HC Deb 09 February 1838 vol 40 cc990-9

On the question that the Report on the Parliamentary Electors Bill be received,

Mr. Jervis

, in rising to move an amendment of which he had given notice, said, that he had some reason to complain of the course pursued by the noble Lord, but he was willing to allow that subject to pass. He should now move that the Bill before the House should be re-committed, with, an instruction that, after the passing of the Bill, no sum of money should be taken by any overseer or other person in respect to the registration of any voter. The object he had in view was to get rid of the shilling at present paid at the time of registration, and which was objected to by all parties. It was paid by the 50l freeholder, the 10l. house-holder, the freemen, and the scot and lot voters. The object of originally creating this tax was, to raise a fund for the purpose of defraying the expenses incurred under the new "system. For this purpose the tax had been found totally inadequate. Whatever just ground there might have been for imposing this tax on any other class of voters, it was totally unjust as respected the freemen, who, before the passing of the Reform Bill, had been in the possession of vested rights. Whatever justice there might have been in subjecting to this imposition the 50l. and 10l. voters, there was no reason why this tax should be imposed on those whom Parliament, at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill, had found in the possession of those rights. The imposition of this tax was felt as a great injustice by all classes of voters, and two or three Committees had reported in favour of its abolition. It was a great instrument of tyranny and injustice in the hands of the overseers, who, in many instances, converted it into a prolific source of abuse. He believed, that both sides of the House were unanimous in favour of its abolition, and he thought the present Bill afforded a convenient opportunity to effect that object. The noble Lord had stated, that he entertained no objection to the abolition of this tax, but that he would introduce a clause for that purpose into another Bill. However, when there was so strong a feeling in favour of the abolition of this impost, he thought no further time should be lost, and he trusted that the House would acquiesce in his amendment.

Lord John Russell

was exceedingly sorry that any thing should have fallen from him when the hon. and learned Member asked him to put off his Bill, which should have caused the hon. and learned Gentleman any irritation of mind. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he (Lord J. Russell) had acted from what he conceived to be his duty. He had told the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he spoke to him in private, that he considered that his motion did not immediately relate to the present Bill. If he thought that the motion related to the Bill, he should have undoubtedly, out of courtesy, put off the day for proceeding with the Bill; but, looking at the motion as having nothing to do with the Bill, he did not consider that he would be acting justly by the Bill if he postponed the day of bringing it forward. As to the question itself, the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that he had no objection whatever to the repeal of the payment of the registration shilling. But what was this shilling? It was called the registration shilling, and was imposed for the purposes of registration in the part of the Reform Act which related to the registration. Would it not, then, be a fair and simple proposition, when the subject of the registration was before the House, to propose to get rid of the payment of the shilling? That, he thought, would be the proper time for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. He would say, moreover, that whatever difference of opinion might have existed on former occasions with regard to the registration, his opinion was, that though, upon certain points, they did not agree, yet there were other points on which the last House of Commons was entirely agreed upon providing a remedy. It was desirable, if they could not pass a Bill with all the amendments which his side of the House could wish, yet that a Registration Bill should be passed in the course of the Session which should contain what all sides of the House admitted to be reasonable. As to his own disposition with regard to the Registration Bill, it could hardly he doubted but that, among other alterations, he would be willing to repeal the payment of the shilling. Indeed, he believed that no one had a wish to keep it up. The hon. and learned Gentleman's only case was, that this present Bill was sure to pass through the other House of Parliament, and, therefore, he said, such an excellent provision ought to be introduced into it. Now he heard the other night, if he was not mistaken, that this Bill would be sure to be lost in the other House. He certainly was delighted that a better prospect could be entertained of the Bill, and he was very glad to say, that, in that prospect, he was disposed to coincide. He would not say, that he was convinced there was no necessity for introducing a clause of this kind, but he certainly did think, that there was no necessity for introducing a motion in order to re-commit this Bill for the purpose of introducing something which was not in accordance with the title of the Bill, so that if the motion were agreed to, it would be necessary to make a fresh title, that the Bill might not thus be placed in jeopardy. He called upon those who were friendly to this Bill, and who thought its principles right, not to persist in re- committing it, and thus placing it in jeopardy.

Mr. Miles

called upon the hon. and learned Member for Chester, not to allow himself to be led away from his declared intention of dividing the House.

Mr. Briscoe

begged to join in the recommendation not to divide the House. He was as sincere a Reformer as the hon. and learned Member for Chester, but there were times when it became the best and most sincere Reformers not in their zeal to overstep the bounds of prudence, and thus play the game of the enemies of Reform. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the appeals of hon. Members of the other side of the House could have been made out of any feeling friendly to the cause in which he, in common with the hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged. He earnestly implored the hon. and learned Member for Chester not to persist in dividing the House.

Sir E. Knatchbull

was quite as sincere as the hon. Gentleman in his desire to reform all that was wrong. The simple question before the House was whether the shilling that was now exacted on the registration of voters should continue to be exacted or not? The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, that he believed that the House was unanimous in wishing to get rid of the shilling, and he should like to know, if that were the case, why the noble Lord refused to accede to the present motion. Why not seize on this opportunity of effecting his object? If hon. Members wished to get rid of this inconvenient impost, he warned them to take the present opportunity of doing so, and to support the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chester.

Mr. Williams

said, that he for one should be most anxious to have the proposition of the hon. and learned Member introduced if there was any chance of passing it. He must say, however, that the proposition had nothing whatever to do with the present bill, and he would, therefore, recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press it to a division.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

begged the House to understand how this Question really stood. He would take the liberty of asking those hon. Gentlemen who were anxious for a relaxation of the rate-paying clauses, whether they could effect that purpose by impeding the progress of the present bill? The hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) claimed to be a reformer of all he thought to be wrong. He did not mean to impugn the hon. Baronet's sincerity, but he must be allowed to say, that, in his opinion, the hon. Baronet was recommending a course which was calculated to impede the progress of a measure favourable to popular rights. Why did not the hon. and learned Member for Chester introduce a bill simply to reject the payment of the shilling. The House would then be enabled to discuss the question on its merits. But in opposing the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, they were apparently voting against their own opinions, because they thought the motion was so ill-timed as to be mischievous to the progress of another measure. Did the hon. and learned Member for Chester wish for the success of the bill as it stood? Why, then, did not the hon. and learned Member, in place of moving an amendment, move for leave to bring in a distinct bill to repeal the shilling? He warned the 'hon. and learned Gentleman not to be led away by the hon. Gentlemen on the other side. Those hon. Members wished to see the two questions in conjunction, because they wished to impede the progress of the bill before the House. He appealed to all the hon. Members on his own side of the House to support the present measure—the object of which was the relaxation of the rate paying clauses, and he appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Chester whether he would not best consult the interests of reform by withholding his motion.

Mr. Jervis

said, that if the Government would undertake to bring in a bill to accomplish the object of his motion, he would waive his objection to the present bill.

Sir E. Sugden

called upon all hon. Members on all sides of the House to support the very reasonable proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Chester. What was the cause of the objection made by her Majesty's Ministers? It was not because the proposition was unreasonable, but because it exhibited to the House and the country themselves and their friends in opposition on a public question. He thought that the subject of the motion of the hon. and learned Member properly belonged to the present bill.

Mr. C. Buller

suspected that the good-natured suggestions of hon. Members on the other side of the House were intended to effect a temporary coalition between themselves and some Gentlemen on the Ministerial side. This was not the first time the attempt had been made, and he need hardly say with what little success. He was the first person who in that House had proposed to repeal the shilling upon registration. When the bill was introduced last Session for the relaxation of the rate-paying clauses, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in adverting to the measure, said, that it was not sufficiently large; that a been was given to the freemen and to the 10l. householders, but that no been was given to the agricultural voters; by which he supposed that the shilling' on the registration was to be understood; but, nevertheless, when he endeavoured to obtain this great boon, he was left without support by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not believe that the measure would now be supported by the hon. Gentlemen opposite if it did not afford them the means of thwarting a bill which was pressed forward by the Government. The fair question before the House was as to the proper mode of repealing the shilling, and in his opinion the introduction of such a measure into the present bill would have an injurious effect. But when the noble Lord pledged himself to bring forward this point in a bill of registration, he could not deny, that that was the proper measure in which to introduce it. Before sitting down he had one word to address to his hon. Friend, the Member for Chester. He thought it would be prudent in him to do these great things somewhat more gradually. It would be far more discreet in him not all at once to profess excessive Radicalism. [Cheers.] For the very cheers from the opposition benches with which his words were re-echoed proved to demonstration that his hon. Friend's sudden support of Radical opinions was considered by these competent judges as approaching as nearly to pure Toryism as it was possible to approach.

Mr. Harvey

As the hon. Member who had just sat down was very properly considered to have a patent of facetiousness, he was not at all surprised that he should treat in that light the evident temporary coalition between the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House and her Majesty's Ministers. He was, then, to understand that the Ministers were distinct from the Radicals, and that they desired to be so. For his purpose, how- ever, he should unite them, and he was about to observe, that it was in his opinion, somewhat ungracious to impute to them merely a temporary coalition. Were it but a temporary coalition he hardly knew what would become of all the measures of the Government when repudiated as they so often were by the Radicals. But he owned he was disposed to vote in favour of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chester for that very reason. He did not always expect to find the Gentlemen who now figured under the guidance of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent, in the same patriotic humour they were at present. It was evident they were for the moment making holiday, and acting on the principle of each for himself. If, however, to-morrow or the next day, the point under discussion chanced to be submitted to a secret council of their leaders, he had little doubt that they would receive different orders, and that the patriotic zeal they so eminently displayed on this occasion would be subdued, and they would be found cooperating with those with whom they were alleged to have this temporary coalition. He therefore wanted to catch the Gentlemen opposite. If the motion was supported by their majority there would be no harm done; and if they should chance to be in a minority, there would at all events be left a splendid record of those who for once in their lives were proved well-intentioned—a record which might be applied to on that promised occasion which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent, seemed to think might soon arise. It was said that the present was an inappropriate occasion for the motion of the hon. Member for Chester; he, on the other hand, thought it was a most appropriate one, and should therefore give it his support.

Mr. Brotherton

hoped that Gentlemen on his side of the House would not be deluded by the motion, of the hon. and learned Member for Chester. He considered that the Registration Bill would be the proper place to introduce the subject. He thought that the payment of the shilling was not a matter of the importance attributed to it, for he knew that several revising barristers had declared that it was not necessary to entitle a party to the right of voting.

The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 152; Noes 75; Majority 77.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Sir C. Horsman, E.
Aglionby, H. A. Howard, F. J.
Aglionby, Major Howard, P. H.
Anson, hon. Colonel Howick, Viscount
Baines, E. Hume, J.
Ball, N. Hutton, R.
Baring, F. T. Johnston, General
Barron, H. W. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Barry, G, S. Lefevre, C. S.
Beamish, F. B. Lemon, Sir C.
Bellew, R. M. Lennox, Lord G.
Benett, J. Lennox, Lord A.
Bentinck, Lord W. Lister, E. C.
Berkeley, hon. H. Loch, J.
Bernal, R. Maher, J.
Bewes, T. Marshall, W.
Blake, M. J. Martin, J.
Blake, W. J. Maule, W. H.
Blewitt, R. J. Melgund, Viscount
Briscoe, J. I. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Brodie, W. B. Morpeth, Viscount
Brotherton, J. Morris, D.
Buller, C. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Busfield, W. Muskett, G. A.
Campbell, Sir J. Nagle, Sir R.
Cavendish, hon. G.H. O'Connell, D.
Cayley, E. S. O'Connell, M. J.
Chalmers, P. O'Connell, M.
Chapman, Sir M. L. O'Conor, Don
Chester, H. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Collier, J. Paget, F.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Palmerston, Viscount
Craig, W. G. Parker, J.
Currie, R. Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Curry, W. Parrot, J.
Dalmeny, Lord Pease, J.
Dennistoun, J. Pechell, Captain
Divett, E. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Duke, Sir J. Philips, M.
Duncan, Viscount Phillpotts, J.
Dundas, C. W. D. Ponsonby, hon. G.
Dundas, F. Power, J.
Dundas, hon. T. Protheroe, E.
Dundas, Captain D. Pryme, G.
Ebrington, Viscount Redington, T. N.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Rice, E. R.
Erle, W. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Evans, G. Rich, H.
Evans, W. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Fergusson, rt. hon. C. Rundle, J.
Finch, F. Russell, Lord J.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Salwey, Colonel
Fitzsimon, N. Sandford, E. A.
French, F. Scholefield, J.
Gibson, J. Seymour, Lord
Gordon, R. Sheil, R. L.
Grattan, H. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Grey, Sir G. Speirs, A.
Harland, W. C. Stanley, W. O.
Hastie, A. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hayter, W. G. Stewart, J.
Hindley, C. Stuart, Lord J.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Stuart, V.
Hobhouse, T. B. Strutt, E.
Hodges, T. L. Talbot, C. R. M.
Talbot, J. H. Warburton, H.
Talfourd, Sergeant Westenra, hon. J. C.
Tancred, H. W. White, A.
Thomson, rt. hn. C. P. Williams, W.
Thornley, T. Wilshere, W.
Townley, R. G. Winnington, H. J.
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Wood, C.
Tuffnell, H. Wood, G. W.
Vigors, N. A. Worsley, Lord
Vivian, J. H. Yates, J. A.
Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H. TELLERS.
Walker, C. A. Stanley, E. J.
Wallace, R. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Houstoun, G.
Alsager, Captain Hughes, W. B.
Attwood, W. Ingestrie, Viscount
Attwood, M. Irton, S.
Bailey, J. Jackson, Sergeant
Baker, E. Jervis, S.
Barneby, J. Johnstone, H.
Barrington, Viscount Jolliffe, Sir W.
Boiling, W. Jones, W.
Broadley, H. Knatchbull, right hon.
Broadwood, Henry Sir E.
Brownrigg, S. Lockhart, A M.
Burdett, Sir F. Logan, H.
Burroughes, H. N. Maidstone, Viscount
Chisholm, A. W. Miles, P. W. S.
Cole, Viscount Neeld, J.
Compton, H. C. Pakington, J. S.
Corry, hon. H. Parker, R. T.
Darby, G. Perceval, hon. G. J.
De Horsey, S. H. Plumptre, J. P.
Dick, Q. Reid, Sir J. R.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Rolleston, L.
Dowdeswell, W. Round, C. G.
Eastnor, Viscount Rushbrooke, Colonel
Egerton, Sir P. Sandon, Viscount
Ellis, J. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Farnham, E. B. Scarlett, hon. R.
Forbes, W. Somerset, Lord G.
Forester, hon. G. Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.
Fort, J. Verner, Colonel
Fremantle, Sir T. Wakley, T.
Goddard, A. Whitmore, T. C.
Grimsditch, T. Wilberforce, W.
Harvey, D. W. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Henniker, Lord Wodehouse, E.
Hodgson, R.
Holmes, hon. W. A. C. TELLERS.
Holmes, W. Jervis, J.
Hope, G. W. Miles, W.

Report received.