HC Deb 05 September 1831 vol 6 cc1156-66

On the motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.

Clause 33rd, which requires the Overseers of the poor, in every parish, to make out an alphabetical list of the persons entitled to be registered, was then read. On coming to the words "shall, at the expense of the parish or township, on or before the day of it was proposed to fill up the blanks with the words "First" and "November."

Mr. Wilks

said, he thought that was the proper occasion for the consideration of a suggestion he had to offer to the noble Lord and the Committee, with respect to the payment of the expenses of the lists, notices, and the other forms connected with the registration. The House and the Government did not, he thought, estimate, to its full extent, the cost of these proceedings. In the division of the Tower Hamlets, there would be 40,000 houses, for each of which there must be a separate return; all these would have to be arranged and analyzed; alphabetical lists to be made out, printed, and revised; and he believed the expense of carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect, in that district, would not be less than 2,000l. or 3.000l. a-year. He thought, that a sum so large as this should not come out of the rates. The measure, too, in populous places, would be attended with so much labour that the Overseers must be compelled to employ other persons to transact it. The expenses attending all this, ought not to be paid out of the poor-rates.

Mr. Alderman Wood

thought, that 200l. a-year for the services of a clerk, would be all that could be deemed necessary for the purpose; and even if it amounted to more, or nearly to the sum his hon. friend supposed, which was a most extravagant estimate, still it would be very little among so many persons.

Mr. Warburton

said, that when the metropolitan districts petitioned to be relieved from the expense of sending Members, it would be time enough to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Colonel Sibthorp

considered that the expense which might be required, would, in all likelihood, be very uncertain in its amount.

Lord Althorp

said, that the Government thought it much better to have these duties performed by the Overseers at the cost of the parishes, than by persons appointed and paid by the Slate; because it was satisfied there would then be a strict; attention to the expenditure, and that the parishes would keep an effectual control over their own officers.

Sir Edward Sugden

begged to know, whether, in cases where landlords were now bound to pay the rates, they were also to be called upon to pay this additional expense?

Mr. Hunt

complained of the power with which the Bill would invest parochial Overseers, and, in consequence, they should be restricted from interfering in elections, or they might contrive to exercise a very great influence over them.

Mr. Wilks

suggested, that the Churchwardens ought to be added to the Over-seers, in all cases where they did not happen to be so by virtue of their office.

Mr. Hunt

said, if Churchwardens were included, there must be an alteration of the present law, as they had no power but to make Poor and Church rates.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, whoever was to make the lists, ought not to interfere with the elections, and, as it must be presumed, the parochial authorities might have a particular bias, the power of preparing the lists should be vested in other persons. He had not attempted to amend many of the clauses in the Bill, but he should wish to see this altered, for the persons to whom the authority was to be given, might play all sorts of political tricks.

That part of the clause was then agreed to, and the Chairman went on reading until he came to the words "and shall cause a sufficient number of copies of such lists to be printed, at the expense of their respective parishes or townships."

Mr. Estcourt

begged to ask the noble Lord, whether this expense was to be paid by all the parish, for those rated under 101. were to lose their votes by this Bill? As the Barristers who were to decide upon county rates, were to be paid by the public, and it was understood that borough functionaries were also to be paid in a similar manner, he thought that these lists should not be a burthen on the parishes. He should, therefore, recommend that the Sheriff for each county should pay all the expenses under the direction of the Treasury.

Lord Althorp

said, the expenses for the counties could be controlled by the Treasury; in parishes that would be impossible; and, therefore, the best way was, to let the respective parishes manage their own business themselves.

Question agreed to.

The Chairman

then said, after the words "churches and chapels," it was proposed to insert the words "and if there be no Church or Chapel, then in some public or conspicuous place."

Mr. Hunt

said, such lists ought to be put up on Sundays, as game certificates, and other Acts of Parliament were, or people would not see them.

Lord Althorp

said, the reason why this provision was not made was, that some persons apprehended disturbances in the church-yards in consequence.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, he did not apprehend the noble Lord was going to mix up saintship with Parliamentary Reform. In many rural parishes and boroughs, people had five or six miles to go to church; it was not likely they would go that distance on any other day than the Sabbath. He himself was in that situation.

The addition proposed was adopted, and the clause, as amended, was then put and agreed to.

The Chairman then put the question, "That clause 34th should stand part of the Bill." The clause related to town clerks being obliged to furnish the lists of the freemen to the Overseers.

The clause, with verbal amendments, agreed to.

The Chairman then said, it was proposed that all the words in the 35th clause, after the words "be it enacted that," should be omitted, for the purpose of enacting "a provision for extra-parochial places," &c. Amendment agreed to, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Lord Althorp

said, they had now come to clauses 36th, and 37th, to which, he hoped, there would be no objection. In the 36th clause it was proposed, that all the words after the words "be it enacted that," should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words, "That persons omitted in the borough lists, should give notice of their claims to Overseers. That lists of claimants should be kept for inspection."

Mr. Wilks

proposed to add these words as an Amendment—"And shall deliver copies of each of the said notices to any person requiring the same, on payment of a fee of 1s. each copy."—Agreed to; and the clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

In the 37th clause it was proposed, that all the words after "be it enacted that," should be omitted, to substitute the following:—"That the Judges should name the Barrister to revise the lists of borough voters, and, upon due proof, insert and expunge names, and rectify mistakes."

The clause agreed to.

The blanks in the 38th clause were filled up with the words "first" October and "first" November, and the whole clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman read clause 39th, which takes from parties the right of being attended by Counsel at the Barrister's Court.

Sir Charles Wetherell

opposed that part of the clause, as interfering with the right of the voter.

Mr. Wilks

observed, that oaths were fairly administered to the parties, and justice might be done without the assistance of an Advocate.—Clause agreed to.

The Chairman commenced reading the 40th clause, on coming to the words ''And shall deliver the said Book to the Sheriff of the county, or his deputy, on or before the 1st day of October, in the jresent year,"

Colonel Wood

referred to an Act of Parliament (the 28th of George 3rd), passed in 1788, which had only that evening suggested itself to his notice. Its details were somewhat similar to the present plan, the object being the establishment of a system of registration of free-holders by the clergymen in different parishes. That Act was repealed the next Session, in consequence of the great expense and difficulty which occurred in making out registers. If the registration clauses of this Bill were passed, he was convinced they would be found so inconvenient, that they would, in like manner, be repealed. It would be absolutely impossible for the Clerk of the Peace, within any given time, to discriminate and arrange the different lists. They must be compared, to see that the same name or person did not appear in more parishes than one. It was thought, that, if residence was affixed, that would obviate the difficulty, but he had the benefit of experience in knowing this was also fallacious, from circumstances which had occurred relating to contested elections in the county he had the honour to represent.

Lord Althorp

said, that the Act referred to, of which he was fully aware, had been introduced by the late Lord Stanhope. Its object was, that voters should register themselves; but it was found that it was useless to intrust this to the freeholders as a voluntary act, and the law was, therefore, repealed. That circumstance had decided the Ministers to resort to a compulsory registration.

On the question being put, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

Mr. Wilks

could not see why the noble Lord had left out of the clause words allowing lists to be given applicants on payment of a reasonable sum. He thought the machinery of the Bill could not work well without those words, and he should, probably, consider it necessary to introduce an amendment, in some future clause, to that effect.

Lord Althorp

thought, as there was a general understanding that claimants had a right to a copy of the list on payment of 1s., there was no necessity to introduce precise words to that effect, but if there was such a necessity, that provision would be the subject of a subsequent clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On clause 41st being put,

Sir Edward Sugden

considered the right given by this clause to put questions to voters not clearly defined; it was wholly impossible to understand the clause as it stood.

Lord Althorp

said, the clause had been amended at the suggestion of hon. Members, and he thought its meaning and bearing were perfectly plain.

Sir Charles Wetherell

complained of the series of privations to which the voter was subject under the clauses of the Bill. No scrutiny was allowed; consequently, the party had no opportunity of proving whether his vote had been improperly rejected. The Overseer was, in fact, to make such a list as he pleased, which the Barrister was to alter and amend at his discretion, and when the elector came up to poll, he had no remedy whatever if his vote was rejected. The whole system of registration was bad, and a check upon the exercise of the elective franchise.

Lord Althorp

said, of all the objections to various parts of the Bill, he thought the arguments used against registration, were the weakest. If their machinery would answer the purpose for which it was intended, and of which he had little doubt, a scrutiny would be wholly unnecessary; the great object was, to prevent expense and delay. The objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman was against Parliamentary Reform rather than the provisions of the registry clauses.

Sir Charles Wetherell

thought the noble Lord had put a wrong construction on his objections, which were unconnected with Parliamentary Reform, and applied wholly to the scheme of registration. By the proposed plan, the elector would have no opportunity of obtaining justice in any of the preliminary stages. The clause actually destroyed all the advantages the elector at present enjoyed.

The clause was then agreed to.

The Chairman read the 42nd clause, allowing the accuracy of registrars to be questioned before a Committee of the House of Commons.

Sir Charles Wetherell

had one strong objection to the clause. He apprehended it was intended, that persons should have the same privilege to which they were now entitled, to appeal to that House on a question of an undue return. Now, the words of "whose names shall be improperly inserted, exchanged, or omitted," were so vague, as to render their bearing somewhat doubtful. The clause ought to provide expressly, that every person should retain the same rights of complaint as he now enjoyed

Mr. Serjeant Wilde

defended the clause, and contended, that the powers of a Committee were clearly pointed out for the purposes of the Bill. The House, in case of complaint, would have chiefly to ascertain whether or not the returning officer had done his duty.

Mr. Charles Ross

said, unless an elector's name was upon the register, he could not even declare for which candidate he proposed to vote. It would be impossible for the House to put his name upon the poll, because no knowledge could be had for whom he would have voted, from his right having been denied. The clause was, necessarily, imperfect.

Sir Edward Sugden

concurred with the hon. Gentleman, that the returning officers would necessarily be guided by the lists, and, unless a man's name appeared, his vote would be at once rejected, without any question of its legality. This was a point which required amendment.

Mr. Serjeant Wilde

said, the clause would simplify the whole duty of the returning officer, instead of the numerous questions and oaths now required. They would have to ask the party claiming to vote, first, as to his identity with the name in the register; second, whether his qualification was in existence at the time of voting; and third, whether he had previously polled: all the returning officer would have to do was, to see this regularly attended to.

The clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43rd, providing that the Sheriffs of divided counties should preside at elections by themselves or deputies, and should fix the time, agreed to.

On clause 44th, providing for the commencement and continuance of polls at county elections, being read,

Mr. Houldsworth

said, that he did not think that two days would be sufficient time for polling all the voters that would exist under this Bill in large counties, and divisions of counties.

Lord Althorp

replied, that the number of booths which would be provided at all county elections, would afford an ample opportunity of polling all the voters in that period.

Mr. Strickland

concurred with the hon. Gentleman. He conceived, that in the West Riding of Yorkshire two days would not afford sufficient time for polling one-half of the votes that would exist under this Bill.

Mr. Robert Grant

said, he was also of opinion, that the poll could not be completed in two days when the voters were numerous: 3,000 or 4,000 might be polled in that time, but in many places they would far exceed that number, and if it was wished that the sense of the country should be obtained through the voice of the great majority of voters, a longer time than two days must be allowed.

Sir Edward Sugden

said, that allowing it to be possible that the whole number o voters could be polled in two days, still it might be in the power of a candidate, who had a small majority, to obstruct his opponent's electors until after the time was elapsed, and thereby secure his own election.

Sir Charles Wetherell

begged to ask the noble Lord, if a contest should suddenly arise soon after the passing of this Bill would he not think it would be some what difficult to get the electors to the poll in two days in a large county. It might be done, perhaps, in Norfolk or in Stafford, but how it could be accomplished in the West Riding of York, was to him a mystery; and as one of the hon. Members for that county seemed to anticipate there would be such a difficulty, he should recommend him to move an Amendment for a longer time, and he would support him. Two days would, no doubt, be ample time to take the poll for the borough he had the honour to represent, but the same period, it was evident, could not be applicable to all places.

Lord Althorp

said, that there would be fifteen places in the West Riding of Yorkshire for taking the poll. At each of those fifteen places as many booths for receiving the votes of those who came to poll as might be thought necessary would be opened. Thus the polling would go on fifteen times quicker there than at present, and the unlimited number of booths which might be opened, combined with the facility afforded by the register, would enable all the voters, even in that large district, to record their votes in the space of two days. Allowing there were 30,000 voters, this would only be 2,000 for each polling place, and that number could easily be polled. They knew, from the case of Norwich, that it was possible, even with a large constituency, to close the poll in two days; and if arrangements for the same purpose could be as easily made elsewhere, the House should pass the clause in its present shape, in order to compel the parties interested to make them.

Mr. Ewart

begged to confirm the statement of the noble Lord by another example. At the last Liverpool election the poll was concluded in ten hours, by the adoption of a system acted upon by consent between the candidates. Another advantage in quick polling was, that the candidates were sooner able to perceive what was likely to be the result, and the unsuccessful party was thereby the more speedily induced to resign.

Mr. George Robinson

thought, that the poll might be taken in two days, but he was of opinion that the single intervening day which this clause allowed, between the first day of the election and that on which the polling was to commence, would not afford sufficient time, where a contest suddenly arose, to give notice throughout a county, and to prepare the machinery rendered necessary by this Bill in a county election.

Colonel Sibthorp

was of opinion, that Ministers ought to stand still and re-consider a clause, the effect of which would be to prevent very many persons from voting. They would as soon get all the electors of a large county to poll in two days, as they would pass the Bill they were at present talking about through a Committee in that time.

Mr. Wilks

said, there were many non-resident freeholders who, if the time were not extended, would be prevented from voting. This would be peculiarly the case in Yorkshire, and other extensive counties. He should, therefore, recommend that the time between the day of nomination and the commencement of polling should be extended.

Sir Edward Sugden

said, it appeared to him that two days was too short a time for a large county to be polled, but he thought it would be inconvenient to postpone the election after the appointed day. Allowing all the noble Lord had said about the number of places for the poll, and the number of booths, the candidates must have some person to represent them at each place; there must be attorneys and check-clerks; and do what they would, some examination of voters would be necessary. What was to prevent the agents questioning the party wishing to poll, whether he was still in possession, and it might turn out that he had parted with the property since the day of registration. He held it to be impossible that this clause could work well, or answer the purpose for which it was intended.

Lord Althorp

must repeat, that in ordinary cases there would be no difficulty in completing the poll within the time limited. The distances of the polling places from each other would be much diminished by the division of counties. He allowed there was some foundation for the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that a question might arise as to whether the voter was still in possession.

Mr. Houldsworth

said, of course the noble Lord, who had much experience in contested county elections, knew the time it took to poll an individual where there were no questions to be asked. If they allowed five minutes for each, which was a short time, no more than 100 could be polled at one place during the day. He feared the limited period would lead to such frauds in conducting elections as would more than counterbalance the good to be expected from it.

Mr. Hunt

said, he knew many voters could be polled in a short time where they lived close together: 2,000 had been polled at Preston in one day for himself and his hon. opponent, but he was of opinion that at least three days should be allowed for the elections in counties, considering the distance voters would have to come. If this alteration were not made, he could only look on this as a "neck-and-neck, or neck-or-nothing" clause.

Mr. Wrangham

was of opinion, that if this clause were carried in its present shape, gentlemen would be unable, in case of a contested election, to avail themselves of the out-voters and he requested to know the noble Lord's opinion respecting the proposal that had been made for lengthening the time between the day of nomination and the day of polling.

Lord Althorp

said, there would be an inconvenience in any case as to the proposition of extending the time between the day of nomination and the day of election; it would lead to a greater increase of expense than allowing a third day for the voting.

Mr. Strickland

said, the limitation of time was one of the most valuable parts of the Bill generally, but that, at some future time, an alteration must be made to meet some of the objections to this clause, in large districts where there were so many voters. As to the expense he would say one word. It would be necessary in Yorkshire, where there were 30,000 electors, to have thirty booths; the expense of erecting which, and of employing clerks, would be about 701. for each, making a total of 2,100l. This was certainly too much.

Mr. Keith Douglas

was convinced that in Manchester, the Tower Hamlets, and other populous places, it would be impossible to poll the voters in two days. In the latter place there would be 40,000 electors to poll there in two days; they must have, by the estimate already made, sixty-six booths; this must lead to great confusion and enormous expense.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, it was one of the absurdities of the measure, that it pretended to extend the franchise with one hand, and limited the time of taking the poll with the other, so that half those to whom the franchise was given could not vote. But suppose some candidate should start up at the day of election, where no opposition was calculated upon in a large district, could there be time or opportunities for taking the poll? He should most certainly bring the matter again before the House at a future occasion.

The clause agreed to, and the House resumed.