HC Deb 07 August 1832 vol 14 cc1230-40
Colonel Evans

rose to call the attention of the House to the Motion of which he had given notice, respecting the great numbers of the town and borough constituency, who would be found disfranchised at the next general election. He observed, that there ought not to be a single place in the condition in which he feared the far greater part of the metropolitan boroughs would be found. In the parish of St. James, for instance, there were 3,000 inhabitants who would be qualified to vote in respect of the houses they occupied, but owing to the greater part of them not having paid their poor-rates, he believed there would be but 891 voters in that parish. It was true there were 1,600 who had paid their assessed taxes, but only 891 who had paid poor-rates, and it was reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the lesser number alone was entitled to the elective franchise. He might, however, add, that the oldest collector in the parish had informed him, that there were not more than 200 voters. In Lambeth, again, the numbers of those who were entitled to votes was very inconsiderable. In the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, there were 2,600 persons who occupied houses that would give the elective franchise; but, out of these, there were only 1,200 who had paid their assessed taxes, and, consequently that must be the highest number of persons in that parish entitled to a vote. In St. Margaret's, Westminster, there were not more than 1,200 who would be entitled to a vote; and in the populous parish of Marylebone, where there were 10,000 rated houses of sufficient value to confer the franchise, there were but 2,900 persons who had paid their rates and taxes. If the rest of the boroughs throughout the kingdom were, as he had no doubt they were, in the same situation, there would be at least two-thirds of those entitled to their franchise, deprived of it by the present conditions stated in the Reform Bill; so that, if the borough voters of the kingdom amounted to 300,000, there would be, out of that number, 200,000 deprived of their elective franchise. The noble Lord opposite had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill to remedy this evil, by changing the day, now fixed at the 20th of July, to the 20th of August. That change would not be sufficient. The present was the worst time of the year for making payments. It was not the time when the retail dealer, or the merchant, or manufacturer, received their money, and the agricultural part of the population had that produce, from which they expected to get their money, yet ungathered in their fields. As a proof that these circumstances affected all classes, he might mention, that there was not one qualified voter in the whole of Russell-square; and as a contrast to that, at least with respect to the condition of the inhabitants, there were, in Windmill-street, only two voters. Under these circumstances, he thought something ought to be done, that so large a body of people might not be disfranchised, and be should therefore move the following Resolutions:—

"Resolved, That, in regard to the numbers of the Elective Constituency, whether of the metropolitan cities and districts, or in the towns generally throughout the kingdom, the expectations contemplated by the Legislature, held out by the Government, and entertained by the country, are now found to be entirely erroneous, in so far as relates to the next general election, under the Act for the Reform of Parliament lately passed.

"That, in some places there is even a doubt whether there will be any constituency at all to vote at the next election, excepting old corporate freemen; while, in many others, instead of the franchise being enlarged, as was generally stated, and believed would be the case, it will actually be diminished and cut down to one-fourth, one-sixth, or to even a still less fractional part of the extent of elective right previously enjoyed by those towns respectively; and that a similar disfranchisement, miscalculation, or delusion, must be admitted as to the newly-created boroughs.

"That this most unlooked-for and dangerous result, as affecting the composition of the next Parliament, is partly attributable to the severe and restrictive operation of certain clauses of the said Act, especially the 27th, 23rd, 44th, and 80th, requiring, as a qualification, payment of rates and taxes before specified days, and previous to the periods on which these dues are more usually levied; partly to the distress occasioned to the industrious classes, by the long-protracted resistance to the measure of Reform, and the consequent stagnation of trade; also to omissions or inattention, designedly or otherwise, of the rate and tax collectors; and to misunderstandings respecting dates and other matters of a supposed confused, contradictory, or complicated tenor, which there was not time enough between the promulgation of the Act and the periods mentioned to clear up sufficiently for general guidance.

"That the same might be obviated in respect to the next election, by substituting in regard to poor-rates, the '25th day of December last;' and with regard to assessed taxes, the '10th day of October last,' in lieu of the words, 'sixth day of April last,' wherever the latter date occurs in said Act, in reference to boroughs—thus rendering all voters eligible, who had paid by the 20th of July last their poor-rates, due at Christmas, and their assessed taxes, due the 10th of last October.

"And that it is therefore indispensable, in the opinion of this House, that a short remedial bill be introduced during the present Session of Parliament, to the above, or an equal effect, in order to provide some remedy, at least for the present year, against the fatal error and disfranchisement thus discovered to arise in the working of the restrictive clauses referred to in said Act."

The Speaker

, after looking at the Resolutions, observed, that the third portion of the Resolutions declared, that it was indispensable, that a short remedial bill should be introduced, in order to provide some remedy for the evils which the previous portion of the Resolutions had exposed. If that Resolution should be carried, it would be declaring the opinion of the House, that a bill of the kind there described should be brought in, and the House would, in fact, be giving leave to bring in a bill without a title, and without a formally declared object.

Sir Francis Burdett

thought, that his hon. and gallant friend had better withdraw the Motion, as he was sure it was sufficient to call the attention of the Ministers to it, since they must feel as strong a desire as himself to correct the error. He understood, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given notice of a bill, to remedy the evils of which his hon. and gallant friend had spoken, and truly, if it was intended that the Reform Act should be such as to satisfy the desires of those who had so earnestly called for it at the hands of the Government, some remedy must be afforded. He thought the day should be postponed from the 20th of July to the 20th of September; but he thought further, that the right to exercise the franchise should depend, not on the actual payment of the taxes, but on the liability to pay them, unless it could be shown, that the individual liable would be totally unable, under any circumstances, to make the payment. He recommended his hon. and gallant friend to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, especially as the noble Lord had already taken up the subject.

Lord Althorp

thought, that his hon. and gallant friend must have exaggerated in a very material degree the effect of the clauses to which he had alluded. With respect to scot-and-lot voters, it should be recollected, that none would be disfranchised who had tendered the payment of their rates and taxes, due at Lady-day, by the 20th of July last. The fact of actual payment before that time was not necessary to the qualification. The offer to pay was sufficient. The only case in which a scot-and-lot voter would be disfranchised was, where he was actually unable to pay. With respect to other rights of voting, he must say, that he thought it very extraordinary, that any mistake or any difficulty should have arisen, because long discussions on that particular provision of the Act, which rendered it necessary that those who were desirous of voting should pay up their rates and taxes by a certain specified time, had taken place on many occasions in that House, while the measure was under its consideration. Indeed, since the month of December last, every person must have been acquainted with the existence of such a provision, and consequently must have had ample time to comply with it. A complaint, however, had been made to him, that, in many instances, where persons had tendered their rates to the collectors, the collectors had refused to receive them. Now, according to the view which he took of the subject, it certainly appeared to him to be quite consistent with the principle and spirit of the Reform Act, to introduce an Amendment, to obviate the injustice which would result if those persons who had tendered their rates should be disqualified. His hon. and gallant friend, in the Resolutions which he had submitted, proposed to alter one of the main provisions of the Act, and to substitute an Amendment, which ought to have been made the matter of discussion while the Bill was under the consideration of the House. He (Lord Althorp) should certainly be very sorry now to see such an alteration made in the principle of the Bill. His hon. friend (Sir Francis Burdett) behind him had intimated the propriety of delaying the period for the payment of rates and taxes, to September or October. The result of such a delay would be to procrastinate the time at which the registration could commence, until a most inconvenient period. The object of the proposition, which it was his intention to propose to the House simply was, that all persons who had tendered the payment of their rates and taxes should, for the purposes of this Act, be considered as having paid them. There was, he admitted, a difficulty in point of form in making any alteration whatever in this Act; because it did not contain the declaratory clause usually placed at the end of bills, to enable the House to make any Amendments in it in the present Session of Parliament. There were, however, several precedents in which Amendments had been made in the same Session in bills which, like the Reform Act, did not contain the usual declaratory clause. One of these occurred in the year 1757, when an Act was passed for enlarging the time at which the first meeting of the Commissioners for putting in force the provisions of an Act, passed in that Session, should take place. An instance very nearly similar occurred in the year 1765; but, in the year 1795, an Amendment was allowed to be made in an Act, which had been passed under circumstances which he considered very analogous to the present. He alluded to the Act which was passed in that year for allowing further time for persons to take out certificates for wearing hair powder. In the present instance he proposed to allow some further time for persons to complete their qualifications as voters under the Reform Act. He certainly did not wish to press that Amendment forward, except with the general concurrence of the House; but, considering that many persons who had all the disposition to pay their rates and taxes, and would have done so but for the conduct of the collectors, would be disappointed unless some alteration were made, he hoped that he should be allowed to introduce an Amendment to the extent to which he had alluded. He should therefore move, as an Amendment to the Resolutions proposed by his hon. and gallant friend, for leave to bring in a Bill to allow further time for persons to pay their poor-rates, pursuant to an Act of Parliament, passed in the present Session, entitled "An Act to Amend the Representation of the People of England and Wales."

Mr. Herries

thought the House would agree with him in saying, that this was one of the most important propositions that could be submitted to the House. He said a most important proposition. The House had, after a most deliberate and long discussion, passed a measure of immense importance, which was declared solemnly and repeatedly to be received as a final measure. The proposition now made was to alter one of the most important provisions of the Bill. He contended that was the fact; and it should be considered, too, that this alteration was proposed at the shortest notice possible, and at a period of the Session when many Members could not by possibility attend. It was an alteration, too, proposed in defiance of, and in contradiction to, the settled and declared rules of Parliament. He considered the alteration as most important, for it affected the nature of the new franchise; it altered that great principle, and, therefore, he contended it was most important. Besides, if the noble Lord again opened the subject of the Act, who could say where the changes would stop? Let the noble Lord look around him, and he must see that the alteration he intended would not satisfy those who required changes. To the alteration suggested by the noble Lord he did not so much object for its own character, as he did because it was in opposition to the rules of Parliament, and it would open a question which could not be opened without great danger. The alteration was not worth the risk. There was no object to be gained of sufficient importance to justify the proposition. If it were adopted it would go far towards realizing the anticipations of the opponents of the Bill, who had said it would open the door to change, and that change after change would be demanded and conceded. To that assertion the framers of the Bill had said, "No, we will abide by the Bill, and resist all change." Nothing had transpired with which the House was acquainted, whatever information the noble Lord might possess, to justify the proposition. The words of the Act were plain beyond dispute; their propriety had been fully and deliberately discussed, and the Act was passed six weeks before the 20th of July, the date by which the rates were to be paid. If this alteration were made, others must follow. The alteration proposed by the noble Lord would satisfy only a very small number of persons, and would afford a dangerous precedent to others to insist upon further change. He, therefore, entreated the noble Lord to pause before he persevered in his proposition. He was not indisposed to concur in the principle of the alteration—namely, that a legal tender of payment of rates should be deemed, for the purposes of the Act, an actual payment, but further than that he could not go.

The Solicitor General

regretted to observe such a spirit of opposition to the Amendment of his noble friend. The question was undoubtedly important, because it was whether the public was to derive from the Reform Act the benefits they had a right to expect. If the great mass of the intended new constituency were thus deprived of their franchise, the people would lose the fair fruits of the measure. If he thought that the new electors held their franchise in such light estimation, that they wilfully neglected to qualify themselves, he should, in that case, oppose any proposition to give them a benefit of which he should consider them unworthy; but he was persuaded that it was solely from misconception that they had omitted to take those steps which alone could give them the right of voting. But it was a narrow view of the question to suppose that the elective franchise had been given to a few individuals for their own private benefit. They held it for the good of the people in general, and if they wilfully refused to exercise it, they were guilty of a species of treason against the public. They evidently did not act from wilfulness, but from ignorance; and the point, therefore, to be considered was, whether Parliament ought not to grant a reasonable time for the payment of rates and taxes? It was, of course, merely accidental that the defect had occurred, and it would be highly unbecoming in Parliament not to remedy it. The object was not to vary the principle of the Reform Act in the slightest degree; and if there were no rule of Parliament to render the course impossible, nothing could be more just and necessary than that the alteration should be made. He recollected that the hon. Gentlemen opposite declared, on the passing of the Reform Bill, that they would do everything in their power to make the Bill as effective as possible. He, therefore, could not but suppose that they would cordially join in giving full practical effect to the measure, by rendering the new constituency qualified to vote. Unless the Reform Act were to be a dead letter—to expire in its birth—the House which had adopted the Act was bound to make it perfect.

Sir Edward Sugden

said, there was no precedent for such a proposition as the present. The cases quoted by the noble Lord did not resemble the present. In those instances the object of the Legislature was to relieve persons from penalties unintentionally imposed. But he would not stickle at forms; he would at once say, that if there was any real cause of grievance he should desire to remedy it. Now, would the noble Lord say that, of his own knowledge, there was, he would not say a large, but a considerable class of voters who had tendered their rates, and the payment had been refused? He had heard of no one case; but if the noble Lord said he himself knew that there was a considerable number of persons who had been disfranchised in that way, he would at once believe it. He was most desirous to carry the Bill into full effect, but he was not prepared to go further. He would say, not only that a legal tender of rates ought to be held as payment, but also, that any overseer who dared to refuse receiving the rates ought to be subject to a heavy penalty. It would be, indeed, monstrous for any person to be allowed, with impunity, by trick, or any other means, to disfranchise another. But then the alteration of the noble Lord went a vast deal further than that. The noble Lord did not say certain persons have been disfranchised contrary to the intention of the Legislature, and, therefore, we will render to them their just rights; but he said, some may have been improperly disfranchised, and, therefore, we will give to all a new opportunity of qualifying to exercise the elective franchise. To such a proceeding he objected, as utterly at variance with the rules of Parliament and the pledges of the Government, The Solicitor General said, the persons disfranchised had not qualified from something accidental. How that could be he did not understand. The wording of the clause was so plain that any one who could read must understand it. That it was generally known, no man could deny, for every newspaper in the metropolis, indeed in the kingdom, had published the exact state of the law, and repeated the circumstances again and again. In fact, so notorious was the wording and intent of the Act, that he did not believe a gentleman would be found who would say he thought any elector could be ignorant of it. Surely the Solicitor General would not say, that his intended constituents, the enlightened and patriotic electors of Marylebone, were ignorant of the law. Had they not had the benefit of public meetings and the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself? But not only was this proposition contrary to the general rules of Parliament, but it was also contrary to the specific pledges given by the noble Lord. Why was the usual concluding clause of every bill not inserted? Why was that clause struck out which was common to almost all bills, and which permitted the amendment of an Act in the then Session, if necessary? Simply for this reason: the Government were told that the Bill as proposed would not be final. The noble Lord replied, "We mean it to be final. To prove that we do, we will strike out the concluding clause, and that will prevent any change being made by the present Parliament." He should be sorry to see the attempt persevered in, for it would be most unjust to do so in the absence of his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth, and many other Members who had always taken a most active part in the discussions upon the subject, and would certainly have been present had an opportunity been afforded them. There were then present, and by pure accident, some fourteen or fifteen of those Members with whom he (Sir Edward Sugden) had acted, and the noble Lord might judge whether that large body of Members was fairly represented upon the present occasion. The noble Lord had a high reputation for candour, and he put it to the noble Lord to say, whether it would be just, proper, or advisable to press his Amendment.

Lord Althorp

said, that of his own knowledge he could not state any cases of rejection by the overseers; but he had been credibly informed, that a large number of persons would be prevented from having their votes, from not having paid up to the 20th July; and that of these a large portion had tendered their money, and been refused acceptance: the natural result of which was, that this refusal would act on many others, and prevent their making the tender at all. If it was true that this Bill was to be regarded as a breach of faith towards those who were absent, and on that account likely to meet with considerable opposition, he did not think that it was worth his while to press it upon the House, and under these circumstances he would not insist upon his Motion.

Sir Francis Burdett

thought that this supplementary Bill was nothing more than carrying into effect the intention of the original Reform Bill, and that without this Bill the public would find that they were not really in possession of that franchise which they had been guaranteed. He did not see how any one could contend that this was any alteration of the Bill; it appeared to him only to be a furtherance of the proposed effect of the Bill.

Mr. Hume

wished to ask the noble Lord whether he had withdrawn the Bill?

Lord Althorp

said, that he had;—first, because it would be impossible for him to pass the Bill, if opposed, in the present state of the Session; and secondly, because he did not wish to pass the Bill, if it was held to be a breach of faith that the Reform Bill should not be altered.

Mr. Hume

said, that if the Bill only went to franchise those who had tendered, he did not care much about it, because he believed the numbers of those tenders to be very few; but if it was intended to be a Bill for the general extension of the time to the 20th of August—

Lord Althorp

I intended the Bill to embrace both these objects.

Mr. Hume

Then he did hope that the noble Lord would not withdraw the Bill, because such withdrawal would give very great dissatisfaction in the metropolis.

Mr. Charles Ross

did not object to a Bill to enfranchise those who had tendered payment; but he thought that, with respect to the others, ample notice had been given them, and, therefore, there was no pretence for any extension of time in their favour.

Lord Althorp withdrew his Amendment.

The House divided on Colonel Evans's Motion: Ayes 2; Noes 66; Majority—64.