combining with the 10l. householders, a set of voters who would be created for the purpose of influencing elections, and would take from the rights of the fair electors. He was one who looked with great regard to the scot and lot right of voting, but that right was exercised very differently in different places. In large towns, however, it was exercised very usefully, but with respect to them, the 10l. right of voting was of a very similar nature to the scot and lot. With regard to the smaller boroughs, however, he could not look upon the scot and lot right of voting in the same light, for it was notorious, that there were no places where corruption existed more than in those small boroughs. He must contend, that by the present Bill, while they preserved the much-lauded primitive principle of voting of the old system, they established it in such a manner, as to secure for the future its better exercise, and shunning that multifarious, and consequently uncertain system which now prevailed, they re-built the Constitution on such a foundation of equity and justice, as to ensure the happiness and contentment of the people. Let the House for a moment examine what were the opinions of those writers who had taken up the subject of the right of voting, respecting the system as it now stands. What had been stated on the subject by Lord Glenbervie? That writer stated—"The origin of that diversity which we observe in the right of voting for Representatives, in different boroughs, is a subject of curious disquisition, but cannot be explained with any degree of certainty. It may be conjectured, that in some instances the right was limited to a particular class of men, by the King's charter, under which the borough derived its title to send Members to Parliament; for our Kings claimed and exercised the prerogative of conferring that important privilege, down to the end of Charles 2nd. In other instances, where the city or borough began to choose Members from the first epoch of Representation, without having received any Royal Charter to regulate who should elect, it is probable all those were admitted to vote who were deemed capable of giving a free suffrage. Hence we find, the right of election in some places confined to particular members of the Corporation, and in others, common to the inhabitants at large. In some cases, perhaps, the Sheriff, who long exercised a very great discretionary authority, as to borough elections, prescribed who the persons should be who were to concur in the choice." Such were the rights of voting established in certain boroughs in olden times; such were the rights which they meant to preserve sacred and inviolate. If he found it necessary to prove, that our ancestors, in the distribution of Representation, allowed themselves to be guided more by circumstances and partiality, than a desire to preserve uniformity in the granting of the elective franchise, he could quote a very decided case, where two towns were enfranchised by Charter on the same day, but so different were the provisions of the Charters, that the principle of the right of voting was as distinct as possible. But it was needless for him to argue that point. The fact of the injustice and impolicy of this form of the elective franchise, did not require the aid of any argument. It was as clear and undisguised as the sun at noon day, and any attempt to make it more apparent must be useless and ineffectual. Before he sat down, he could not refrain from making one remark, respecting an observation of an hon. Member opposite, in the course of the debate on the Resolutions of the Dublin Election Committee. It was said, on that occasion, that the Bill would open a wide field for bribery at elections, that it would encourage it infinitely more than the present system, and that those who were its advocates in pointing out the instances of bribery which existed, did not seem to apprehend what would take place when the measure was in full operation. Ministers had been accused of looking after the flies and disregarding the vultures. He denied that statement, for Ministers were, and always had been, desirous, (which was the object of their present measure,) to destroy those vultures which were preying on the rights of the community. He thought, when the present Bill had become a law, there would not be found any of the degrading practices in existence to which he referred. He could not sit down without alluding to what the hon. Member had stated, with respect to the box which had been presented to him by the city of London, with the words "Magna Charta and Reform" upon it. What could induce the hon. Member to introduce that topic, at the present moment, or what it had to do with the present debate, he was at a loss to conceive. Part of the rights, however, of the city of London were preserved by Magna Charta, and he trusted those rights would still be preserved for ages. Though one of the intentions of Magna Charta was, to preserve the privileges and liberties of the city of London, yet there were greater objects intended to be accomplished by it. It was most undoubtedly intended to accomplish the freedom of this country. The King and the Nobles, seeing the necessity of the times, and seeing what Englishmen deserved, and what they ought to have, established their freedom, and gave them a written record which might be handed down to all future generations. He did not mean to say, that the measures which they now introduced would last as long as that great document; but, nobody could doubt that this measure effected a change, a change greatly to the advantage of the freedom of the country, turning that which had been monopoly and usurpation, into common right and common enjoyment. In those respects, therefore, it resembled Magna Charta. He felt proud that the citizens of London had discovered that resemblance, and he should always cherish the present with which they had honoured him; for he must be allowed to tell the hon. and learned Member opposite, that all his reasoning had not convinced him that the words were wholly inapplicable.

Sir John Malcolm

would never consent, except on the greatest emergency, to such a sweeping alteration as was proposed by the present Bill, in a system by which this country had been so long governed; and he contended, that no such necessity had been shown to justify the present measure. He begged to remind the House, that all the benefits promised by this Bill were but conjecture, while all those who objected to it did so on a comparison with great periods of history, and upon a conviction that the country had hitherto derived the greatest benefits from our Constitution. He was confident that there was nothing more inconsistent with the principle of the Bill itself than the 10l. clause. He was confident that this Bill would not be considered a final measure. Would not the children of freemen hereafter look for the restoration of their privilege? If they did not they would not be Englishmen. He did not mean to say, that some abuses had not been committed, but he would ask, what human system had ever been made perfect? Such abuses were no argument for the destruct- tion of ancient institutions, and of those municipal rights, which ought never to be interfered with, unless under some pressing necessity, and alter most mature deliberation. These rights might be disregarded by some; the House might look with contempt on the bit of ermine that trimmed a Mayor's gown, and also with contempt at small Corporations; but if the existence of all such institutions, and the privileges attached to them, had been an incentive to virtue, they ought to be still continued, as affording objects of honourable ambition. He should, therefore, support the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and he implored Ministers to examine with attention every proposition that might have the effect of securing the peace and tranquillity of the country.

Mr. Bayntun

concurred in some of the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and said, if he trespassed upon the attention of the Committee for a few minutes, it was because he considered it his bounden duty to do so, representing a numerous constituency of the class alluded to in the Amendment. He concurred in the view of the Government, as regarded the disfranchisement of the non-resident voters, which appeared to him one of the most beneficial provisions of this present Bill, but he could not comprehend upon what principles of necessity his Majesty's Government could propose to disfranchise the future actual inhabitants of large towns of their rights, bound up as they must ever be in the trade and prosperity of the places in which they resided. That class of voters, enjoying the privilege of voting by freedom, was estimated at nearly 300,000, whose posterity, children, and apprentices, were to be politically sacrificed by the measure as it now stood. It was true, he had been told by the noble Lord, that they were to have their rights preserved to them for the period of their lives, and that some of the same description of persons enjoying the freedom, would be voters under the new system. Now he admitted, that they were not called upon, in the constructive clauses of this Bill, to give to the lower classes the elective franchise, but he thought they ought to be exceedingly cautious in taking away the franchise from those who now possessed it, and thus removing that connecting link of political feeling between the lower and middle classes of society, which might be so effectually preserved by the maintenance of the rights of industrious freemen of large towns. He was aware, that many hon. Members in that House considered that description of voters less public-spirited, less fit to be intrusted with the elective franchise, than the 10l. voter under the new system; he would therefore refer them to the uncontradicted statements made on the debate of the preceding clauses, of the hon. member for Preston, whom he did not now see in his place, that the 10l. voters would be, to a great extent, in many places, the lowest description of persons, and he instanced the parish of Lambeth in proof of this assertion; and he would say to those hon. Members, that he thought the freemen not less fit to be intrusted with the elective rights than the lowest description of people who were about to enjoy the 10l. franchise, and who could not, therefore, be deemed more respectable than any of the freemen of large towns, both classes being, in his opinion, alike obnoxious to the other charge—namely, the probable effect of corrupt influence. He would take this opportunity of expressing his satisfaction at the observations which fell from the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, the other evening, with reference to this Bill not being a final measure; and he was pleased to find that noble Lord pledging himself not obstinately to adhere to all the provisions of this Bill, should they really prove unsatisfactory to the country. Now, to his constituents, the clause under discussion would prove very unsatisfactory; and, anxiously wishing to see the principles of this Bill carried into effect without delay, at the same time he assured the noble Lord, that he felt it an imperative duty to call his attention to these points, and that he would unhesitatingly again assert, that a very numerous and honest portion of the people resident in great towns, who had exercised their rights in an upright and independent manner, ought to have them preserved. Surely it was but a poor return for that patriotism evinced by the industrious freemen of those towns at the late election, now to deprive them of a privilege which they wished to see extended to their fellow citizens, thus making it a transfer, and not an extension of the franchise. The rights for which he contended had been enjoyed for a long series of years—they had been, and were, regarded as the invaluable birthright of the persons possessing them. Votes by servitude were granted for good conduct for a term of years, and both had generally been exercised in a manner meritorious and uncompromising. In support of that he appealed to the fact, that, amongst all the complaints and petitions which had ever been preferred against the elective system, no charge had ever been brought—no complaint had ever been made—against the open constituencies, the numerous bodies of resident freemen of large towns, who were to be deprived of their rights—not for any crimes, but in return for their public spirit—of rights which they had done nothing in the world to forfeit, and which they had lately exercised to further the views of his Majesty's Government. He was as much opposed as any member of the Government could possibly be to a system of nomination; but he was no less opposed to a system of spoliation, which took not from the decayed boroughs and petty Corporations, but from the large and public-spirited constituencies, the most invaluable of the rights of Englishmen, in violation of justice—in violation of one of the professed principles of that very Bill—the extension of the franchise, and that even without the plea of expediency. It was with regret, that he considered it his duty to occupy the attention of the Committee, and to appear to wish to retard the passing of the Bill, which he had supported in every division, except that of the noble Lord, the member for Buckinghamshire, to the detriment of the consideration of several other most important interests; but he could not refrain from offering his opposition when he saw the resident freemen of all the large towns, and his own constituents, about to be deprived, without the most absolute necessity, of what he considered their indefeasible and indubitable rights. He should consider it, therefore, his duty to oppose that part of the clause of the Bill.

Mr. Trevor

expressed his intention of concurring in the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford, as he was the Representative of a large and numerous body, whose rights were affected by the operation of this clause. He conceived it unjust to deprive freemen of a privilege they had obtained wholly by the sweat of their brows, a privilege which created an honourable spirit of emulation, and by obtaining which a man not only secured the right of voting to himself, but handed it down to his posterity. A right so obtained was as much the property of the freemen as was the coronet of the peer. The Government made their boast that the Bill was to give general satisfaction to all parties; but he would ask, how could it give such satisfaction when this clause proposed to spoliate an honest and respectable class of electors of their franchise, under the pretence that they were a body likely to be corrupted. Probably that might be the case in some instances; but were they to look upon the successors prepared for them as persons not likely to be so influenced? Were the holders of a 10l. tenement, or the weekly tenant of a lodging-house to be looked on as patterns of purity, for to such persons was the franchise to be transferred? He was convinced, if this clause of disfranchising freemen was allowed to stand as part of the Bill, it would do more to occasion dissatisfaction than anything which had occurred. After 10l. potwallopers should be admitted to vote, no respectable voter would be able to give his vote, unless it was for the candidate who might be the idol of the mob. The present clause, which disfranchised freemen, he considered unjust, and if there was anything like constitutional feeling on the Ministerial side of the House, they would not press a clause which would make them odious from one end of the country to the other. He should certainly support the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford.

Mr. Bolton Clive

said, the freemen of Hereford had sent him to Parliament, well knowing the course he should take on this measure. He supported his Majesty's Ministers in their efforts to pass the Reform Bill. He did so from a firm conviction that such a measure was required by the country, and absolutely necessary. Such had been the impression on his mind since the period when he was a member of the Society of Friends of the People. He had always been impressed with the necessity of stopping a usurpation of the rights of the people. The question before them appeared to be, whether they should in effect insert permanent into the clause, or confine the franchise to the existing freemen for their lives only, which he approved of. It had been further suggested, that persons living in the vicinity of the places they were privileged to vote for, should not be considered as non-resident. He was of opinion, that the general principle of the Bill required that such persons should be disfranchised. He held it to be one of the greatest merits of the Bill, that the franchise was given to 10l. householders, who were a better constituency than the present race of freemen. The outlying voters were the cause of the great expenses of elections, and he regretted non-residence was not a bar to freeholders voting as well as freemen. He thought it would be a compliment, and would not materially affect the value of the constituencies to be created, that the Corporations should retain and be allowed to perpetuate the right of voting. The Bill gave the right of voting to persons resident within seven miles. How was that distance to be measured? If twelve miles were allowed, it would take in the whole county of Hereford, with which he was connected, and he believed such an arrangement would be satisfactory, although he might himself desire to see the electors confined to the place they were to vote for.

Lord Althorp

was ready to inform his hon. friend how the distance was to be measured. There was a mode of measuring which was the shortest they could adopt, namely, the measurement of the Courts of Law. It had been decided in Courts of Law, that the way to settle a distance was, to take the nearest road by which a man could ride from any one place to any other. The proposition of the hon. member for the University of Oxford was at variance with the principle of the Bill. The objection stated by the hon. Member, namely, that they were about to disfranchise a large body of freemen, could not apply. The Bill did not disfranchise any one in existence. There was no disfranchisement of large numbers of persons, as had been said. The principle only concerned non-residents, who were seldom found in bodies. In no case did they object to a considerable number of voters retaining their rights. The provision applied only to persons unborn. It was impossible any person, looking at the present state of elections, should not consider the votes of non-resident freemen who were brought from various places at a great distance and at much expense, as a great evil. It was a door open to bribery and corruption. When they gave a man his expenses going to vote, they could not limit that expense. The voter often said, "you only offer me 5l. for my expenses, but your opponent offers 10l." This was the attempt to accomplish bribery which too often prevailed. Any person who objected to bribery must object to non-resident freemen. There was, perhaps, not a Gentleman in that House who had not been sorry for the existence of non-resident freemen; and he was convinced the abuses under that system of voting called for Reform. With respect to resident freemen, the question stood on different ground. They ought to consider what the Bill did in that respect. It did not disfranchise any resident freemen, or one who lived within seven miles from the place, although it would disfranchise those freemen who did not in future after the present class was extinct reside in 10l. houses. In large towns few resident freemen would be disfranchised, for it had been often asserted by hon. Gentlemen who now complained of the abolition of freemen's rights, that the qualification in such places was so low as almost to admit of Universal Suffrage. It would, therefore, be only in small towns that there would be any partial disfranchisement—not of the present electors, however, for they were not to be disfranchised, but they were not to transmit the right to their descendants. If corporate rights were preserved, it would enable Corporations to increase the number of freemen to any extent, for the purpose of opposing 10l. householders. And the Ministers had substituted that class of electors for the present, because in their consciences they believed they would be found a better description of constituents, and much less liable to corruption, than those now in existence. For these reasons he must oppose the Amendment.

Colonel Sibthorp

fully concurred in what had been said by the hon. members for Oxford and Durham. Expense had been talked of; that was true; his pockets, or rather his empty pockets, could tell that; but still he trusted, that he had encountered no expense that was not authorized by Acts of Parliament. The hon. member for Hereford had said, it was his bounden duty to say a few words because he represented a populous city; on the same principle it was his duty to say a few words also. Although he considered it his duty to advocate the cause of freemen, resident or non-resident, he went the length stated in the opinions of the members for Aldborough and Durham, and should contend that it was nothing less than spoliation to take away those rights. The noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces who had brought this measure into the world, said, the House was not to be governed by charters; but those charters were entitled to respect from the Sovereign himself. He could not consent to destroy those rights which had been earned by the sweat of the brow. There might be Members of that House who were freemen in Corporations, and were they to lose their franchise because they happened, in the discharge of their duty, to be sitting in that House six months? Non-resident voters were as proud of their rights as the noble Lord could be of his celebrated gold box.

Mr. Hodgson

said, the noble Lord had declared, that no person, would be deprived of their personal rights who were at present living: he was ready to acknowledge this was a boon when so many privileges were to be destroyed. The noble Lord had expressed fears, that by the creating of voters by Corporations, if they were allowed to remain, the freemen might overpower the new constituency to be created; but perhaps the freemen might be the most respectable. The freemen of Liverpool had been constantly held up, in support of the noble Lord's opinion, but he rather considered that place as an exception than as an example. In the town he represented, 500 freemen, out of a constituency of 3,000, would by this measure be disfranchised. He therefore approved of the Amendment. If they excluded freemen from the right of voting, Corporations would of course fall, and he saw no reason why Magistrates should be elected who were not considered worthy to be freemen.

Mr. John Campbell

said, that no one could vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Oxford, without voting for the continuance of every absurd and fantastic mode of obtaining freedom. Were they still to have freedoms and assignments of burgage tenures brought to the poll, with the wax not cold, or were they to continue the right of voting, as at Weymouth, upon the fourth part of a sixpenny rent?

Mr. Wrangham

suggested the propriety of postponing the discussion.

Colonel Wood

could not vote in support of the right of non-resident voters.

Mr. Hughes Hughes

expressed thanks to the hon. member for the University of Oxford for his motion in support of vested rights, which came with peculiar propriety from him, as Member for a place where such rights were to be retained.

Mr. Cresset Pelham

said, the native freemen of towns retained an affection for the place of their birth, and ought not to be deprived of their franchise.

Mr. Estcourt,

in reply, said, that residence and registry were so mixed up together in the same clause, that the whole was confused. The right of voting ought to be first decided, and he had introduced the question of residence to make his amendment consonant to the principles of the Bill. That part he would withdraw; but then it would be said, he was an advocate for existing abuses, which he denied, for wherever there was an abuse, he wished a remedy to be applied, but not, under the pretence of correcting abuses, to commit a general act of spoliation. He was not only an advocate for existing rights, but for rights in perpetuity; and he considered the clause taking away the franchise from resident and non-resident freemen, nothing less than spoliation.

Lord John Russell

said, it was necessary the hon. member for the University of Oxford should say, whether he would amend his Motion, or suffer it to apply to both resident and non-resident voters.

Mr. Estcourt

said, he would then move, that all the words after "that," at the beginning of the clause, down to "provided also," in the seventh line, be left out, for the purpose of substituting his Amendment.

The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 17; Noes 89—Majority 72.

The Clause agreed to; the House resumed. The Committee to sit again on Tuesday.

List of the AYES.
Apsley, Lord Pelham, Cresset
Bankes, W. Rae, Sir W.
Cust, Hon. P. Rochford, G.
Fitzroy, Hon. H. Sibthorp, C. D. W.
Forbes, Sir C. Trevor, Hon. A. H.
Hodgson, J. Walsh, Sir J.
Hughes, W. H. Wrangham, D. C.
Miller, W. H.
Murray, Sir G. TELLER.
Peel, E. Estcourt, T. G. D.