HC Deb 03 August 1836 vol 35 cc874-6

On the motion that the House do go into Committee on this Bill,

Colonel Sibthorp

was unwilling to interrupt the business of the House, but opposed as he was to this Bill, he felt it to be his duty to move, as an amendment, that this Bill be committed this day six months.

Mr. A. Trevor

opposed the Bill. He did not consider that any benefit could be derived from a Bill of this description. He was assured that such a Bill could never pass, or if passed, could never come into operation while they had 10l. voters as the consequence of the Reform Bill. Bribery, he was certain, must continue to exist so long as they had such constituents as the 10l. voters of Wapping, the Minories, and Rag-Fair. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more disadvantageous than the uniformity of franchise established by the Reform Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that this was not a Government measure. It had been brought forward by an hon. Gentleman who differed from the Government; and as the object of the Bill was to prevent bribery, it was his duty to support it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who said they were willing to prevent bribery, showed, however, that they had no desire to improve or amend the law. As to what an hon. Gentleman had said of the 10l. constituency of Wapping, the Minories, and Rag Fair, he trusted that it would be remembered that there was the same class of constituents in Durham and Lincoln.

Mr. Forbes moved, that the House be counted.

Forty Members being present, the business proceeded.

Alderman Wood

declared, that in London the poorest constituents never asked, and never received, a shilling for their -votes, and never were paid for the time lost y them in exercising of their franchise.

Mr. Forbes

considered, that he had every right to use his privilege as a Member of that House when he found a question of such vast importance discussed amongst a few Members. His great objection to the Bill was, that if adopted the poor outvoters could not exercise their privileges. It was in his opinion most unfair to state, that those who opposed this Bill were favourable to bribery.

Mr. Pryme

said, he could not see why Members who came down to the House should be prevented entering upon the business of the day, because others chose to absent themselves—why A, B, and C, should not be allowed to do their duties because X, Y, and Z were not there to join them.

The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 37; Noes 2: Majority 35.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. O'Brien, C.
Alston, R. Parker, John
Baines, E. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Baldwin, Dr. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Bannerman, Alex. Rundle, John
Bish, T. Ruthven, E. S.
Blamire, W. Scholefield, J.
Borthwick, P. Thompson, Ald.
Brabazon, Sir W. Thornley, T.
Brotherton, J. Tooke, William
Brownrigg, S. Wakley, T.
Crawford, W. Wallace, R.
Duncombe, T. S. Warburton, H.
Ewart, W. Ward, Henry George
Ferguson, rt. hon. C. Williams, W. A.
Forster, C. S. Wood, Matthew
Hall, B.
Hardy, J. TELLERS.
Heathcote, J. Horsman, E.
Howard, H. P. Hawes, B.
List of the NOES.
Forbes, W. TELLERS.
Lowther, Col. Trevor, hon. A.
Sibthorp, Col.

The House went into Committee, and the Bill went through a Committee. House resumed. Bill to be reported.