§ Mr Huttpresented a petition, to which he would venture to call the particular attention of the House. The petition was signed by almost every sailor of the port of Hull, and complained of a very serious grievance which appeared to be put upon them by the thirty-second section of the Reform Bill—a grievance which was actually inflicted during the last election. The thirty-second section of the Reform Act required, that every burgess and householder shall be in residence for six months previous to the last day of July, in the borough for which he claims to vote. The sailors of Hull were very liable to be absent at this period, being engaged in their hard and honourable vocation. With respect to those sailors engaged in the Greenland fishery, as they depart from home during the month of March, and return generally during the month of October, if the interpretation which had been given by the revising Barrister who visited Hull were the true meaning of the Bill, they would be permanently disfranchised; but this surely never could be the intention of the Bill. It never could have been designed that this honest and meritorious class of the community should, without fault imputed, or mischief apprehended, be so rashly stripped of their political rights. He should put it to the Attorney General to say, whether this was the object of the thirty-second section? For, if so, he should feel it his duty to bring the subject before the House in a very different form. For his own part, he believed, that the revising Barrister had, in this instance, been betrayed into an error.
The Attorney Generalsaid, as there had been no judicial discussion upon the subject, he would not undertake to state positively his opinion; but his impression was, that the view taken by the revising Barrister was 74 erroneous; the object of the clause was, to prevent voters from residing permanently at a place distant from where they claimed a vote, which would not apply to the sailors. Where they left their families, and where they paid their rates and taxes, was their real home.
§ Mr. Wilksconsidered, that the revising Barrister of this district had made a great mistake in his interpretation of the section of the Act. If the opinion of that learned gentleman was a sound one, some of the boldest and most able men in the kingdom would be excluded from the exercise of their undoubted rights. If there was any doubt whatever entertained about the clause, it ought to be instantly corrected.
§ The Solicitor Generalconcurred entirely with what had fallen from his learned friend the Attorney General, that the petitioners were clearly residents within the meaning of the Reform Act. They had houses in the town—they were residents in the place—they paid taxes—and, in short, did every thing which entitled them to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. He felt no doubt in his own mind, that the revising Barrister had fallen into a mistake, which he sincerely hoped and trusted other revising Barristers would not follow.
Petition laid on the Table.