§ The Lord Advocate moved that the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Royal Burghs' (Scotland) Bill be read.
§ Order read and Bill recommitted.
§ On the first clause being put,
§ Mr. Robert Wallacesaid, that he approved of the measure as a whole, and thought it would completely put an end to many abuses in the Scotch Burghs, but it needed extension. He was of opinion that the Burgesses should elect their own Magistrates, as was in fact well stated in the preamble to the Bill. The first clause, however, in opposition to the preamble, stated, that the Magistrates were to be elected by the town councils, and that clause had given universal dissatisfaction in Scotland. He did not know why the Magistrates should not be elected by the people, instead of being elected by the intermediate body of the town council. That method would prevent the Burgesses from having a voice even in choosing those who were to manage their pecuniary affairs. He was sure that confiding that important trust to the town councils would occasion amongst them a multitude of cabals. In the borough which he represented the Magistrates had been chosen by the inhabitants at large, for the last seventy years, without any inconvenience, and he certainly should wish to see the same privilege extended to all the Boroughs of Scotland. He would therefore move as an Amendment to insert the words "Provost, Baillies, Treasurer, Town Clerks, and Town Councillors, each individually, and directly, by way of open poll, by which 1244 the electors would have the direct choice of their Magistrates by poll, instead of their being elected by the Town Councillors." He thought his Amendment of so much importance that he would divide the House upon it.
§ Mr. Gillonseconded the Amendment. He believed its adoption would put an end to an extensive system of jobbing in the election of the Magistrates of the Royal Burghs.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the substance of the Amendment which had just been moved had been referred to a select Committee up-stairs, and after being discussed had been rejected. The framers of the present measure had acted on this decision, and they were chiefly influenced by this consideration: It was proved before them that in many of the Royal Burghs of Scotland the Magistrates have large power, both civil and criminal; and it was felt that it would be very injudicious to consign into the hands of the people the power of electing those whose office it was to keep wrong-doers in order. It would be hazardous in the extreme to run the risk of men being placed in the Magistry by inflaming the popular passions. On this single ground he should resist the Amendment.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he was at a loss to know why the people who elected the Town Council, which Town Council afterwards elected the Magistrates, could not at once elect the Magistrates themselves. He could not help thinking that the learned Lord was not acting in the present instance up to his former professed principles with regard to conceding to popular opinion.
§ Mr. Robert Steuarthoped that what could not be conceded to expediency would not be conceded to a desire for popularity. He thought it was not safe to make the road to the Magistracy lead through the gratification of the popular sentiments. The Magistrates should be above, not dependent on, the vox populi. He meant to oppose the Amendment.
Mr. Robert Fergusonsaid, he supported the Bill, because he conceived it would form a good foundation for any future enactment on the subject. He was opposed to any alteration before further inquiry. He understood that a Royal Commission had been issued with full powers to collect evidence, and report on the subject before the House, and until that report were made he thought he was bound to support 1245 the present Bill. While he meant to do that he was, however, of opinion that the sooner the self-elective system was put an end to the better. He was satisfied though the political power of those close bodies was now gone, that some dangerous influences were still lurking in them which he trusted to the commission to get rid of.
§ Mr. Bannermanexpressed a wish that the Amendment might be withdrawn, because the people of Scotland, in his opinion, cared nothing about it.
§ Sir John Haythought, that since a commission was appointed, the discussion on the present measure would in some degree forestal its labours, and relieve it from a great deal of drudgery. It was the duty of the House to make the Bill as perfect as they could.
§ The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 27; Noes 46: Majority 19.
| List of the AYES. | |
| ENGLAND. | Warburton, Henry |
| Aglionby, Henry | Williams, George |
| Attwood, T. | SCOTLAND. |
| Brotherton, Joseph | Gillon, W. D. |
| Buller, Charles | Maxwell, Sir John |
| Faithful, George | Oswald, Richard A. |
| Fenton, John | Sharpe, Matthew |
| Handley, Major B. | Stewart, Sir M. S. |
| Hume, Joseph | IRELAND. |
| Molesworth, Sir W. | Blake, Martin |
| Parrott, Jasper | Finn, W. F. |
| Philips, Mark | Roe, James |
| Potter, Richard | Sheil, Richard L. |
| Scholefield, Joshua | Vigors, Nicholas |
| Stavely, T. K. | TEILERS. |
| Thicknesse, Ralph | Wallace, R. |
§ Sir John Hay moved the following Amendment: "That in all burghs contained in Schedule A annexed to the Bill, the qualification of electors, in respect of property or occupancy, should be the same as is required for electors by Act 2 and 3 William 4th, c.65, intituled 'An Act to amend the representations of the people of Scotland;' but that in order to afford a sufficient constituency in the other burghs not contained in that schedule, it should be a sufficient qualification for electors, in respect to property or occupancy, that the House or other premises belonging to or occupied by them, shall be of the yearly value of 5l. or upwards." The hon. Member said, that if the right of voting were limited to 10l. householders, as proposed by the Bill, the number of electors in some of the smaller boroughs would be so small that the election would be a mere mockery as far as regarded the expression of popular 1246 opinion. For example in the sixty-one smaller burghs the whole population of which amounted to 260,000 there would not be above 8,500 electors. The population of the five largo burghs, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth, Aberdeen, and Dundee, the population was 700,000 and in them the number of electors would not be more than 26,000. In none of the burghs would the electors amount to five per cent of the population and in some of the smaller burghs it would not be above one per cent. He could also tell the learned Lord that in many of the smaller burghs the persons who had generally filled the situation of Town Councillors and Magistrates did not possess the 10l. qualification. If this Bill passed as at present, it would place the control of the Magistracy in the hands of any body except those of the great bulk of the burgesses and citizens. He knew that the Amendment he proposed met the wishes of the people in Scotland, and, therefore, he should persevere in it. Indeed he believed, that many of them would rather that the Bill should be thrown out than passed in its present shape.
Mr. John Maxwellseconded the Amendment, although he could not admit, that the people of Scotland did not regard this Bill as a great benefit. He thought the learned Lord had framed his Bill in conformity to English notions of wealth.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the principle involved in the hon. Member's pro-position had been repeatedly urged during the progress of the Reform Bill, but the House had always decided against it. It was necessary to make a stand somewhere, and he thought the Committee could not do better than adhere to the franchise established by the Reform Act. If they allowed 5l. householders to vote for the election of Magistrates, they would soon claim to vote for Members of Parliament, and he knew not on what principle the Legislature could refuse them.
Mr. Oswaldsupported the Amendment, and thought, that no harm would arise from extending the franchise to 5l. householders.
§ Sir Alexander Hopewas opposed to the extension of the franchise. He would have consented when the Reform Bill was under discussion, to have a different franchise for different places, but as a uniformity of franchise was then insisted on, he thought it right now to adhere to that principle.
§ Mr. Andrew Johnstonapproved of the 1247 Amendment. He recollected, that the learned Lord in the Committee promised, that there should be three classes of voters, 10l. householders, ancient burgesses, and for the smaller burghs simple burgesses.
§ Mr. Abercrombyopposed the Amendment, on the ground, that it would destroy that uniformity of qualification between the municipal rate of franchise and that for a Member of Parliament, which so much promoted their common interests. He saw no reason why the rate of qualification should be lower for voting for municipal officers than for the Representatives of the people. He admitted, that there was a difficulty as to the small burghs, but the Commission alluded to was to inquire into that case, and he owned that he thought it would be advantageous to those burghs and to the public generally, if the exclusive privilege of those burghs were done away with and they were thrown into the county. Till that was decided, he thought it was no use legislating on the subject, particularly when it was considered, that a uniformity of franchise was on the whole most convenient.
§ Mr. Wallacewas convinced, that a 5l. qualification would ensure, on the whole, as intelligent and respectable a constituency, both municipal and representative, as the present 10l rate.
§ Sir John Haywould press his Amendment to a division, as he had heard no reason against its adoption which could satisfy the just expectations of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Murraywas friendly to the principle of extending the franchise in municipal towns, but feared the present was an objectionable mode of effecting it. He supported the Bill in its present shape, because he thought it would do good, though he wished for an extension of the franchise, but he would trust to the inquiries of the Commissioners giving the Burghs that extension hereafter.
§ Mr. Aglionbythought, it would be an injury to the small boroughs to have a uniform franchise at so high a rate, he, therefore, would support the Amendment.
Mr. Kennedywould vote against the Amendment, as he conceived it highly expedient, that there should be an identity of qualification between the municipal and the representative franchise. If the former was lowered to 5l. there would be no reason for keeping up the latter at 10l.
§ The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 53: Noes 54; Majority 1.
| List of the AYES. | |
| ENGLAND. | Gillon, W. D. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Hay, Colonel |
| Attwood, T. | Johnston, A. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Maxwell, Sir J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Maxwell, J. |
| Buller, C. | Oswald, R. A. |
| Ellis, Wynn | Oswald, J. |
| Faithful, G. | Sharp, General |
| Fryer, R. | Steuart, R. |
| Hume, J. | Wallace, Robert |
| Kennedy, J. | IRELAND. |
| Parrott, J. | Baldwin, Dr. |
| Pease, J. | Barry, G. S. |
| Plumptre, J. P. | Blake, M. J. |
| Potter, R. | Butler, Hon. P. |
| Richards, J. | Evans, G. |
| Rider, T. | Finn, W. F. |
| Scholefield, J. | Galway, J. M. |
| Stavely, T. K. | Grattan, J. |
| Strutt, E. | Martin, J. |
| Tooke, W. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Trelawney, W. L. | O'Connell, Dan |
| Warburton, H. | O'Connell, John |
| Whalley, Sir S. | Roche, W. |
| Williams, Colonel | Ronayne, D. |
| Wood, Alderman. | Vigors, N. A. |
| SCOTLAND. | TEILERS. |
| Dunlop, Captain | Hay, Sir John |
| Ewing, J. |
| Part of the NOES. | |
| ENGLAND. | Smith, V. |
| Baring, F. | Thicknesse, R. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Wason, R. |
| Boiling, W. | Wedgwood, J. |
| Cornish J. | Williams, A. W. |
| Duffield, T. | Wood, C; |
| Fielden, W. | SCOTLAND. |
| Foster, C. | Abercromby, J. |
| Graham, Sir J. | Adams, Admiral |
| Handley, Major | Bannerman, A. |
| Hardy, J. | Bruce, C. |
| Hornby, E. G. | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Hulse, J. | Ferguson, G. |
| Littleton, E. J. | Haliburton, hon D. G. |
| Martin, J. | Jeffery, F. |
| Mosley, Sir O. | Loch, J. |
| Ord, W. H. | Murray, J. A. |
| Rickford, W. | Oliphant, L. |
| Sandon, Lord | Parnell, Sir H. |
| Seale, Colonel | Stewart, Sir M. |
| Philip, H. | Sturt, Captain |
| Shawe, R. N. | Trail, G. |
| Sheppard, T. | TEILERS. |
| Slaney, R. A. | Kennedy, T. F. |
§ Mr. Gillonwished to state, that he objected to the exclusion to be perpetuated by this Bill, which would leave the Corporations in Scotland only the same farce of self-election hitherto carried on. The Bill nominally went to extend the rights of inhabitants in burghs, and that it might really do so, he would propose, as an 1249 Amendment on the clause before the House, "That all burgesses admitted for the period of not less than twelve months should have a right to vote on elections to municipal offices."
§ Mr. Humesupported the Amendment, on the ground that there was no reason why burgesses in Scotland should not be placed on an equal footing with freemen in England. They were certainly not inferior to that class in this country, who enjoyed the privilege of election of members to Parliament. If the burgesses were excluded from the power of choosing their officers, it would be not only gross injustice, but extremely bad policy.
The Lord Advocateobserved, that there was no exclusion of burgesses by this Bill—they were only not admitted. Those who contended for the rights of burgesses by reference to ancient history, ought to know, that burgesses in 1479 were a different class of persons from those who now assumed the name. The ancient burgesses were bonâ fide holders of burgage property—tenants holding immediately of the barony of each town, the general community of which held of the King in capile. At present they were parties admissible to this title on the payment of a very trifling fee, and to admit them to power in a new judicial system would put an end to every thing like respectability in the municipal bodies. Besides, the number of these burgesses was, in many cases, double, and in most four or five times the number of the 10l. householders; and in addition, there was such a facility in their admission, that for a small expense, and to suit election purposes, such a number might at any time be thrown in as to cause constant innovation, and altogether change the face of things in these burghs; and at elections the whole power might thus fall to a rabble, excluding in toto the real respectability of the town.
§ Mr. Cumming Bruceagreed in the description given by the learned Lord, and was not therefore anxious for the Amendment as it now stood; but if it were modified, so as to confine the power sought to those who were now burgesses, and to such future burgesses as might be admitted on a higher qualification, then there could be no objection to the admission of the principle.
§ Mr. Jervisthought an infusion of new blood would be highly beneficial to the Scotch corportations, and would vote for the Amendment. The exclusion of this class 1250 of persons was highly impolitic, because the people felt a want of confidence in a magistracy which was self-elected. He would also oppose the principle of this clause on the ground of prudence, as it might be hereafter used as a precedent in England for depriving freemen in borough towns of their rights, although he did not see with what grace hon. Members could come forward to vote for the disfranchisement of those very persons who had sent them to that House.
§ Mr. Gillonsaid, that in compliance with the suggestions of his friends, he would modify his Amendment, and confine the: application of it to the burgesses now existing.
§ The Committee divided—Ayes 58; Noes 102: Majority 44.
| List of the AYES. | |
| ENGLAND. | Sinclair, G. |
| Attwood, T. | Steuart, R. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Stuart C. |
| Brotherton, J. | Wallace, R. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | IRELAND. |
| Buckingham, J. S. | Baldwin, Dr. |
| Dillwyn, L. W. | Barron, W. |
| Ellis, W. | Barry, G. S. |
| Faithful, G. | Blake Sir F. |
| Fryer, R. | Butler, H. P. |
| Gully, J. | Chapman, M. |
| Hume, J. | Evans, G. |
| Humphery, J. | Finn, W. F. |
| Jervis, J. | Fitzgerald, T. |
| Phillips, M. | Fitzsimon, C. |
| Richards, J. | O'Brien, C. |
| Trevor, hon. R. | O'Connell, D. |
| Tynte, C. J. K. | O'Connell, M. |
| Wason, R. | O'Connell, J. |
| Wood, Alderman | O'Connor, F. |
| SCOTLAND. | O'Dwyer, A. E. |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Rae, J. |
| Bruce, C. | Roche, W. |
| Hay, Sir John | Ronayne, D. |
| Hay, Colonel | Ruthven, E. |
| Johnston, A. | Shaw, F. |
| Maxwell, Sir J. | Shell, E. Z. |
| Maxwell, T. | Vigors, N. C. |
| Oliphant, L. | TEILERS. |
| Oswald, R. | Gillon, W. D. |
| Ross, H. |
§ Mr. Cumming Bruce moved an Amendment to the effect that all persons in burghs having votes for the Magistracy, should also be burgesses, and produce proof that they had paid the fees.
The Lord Advocateopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would bring hack the old system and was entirely opposed to the intention of the Bill.
§ The committee again divided on this 1251 Amendment—Ayes 17; Noes 108 Majority 91.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Fryer, R. |
| Arbuthnot, hon. H. | Gordon, Hon. W. |
| Baring, A. | Hay, Sir J. |
| Baring, F. | Neeld, J. |
| Buckingham, J. S. | Ross, C. |
| Dare, R. W. H. | Tyrrell, Sir J. T. |
| Dick, Q. | Williams, G. |
| Ewing, J. | TEILERS. |
| Ferguson, G. | Bruce, C. |
§ On Clause C being read,
§ General Sharpe moved an Amendment; to the effect that all voters—10l.-voters as well as burgesses—be eligible to be Magistrates.
The Lord Advocatesaid, the clause as it stood was introduced by the Committee up stairs, and be saw no reason to alter it.
§ The Committee again divided—Ayes 60; Noes 75: Majority 15.
§ The House resumed.
§ The Report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration.