PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND — COMMITTEE — EIGHTH DAY. (Hansard, 7 February 1832)

§ Lord Althorp
said, he had more fully considered the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, and, therefore, he intended to introduce words into the clause for the purpose of disqualifying any persons from voting who had not paid their assessed taxes and Poor-rates upon all the tenements they had occupied in succession.

§ Mr. Croker
feared the proposition of the noble Lord would not succeed in promoting peace. He had had some experience in contested elections; and he was convinced that allowing various residences and payments to make up the qualification 46 was impolitic. The residences should be one and entire, as had been proposed by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, in addition to payments for the whole time, or the worst and most complicated litigation would be the consequence. Three removes were said to be as bad as a fire, and he was certain that anything which went to countenance or encourage moving on the part of the poorer classes was to them au injury. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would make the clause similar to that which stood upon the same subject in the first Bill.

§ Lord Eastnor
felt so strongly the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) that he could not avoid expressing his earnest desire to see the clause altered, for it appeared to him so objectionable, that if any one had a desire to injure the Bill, they would propose such a one.

Mr. Stuart Worthy
said, that, in addition to the objections which had been urged, was the fact that this clause, as it stood, would give rise to the greatest confusion, and was not even calculated to attain its professed object. The purport of the clause was, to require twelvemonths' residence previous to registration. But the residence was to be taken in July, and the registration in October. Besides which, supposing that an election took place six months after the registry, the voter must have continued to occupy the same house during that time, or the registry as a check was useless, and a further examination would be necessary to value the tenement he occupied if he had made a change. The clause, as it stood, permitted the change of residence prior to the registration, but it did not permit it between the registration and the election.

Lord John Russell
said, that point bad been observed in framing the clause, and it was considered on the whole better to ensure a residence up to July in a qualified house, and the reason was evident. Up to that time the value of the premises would be ascertained, but after that there would be no means of knowing the value of the house occupied by the voter.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, that the clause, as it now stood, was just, for it insured a residence in one place for three months at least—from July to October He should have preferred the clause as contained in the original Bill, but certainly, on the whole, the present clause had 47 been greatly improved by the amendment acceded to by the noble Lord.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
said, the clause as proposed violated the principle as laid down by the noble Lord. The professed object was, to allow a man a vote for various residences, and yet a man moving after registry was to be deprived of his vote. He complained too, that the language was obscure: he wished it to be explained.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that by the present Bill, all persons voting must be rated. It had been objected to the present clause, that it did not require an elector to reside twelvemonths in the same premises, or if he changed them, it would be only necessary for him to pay the rates for the last premises he occupied. His amendment, therefore, had the object of making such persons pay the rates for all the premises they occupied in succession, to entitle them to vote, and this he considered was a proof of the continued respectability of the party during the twelvemonth.

Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, the noble Lord appeared to him to have confirmed the objections taken to this clause, rather than to have obviated them. An elector might occupy twelve different residences in the course of a year, of as many different values, and yet he would be entitled to registration.

Mr. Goulburn
thought, that a most difficult task would be imposed upon Overseers to find out what persons were entitled to vote. He supposed it was intended that every person who occupied a 10l. house and paid his rates, was to have his name placed upon the register. And, therefore, he must be traced through five or six parishes, and as many different residences, to find out that each was of the value of 10l. How would it be possible to trace such an individual through the St. Pancras and other metropolitan districts; besides, in each of these parishes the houses might be rated upon a different principle, and that would increase the confusion.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
observed, that in the original Bill it was provided, that the Overseers were to make out a list of all the persons entitled to vote, but this Bill improved the former by saying, that the Overseers should only make out a list of all those persons claiming to vote. He was not to make a list of all those entitled to vote, but only those who claimed to do 48 so, and this greatly reduced the power of the Overseer.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
was of opinion, that there would be quite sufficient difficulty in determining the question, whether a man had occupied one house of the value of 10l. a-year? But when a person changed his residence four or five times during that term, he must prove that all his successive occupations were of 10l. value before he could obtain a vote. This, he thought, would be rather a difficult and complicated proceeding, and how much would it be increased, if, in addition to this he must also prove, that he had paid all his rates and taxes upon all these various residences? The Attorney, the Overseer, the parish Officers and agents would have a pretty considerable share in the manufacture of votes.

§ Lord Althorp
had heard certainly, that persons who lived in the smaller description of houses changed their abode more frequently than larger occupiers, and that had been made a great objection to the clause. But he did not think housekeepers changed their residence so often as was stated. The task of the Overseer would be an arduous one, but it would not be attended with the difficulties that had been predicted.

Mr. Cripps
begged to remind the noble Lord, that farmers in the vicinity of borough towns often occupied warehouses or rooms within them, although they might be resident out of their bounds, and have votes for the county in which they resided. He wished to ask, if such persons were to have votes if they lived within seven miles of such borough, provided their warehouses were of adequate value, or were they to be classed under the head of "nonresidents."

§ Mr. Hunt
had known from his own experience as a farmer, that there were such warehouses as had been described by the hon. Member, but he never heard of one for which a farmer paid 10l. rent.
Question agreed to, and Lord Althorp's Amendment, as follows, "Such person having paid up all poor-rates and assessed taxes which shall have become payable by him for such holding," also agreed to.
The next question was, that the second blank be filled up with the words "ten pounds."

§ Colonel Sibthorp
understood the principle of this Bill went upon property, and not numbers, and he therefore wished for 49 some information relating to joint occupancy which had some connexion with property, and which was of importance to his constituents. It was very frequently the case in the respectable city of which he was the humble Representative, that houses were let out to lodgers, who paid different amounts of rent in proportion to the portion of the house they occupied, he therefore begged the noble Lord would inform him, if a person on the upper floor of a house paying perhaps 5l. rent was to have the same right of franchise as a person renting the first floor at a rent of he would say 15l.

§ Lord Althorp
said, it was provided that joint tenants if they each held to the value of 10l. and upwards were to vote, therefore the 5l. holders had no claim.

§ Mr. Cressett Pelham
said, the abuses of the existing system had been commented on in severe terms. It was said, among other things, that numbers of voters were frequently created for the purpose of a particular party. The effects of" the clause, however, in his opinion, would produce infinitely more abuses. He was convinced collusion of the most gross description might prevail under its provisions.

§ Mr. Freshfield
inquired how the franchise was to be regulated in a case where three individuals rented in common a holding of the value of 28l.?

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that in such a case no right of franchise would be exercised by any of the joint tenants.

Mr. Estcourt
asked, if each of the three joint occupants of a holding of 30l. annual value would be, under the clause entitled to a vote.

§ Lord Althorp
replied in the affirmative.

§ Mr. Pollock
stated, that as the clause at present stood, it referred to two distinct points; the former part related entirely to a single tenant, the latter part referred to joint occupants. There seemed no connexion between these two parts, he therefore begged to propose as an Amendment, that after the words "twelve months," there be inserted the words "And be it enacted," it appeared to him that it would be much better if the clause was divided into two distinct clauses.

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that he had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, if the hon. and learned Member was sure that by doing so the clause would be rendered more intelligible.

Mr. Estcourt
remarked, that it was a most extraordinary piece of legislation to make a difference of 2l. or 1l. exclude three individuals from the right of voting.

Mr. Cripps
begged to ask the noble Lord, whether the three holders of 10l. a-year each would be entitled to vote, unless each was rated to that amount, or, if only one out of the three were rated, whether he would have a vote to the exclusion of the others.

§ Lord Althorp
said, as rating was one of the qualifications of the Bill, unless a man was rated to the amount he could have no right to vote.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, this clause appeared to him to create extraordinary facilities for making votes. Houses would be taken for the purpose, and converted into abodes something like Noah's Ark— some persons would occupy the first floor, some the garret, others the cellar; he wished therefore to be informed, where there were fourteen or fifteen joint tenants, how their relative rights of voting were to be ascertained?

§ Lord Althorp
—If a house was let to fifteen separate tenants, they must pay each 10l. a-year, to entitle them to vote besides the payment of the rates.

§ Mr. Praed
objected to the clause, on the ground that it would enact in an underhand manner, that which the hon. member for Preston had boldly and openly demanded—he meant Universal Suffrage. He willingly excused Ministers for its introduction, knowing as he did that they were compelled to bow to the dictates of Political Unions—those schoolmasters who ruled them with a rod of iron. He would content himself with stating, that it should never meet with his consent.
On the Question, that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill,

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
could not on this question refrain from expressing his opinion, that the clause was a direct violation of reason and common-sense, but he was well aware, that if Government affirmed the contrary, it was of no use resisting it. He merely wished, therefore, to state his opinion, that it was unjust to put the sham occupier, the joint tenant of a house, on the same footing with a bonâ fide substantial holder of a tenement of the value of 10l. This principle Ministers formerly opposed, but they had now conceded it to clamour. It had been extorted from them by the Political Unions.

Lord John Russell
said, though it seemed to be of no use telling the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was one of the provisions of the Bill that no man could vote unless he was rated, he begged, however, to repeat it once more as a full answer to all his remarks on the effects of joint occupancy.

§ Mr. Hunt
requested the noble Lord would inform him, if there were four partners in a firm, and they were not rated separately, whether each would be entitled to a vote.

§ Lord Althorp
under the Bill, in all probability, the partners would be registered separately.

Mr. Stuart Wortley
expressed a hope that in the Bill which he understood, it was the intention of Government to introduce for the prevention of bribery and corruption at elections, a clause would be introduced to prevent the collusive payment of rates for the purposes of creating voters under the 10l. clause of the Bill.

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that such a provision would be introduced, although he felt bound to say, that the intended machinery of registration would, he believed, effectually prevent any such collusion.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
said, the noble Lord might be very confident in the effect of his measure of registration, but he might be disappointed. When there was a prospect of an early election, the candidates would be called upon to pay the rates for constituents, because no provision of the Bill required that they should be paid as they became due. He wished also to call the attention of the Committee to the wording of the clause, which appeared to him extraordinary. As it now stood whenever a tenant desired to vote, he had it in his power to go to the Overseer, and demand to be rated. There was no provision made that, in such case, the landlord was exempted; therefore, both would become liable to the payment of the rates. If the tenant was called upon, and did not pay, recourse would be had to the landlord, if he paid them, and the unconscious tenant, by some arrangement, afterwards continued to pay also, they would be paid twice over. This clause bore upon an Act of Parliament which was passed on the professed ground of the poverty and in- 52 competency of the holders of a certain description of houses by which the landlords were compelled to pay the rates due upon them.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the clause was introduced in justice to the landlord and tenant, allowing each to make his own arrangements as to payment of the rates; and on their coming to a proper understanding which of them was to pay the rates, the question as to double payment would be settled

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
but there are many places in England, in which, by virtue of local acts, the landlord was compelled to pay the rates in a certain class of houses. This clause would have the effect of completely oversetting those local acts, because its avowed object was to make the tenant pay the rates to entitle them to vote.

§ Lord Althorp
the occupier of the premises would be put upon the Register. If he did not pay the rates, he could not vote; and then the landlord might be compelled to pay them by the local acts alluded to.

§ Mr. Pollock
that would leave one way open for the tenant to escape payment, and yet vote. When he required to be put upon the Register, the Overseer would, of course, ask him, if all his rates were paid up; on his replying in the affirmative, his name would be inserted, but he might then turn round and say as soon as his name was upon the list, "there is a rate due, but I will leave that to my landlord."

Sir Robert Peel
only performed a duty which he very rarely had had occasion to perform, in expressing his satisfaction with the amendments introduced into this clause. The main distinction between this clause and the corresponding clause in the Bill of last Session was this, that the rights of freemen entitled to their freedom by birth or servitude were now secured to them and to their successors for ever. He thought this an important object gained, first, because it introduced a new class of voters, and broke the uniformity which would otherwise be established by the 10l. clause; and, secondly, and chiefly, because it maintained the hereditary privileges of an industrious and intelligent class of society. If other hereditary privileges were to be 53 preserved, as he trusted they would be, those possessed by the artizan and mechanic ought not to be violated. He must remind the House that the clause now stood exactly as it was proposed to stand last Session by an hon. relative of his, the member for Newcastle (Mr. Edmund Peel). His hon. relative had drawn the distinction between mere honorary freedom and the freedom acquired by birth or servitude, and had strenuously, though at the same time unsuccessfully, contended for the maintenance of that privilege which was now effectually secured. His exertions had not, however, been unavailing, as the exact terms of his amendment were now incorporated in the Bill. On the part of his hon. relative, who had been unable to attend in consequence of severe indisposition, he begged to express his satisfaction that justice had been done to a class of electors who prized this privilege, much less on account of any personal advantage which they individually derived from it, than on account of its being an ancient franchise, which they wished to transmit to their children and successors in as perfect a state as they had themselves inherited or acquired it.

§ Lord Althorp
would not say the amendment was an improvement, yet as the Ministers found it was a point they could concede with consistency to the principle of the Bill, they did not reject it.

Sir Robert Peel
was glad the noble Lord had adopted the amendment, but could not see why the noble Lord had agreed to it if it was in his opinion no improvement to the Bill. There could be no doubt, however, that it broke in upon the 10l. clause, which was held up as of such vital importance.

Lord Milton,
approved of the present amendment which, unlike most others that proceeded from the right hon. Baronet and his friends, had the effect of extending the franchise, and, on that principle h is noble friend had adopted it. He heartily rejoiced that he had done so, for the provision in the original Bill to disfranchise some of the lower order of the people was the most objectionable part of it to his mind. He thought it was most desirable that those who had no property should yet feel they had an interest in the Constitution. Although he was not desirous to give a paramount influence in the State to the lowest classes, yet he wished that the very humblest could feel that they were 54 in connection with that House. At the same time he could not think, because the privileges of the poorer people were not to be annihilated, that preserving their franchise broke in upon the principle of the 10l. clause; on the contrary, he thought the augmentation of the number of electors rather strengthened it.

Lord Hotham
expressed a hope that his Majesty's Government would draw a distinction between those non-resident voters who were engaged in the army and navy.

§ Lord Althorp
did not see how it was possible in the machinery of the Bill to meet the suggestion of the noble Lord, but if any thing could be done, he should be disposed to adopt the remedy.

Lord Hotham
was thankful for the disposition of the noble Lord to turn his mind to the subject.

Mr. Goulburn
said, there was another class worthy the attention of the noble Lord, namely, the men serving in the Militia, who were compelled to leave their houses and yet would lose their right of voting.

§ Mr. Schonswar
begged to tell the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that he must not think of running away with all the credit of the amendment, and placing the same to the account of his relative. Many staunch friends to the Bill had advocated it, he amongst the rest, and he was happy to see it adopted, particularly when residence was attached to it as a qualification. Freemen combined with householders at and above 10l. would, in large boroughs, form a most valuable constituency, and he had no doubt they would act in concert and in harmony with each other, and that the results would be most beneficial.

§ Sir George Murray
said, he really hoped the noble Lord would take into his most serious consideration the state to which the clause reduced the whole army and navy. There could not be a doubt of the importance of keeping up the connection of soldiers and sailors with civil life, but the effect of this clause would deprive them of their right as freemen of a borough, merely because they were engaged in the service of their country.

§ Captain Boldero
said, he was himself a military man, and he rose to arrest the progress of a clause which annihilated the privileges which soldiers and sailors enjoyed in common with their fellow-subjects 55 as freemen of corporations. He could not see how they could make such persons resident. The service of the country was a bar to it. Surely the disfranchisement then of the army and navy was an oversight. If it was not, it implied contempt of their feelings as a body, and was breaking the chain which bound them to their fellow-citizens. The last Bill was forced through the House in such haste, that he had no time to object to this most obnoxious of its clauses; and by the Bill then under consideration they disfranchised 400,000 men—a number equal to the adult male population of twelve of the largest towns in the kingdom. The clause relating to residence was an effectual bar to all rights of voting in military men. How could he do duty in Scotland and have a vote for Westminister, though his family might be living there, and paying rates and taxes? Was it to be endured, because he was employed in the public service as a soldier that he was to be deprived of his rights as a citizen? That would make them mere mercenaries, and he warned all those who heard him of the consequence of teaching such persons that they had no interest in common with their fellow-countrymen. He called upon all those who asserted that the principle of the Bill was enfranchisement, to extend their own principles to the defenders of their country. There was a precedent, too, for it in the Bill itself, for the privileges of the Universities were preserved. A mariner by being absent on a voyage eight months prior to an election lost his vote. It was the same thing with captains in the navy, and all the men serving under them. He trusted that Government would see that this was a case that deserved their best attention; and if they would view it with a free and unbiassed feeling, he was sure they would give way on this important point. In that hope he begged leave to move, "that all military and naval persons employed or actually serving, or mariners in the commercial marine of the United Kingdom entitled to vote for Members of Parliament, be exempt from the application of he term non-resident."

§ Sir George Cockburn
observed, that men impressed, and obliged to serve the King three years, would lose their right to vote. Such men would be disfranchised by this Bill during the period of their service. It was bad enough for a man to be impressed, and be compelled to leave his family, but 56 the evil was made worse, if he was also to be condemned to lose his civil rights by being taken into the public service against his will.

The Attorney General
said, there was no class of men who could so well lose their votes as soldiers. They could scarcely be said from their situation to be able to give an independent vote, and they were usually the most profligate of all electors. When they broke through the restraints of discipline and were allowed to indulge in the license of elections, it took some time to restore them to their habitual obedience to their officers. With regard to sailors impressed, they lost nothing by being absent: when they returned their rights would be revived. They had the power to put their rights in force the moment they returned and became free men. With regard to the case put by the hon. and gallant Officer relating to the residence of a person's family who was absent in the public service, provided the rates and taxes were paid, he was always considered a resident, and would consequently be entitled to a vote, such was the law now, and the Bill made no alteration in it.

§ Captain Boldero
was to understand, then, from the lion, and learned Gentleman, that non-residents, thus situated,—in virtue of the continued occupation of their houses by their families, though they be themselves absent—would not be affected by this clause. But, then, how would it be with regard to those persons who obtain their right by servitude? Suppose a person enters into the merchant service—at Bristol, for instance—where, if he is bound to a freeman, he becomes, at the end of seven years, himself entitled to the rights of a freeman; say that he then enters the navy; what course would the Bill pursue towards such a person? Why, as he understood, to disfranchise him. In point of fact, the Bill cared nothing for him. It overlooked him, and treated him with insult. Whether he had freedom by birth or by servitude, it was equally valuable. There was not a class more worthy of the rights of freemen than those whose cause he advocated. Look at the soldier or the sailor; he was bold, and would demand justice at your hands. But the Attorney General alleged, that they are more open to bribery and corruption than any other class of men. Upon what was this charge founded? Were military men less loyal than others? He affirmed 57 they were more loyal and obedient than other men.

§ Sir George Murray
felt much hurt at the light manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of soldiers and sailors. The hon. and learned Gentleman had imputed profligacy to soldiers most unjustly. They had as good a claim to exercise their civil rights as any other class of persons whatever.

The Attorney General
did not mean to cast any censure on soldiers and sailors, but he did consider the regulation respecting out-voters one of the boldest and best features of the Bill. He had no intention to reflect on a class for which he had the highest esteem.

Lord John Russell
said, the rights of freemen were reserved for ever: they were only in abeyance when they were absent in the public service.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, according to the usual practice, soldiers were canvassed as residents where they were freemen. The right of voting in Stafford was in all freemen being six months resident, but soldiers, sailors, militia-men, and pensioners, were considered as residents; and, upon an election taking place, these persons assembled from all parts of the county to vote. As the clause before them said, that all voters must be resident and registered some months before an election took place, he apprehended the effect of it would be to disfranchise all the persons he had enumerated; but the Committee might introduce some provision to make seamen and soldiers serving the King entitled to be registered upon application for that purpose.

Mr. Goulburn
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had somewhat puzzled him by the answer he had given relating to the right of voting. He had said, that the law at Stafford was, that the army, navy, and pensioners, were considered as residents for the purposes of voting; if therefore, the Stafford law was generally good, the clause was satisfactory; but then what became of the law as propounded by the hon. and learned Attorney General. That hon. and learned Gentleman gave a completely contrary opinion, and said, not only were their rights taken away, but it was very proper they should be so, and that it was one of the chief merits of the Bill. His opinion was, that the point should not be left doubtful, but that the Committee ought to make a special pro- 58 vision by which the army, navy, commercial, marine, and militia, might have their elective franchise secured.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
was glad to find the present Bill continued their rights to freemen and their descendants in perpetuity. He, in common with many other hon. Members, had strongly urged this act of justice in the Bill of last Session, which the noble Lord then successfully resisted, although he had now adopted it. The noble Lord, however, somewhat ungraciously said, it did not meet with his approbation. The principle once conceded should be extended to all persons, and it was most unjust to exclude the army and navy, when the church and the laity had their privileges secured by the very same Bill. The hon. and learned member for Stafford had said, that, by the custom of Parliament, the army and navy were considered as residents; he allowed it might be so, but when there was a Statute that expressly declared all the voters must be actually resident, those classes would most undoubtedly be deprived of that privilege. He trusted the noble Lord would perceive that when poisons gave way a little to fair argument and reason, it was wise for them to consider whether it was not right to take further time for consideration, and in that view, he requested the noble Lord would allow the clause to be postponed.

§ Mr. Trevor
said, the provision of the Bill which disfranchised those who were serving in the army and navy was one of the most unjust features of this detestable measure, which, instead of an advantage, would prove a curse to the country. But putting aside for a moment the question as to the policy of disfranchising out-voters, he considered that an exception ought to be made in favour of all those who had no other means of acquiring the franchise except by servitude. There was another light in which the question might be viewed, and that was, that the preservation of the rights of sailors and soldiers would act as an inducement for men to enter the King's service, but to say that if persons gave up all the comforts of home, separated themselves from their families and friends on the public account, they were also to have their civil rights taken from them, was preposterous. He must further remark, that the hon. and learned Attorney General did himself no credit by advocating such a principle, on the plea that soldiers and sailors were the 59 most profligate class of voters. As far as his experience went, the case was not so.

§ Lord Althorp
said, with respect to the class of voters whom this clause would affect, there was no difference intended to be made between the soldier and the citizen. If soldiers, being freemen, were absent, they, of course, could not have a vote; but when they returned they would be exactly on the same terms with all other persons. In reply to the observation which had been made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Cockburn) with respect to a ship's company going out, he must remark, that when they returned their right would again accrue to them. It would certainly be for a short time postponed; but as soon as they had resided the period required by the Bill from all classes of voters, they would be entitled to be registered as freemen, and their votes would then be restored to them. He apprehended that if their right be a scot-and-lot right, then, as inhabitant householders, they would be in no different situation than they are under the present law; because, under the scot-and-lot right, a legal residence was as much required now as it would be under this Bill. A scot-and-lot right was the right of an inhabitant householder who was rated to the Poor-rates, and who had paid his rates. If he had a right as an inhabitant householder, the same legal definition would apply to him as a resident by the common law as would be required by this Bill. Therefore he was not aware that any objection could be urged to this clause so far as the scot-and-lot voters were concerned. With respect to the particular class of persons whose case the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Boldero) had pressed upon the attention of the Committee, he admitted there was a degree of hardship, as this clause applied to them, and that more particularly to the navy; because sailors could only vote at intervals between their periods of service; while, with regard to soldiers, it was possible to carry them to the place of election at any time, provided they were not out of the kingdom. Feeling that there was a hardship in this case, if any proposition was brought forward to meet that hardship, and if it should not interfere with the Bill in other respects, he would give it his best consideration.

§ Sir George Cockburn
begged to inform the noble Lord, that if he did not think it proper to make some arrangement to pro- 60 tect the elective rights of seamen, he should feel it his duty to bring forward a motion on the subject.

Mr. Hodgson
observed, with reference to the remark of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. John Campbell), with regard to soldiers and sailors being considered as residents at Stafford, that several other places had customs of the same kind. The borough of Newcastle, for instance, had a custom, that if a man merely walked into the place once a twelvemonth, he was considered as a resident. In his opinion, all these local customs should be abrogated, and a clause introduced clearly defining what was considered a legal residence with respect to all parties.

§ Captain Boldero
was happy to hear the noble Lord declare his willingness to entertain a motion for preserving the rights of freemen employed in the public service of the country. He trusted the noble Lord would go a little further, and himself bring forward a motion to attain that object, and, with that understanding, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Rigby Wason
said, he had to propose an amendment, which he considered so reasonable, that he trusted he might propose it without further preface: it was, that after the words, "such persons," in the clause, there be added these words— "shall have resided within the city or borough sending a Member or Members to Parliament, or within any place sharing in such election, or within seven statute miles of the place where the poll for such city, borough, or place respectively, shall heretofore have been usually taken."

§ Lord Althorp
acknowledged, that the Amendment could be introduced with advantage, as it defined the place from which the seven miles were to be measured. He had no objection, therefore, to adopt it; it being understood, that the distance was to be calculated by the nearest road.

Mr. Hodgson
observed, this Amendment would not have the effect of defining the word "residence," and, therefore, he thought some other words should be introduced to effect that object generally, and do away with local customs.

The Attorney General
thought they would get into great difficulties if they set about defining terms; but, with regard to the assumed residence of a certain description of voters, the great advantage of the Bill was, that it would put an end to 61 all such local customs, and establish one uniform right under its provisions.

Mr. Lennard
wished to propose an amendment, in order to supply what he considered an omission in a Bill which, it was said, was to preserve hereditary rights. The privileges of freemen and their descendants were preserved, but those of free women were omitted. The Committee were aware that, in some few boroughs, a right existed, by which the daughters of freemen conveyed the right of voting to their husbands. This privilege they would lose by the Bill as it now stood, and it was the object of his Amendment to preserve these rights. He knew they were considered as valuable, and the right of the daughter to confer the privilege on her husband ought to be as sacred as the right of the master to confer freedom on his apprentice. This custom existed in the borough he had the honour to represent (Maldon), and he considered that it ought to be continued; for his constituents had made no objection to being partially disfranchised, when, by the last Bill, it was considered necessary for that borough to lose one of its Members for the general good of the country. But they now complained this Bill inflicted upon them a special and undeserved injury, and that it was contrary to the principle laid down in it by which hereditary rights in general were to be retained. He, therefore, begged leave, that there be added, after the word "servitude," at the end of the clause, these words—"or marriage with the daughter of a freeman of a city or borough where the right of voting for such city or borough is acquired by marriage."

Mr. Quintin Dick
begged leave to second the Motion of his hon. colleague, and to recommend it to the consideration of all those who were advocates of hereditary rights.

§ Lord Althorp
was of opinion that the Amendment ought not to be adopted. He allowed a similar one had been introduced into the Bill of last Session; but then it must be remembered, all privileges, by birth, marriage, or servitude, of voting were to cease with the lives of the parties enjoying that privilege. As these rights, however, were now to be continued to perpetuity, and as no doubt could exist that great abuses were carried on under colour of this right, he must oppose its continuance. He had heard of a great deal of jobbing in conse- 62 quence of the right thus acquired. He had heard stories of several ladies being shut up in rooms ready to marry any person disposed to vote in a certain interest. If the freemen were before satisfied at having their rights preserved only for life, they ought to be much more so now, when they were to be continued to their sons, without being so unreasonable as to expect their wives and daughters were also to hold them. He was afraid, too, that much difficulty would be experienced from ladies changing their names.

Mr. Robert Gordon
hoped the noble Lord would consider this right was a kind of dowry to the ladies, and it was any thing but gallant to deprive them of it. It had been granted by Queen Elizabeth to the Bristol fair because they were supposed not to possess sufficient personal charms to get them husbands. But he did not understand upon what principle the right was to be continued to the sons and denied to the daughters. He feared, however, that it was of no use arguing the question, as the noble Lord had declared against the proposed Amendment.

§ Mr. Western
said, as the rights of all other freemen were to be preserved entire, he did not understand upon what principle the freemen of Maldon were to lose a part of their rights. He had had the honour to represent that borough many years, and it was a duty he owed to his late constituents to endeavour to preserve their privileges. He thought his noble friend could conscientiously give way on this occasion, without the least sacrifice of principle.

§ Mr. Strickland
said, if the privilege was originally granted to the females of Bristol by Queen Elizabeth in consequence of their being remarkably plain, there was occasion for the privilege to be continned now; for it was well known, that the ladies of Bristol were remarkable for beauty, and there was, therefore, no longer an occasion for such an attraction to matrimony.

§ Mr. Courtenay
thought, the best mode of settling the question would be, to permit a lady to claim this privilege for her husband, provided she pleaded ugliness as the ground of her claim.

Mr. Lennard
said, nothing had been urged to shake the case he had made out but the assertion of the noble Lord, that, women married nominally for election purposes, and, when that was over, never saw these pretended husbands any more. 63 To this he could furnish the complete answer, that by the Bill, such husbands must be registered, which would afford ample time for the detection of any fraud; and if persons married only for the sake of obtaining the franchise, he could not think the noble Lord would object to such a principle. As he was fully persuaded the right ought to be continued, he should divide the Committee on the subject.

§ Sir George Clerk
thought, the lion. Member had made out so strong a case that he was determined to vote for the continuation of the existing right. As to the remark, that when ladies married and changed their names, that there was difficulty in tracing their rights, he could only answer, as the hon. member for Maldon had done on another objection with regard to their husbands, that the registry furnished a complete answer. It was invidious to make a distinction between the sons and daughters of freemen.