HC Deb 23 February 1847 vol 90 cc406-30
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE

then rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill for repealing the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Bill. He understood Government had no objection to his introducing this Bill, but that some hon. Gentlemen opposite had an objection to it. Now, he did not wish to urge either Government or the Gentlemen opposite to give him permission to introduce the Bill, if it was done only with the view of more effectually strangling it on a future day. If the Bill was admitted by them to be good in principle, then he would at once, without discussion, ask the leave of the House to introduce it. The object of the measure was to repeal those portions of the Reform Act which made payment of rates and taxes necessary for a qualification to vote. That was the simple principle of the Bill; and if it was admitted to be a good one, he would at once move for leave to bring it in; but, if not, he was prepared to go on with the discussion.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, if his hon. Friend thought fit to introduce his Bill, in order that the House might know what its clauses and provisions were, he had no objection to that course, and should not oppose his hon. Friend laying the Bill upon the Table. But, if the Bill was, as his hon. Friend stated, merely to repeal the provisions of the Reform Act as to the payment of rates and taxes, without substituting any other provision for that purpose, he would state at once that to the principle of such a Bill he was opposed. If, therefore, his hon. Friend thought it more convenient to discuss the Bill now, he (Lord John Russell) did not object to that course, and was prepared to discuss it.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

recommended his hon. Friend to abide by the suggestion of the noble Lord, and adopt the usual course, of introducing the Bill, and taking the discussion upon the second reading.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he was aware that the noble Lord had, on a former occasion, opposed the principle of this Bill; and if they were to have a discussion upon it, he thought it was best to fight it out at once. He would, therefore, proceed to state his reasons for asking leave to introduce a Bill to remove one of the greatest grievances of the Reform Act, and which was generally complained of by electors. The chief objections to this part of the Reform Act were these: first, that it was unconstitutional in principle; and, secondly, that it was most vexatious in its operation, and opened a door to all sorts of bribery and favouritism on the part of the parochial officers. As to its being unconstitutional in principle, he had the noble Lord's own words, in introducing the Reform Bill, when he said that "the constitution of this country declared that no man should be taxed for the support of the State, who had not consented by himself, or by his representative, to the imposition of such taxes." But the part of the Reform Act which he (Mr. Duncombe) proposed to repeal, completely reversed that principle, for it declared not only that a man shall be taxed, but that he should pay the tax by a certain day, before he could claim a right to exercise the power—in the absence of which, according to the position laid down by the noble Lord, no tax should be imposed. The Reform Bill, then, had not answered the expectations of those who introduced it, according to the declaration of the noble Lord at the time he introduced the measure, who stated that the class to whom he expected it would give the franchise, would amount to nearly 500,000 persons, namely, the English counties, 100,000; Scotland, 60,000; Ireland, 40,000; towns already represented, 50,000; and the metropolis, 95,000; and that it would add that number to the persons then exercising the right of sending Members to that House. What had been the result? In the metropolitan boroughs, the noble Lord stated the number of new voters would be 95,000. If, however, he looked to the state of the registers in those boroughs, he found this expectation by no means realized. In Marylebone, there were 32,240 houses rated above 10l., whilst on the register there were only 11,625 persons entitled to vote in 1846, out of which a great number were duplicates. In Finsbury, there were 32,580 houses, and only 12,974 electors; in the Tower Hamlets, 64,896 houses, and 13,551 electors; in Lambeth, 17,379 houses, and the number of electors 6,547; in Greenwich, the number of houses was 11,536, and of electors 3,610—and in Greenwich almost all the houses were above 10l., the tenants of which were entitled to vote; so that the metropolitan boroughs added very little more than 45,000 voters, and the duplicates were one-fifth of the whole number. So that, fifteen years after the passing of the Reform Bill, the constituency had not increased; in fact it had diminished in Westminster, the city of London, and Southwark. In Westminster, there were 23,295 houses, and only 13,866 voters on the register. At this moment Westminster was in a much worse situation than before the Reform Bill, for the first time Sir Francis Burdett was returned for Westminster, in 1807, 18,000 electors voted. In Southwark it was the same: there were 16,213 houses, and 5,047 voters on the register. In Liverpool, there were 42,924 houses, and only 14,970 electors on the register. In Manchester, 42,059 houses, and 12,150 voters; in Birmingham 36,121 houses, and only 4,619 names upon the register. In the city of London, the constituency had greatly diminished since the Reform Bill; and he believed that this diminution had been owing entirely to the operation of the clauses in the Reform Bill called the rate-paying clauses. Looking to one of the statements of the Conservative Registration Association, he found it asserted there that 7,000 electors of the city of London had been deprived of their franchise, owing to the omission of tenants' names from the rates. He understood that in the city of London fourteen parishes had refused to put any man upon the register unless he claimed to be rated; and he must also claim to be put upon the register. There was another great reason for the repeal of this clause given by the Court of Common Pleas last year. It was well known that in a great number of boroughs, landlords frequently compounded for rates; it was a great object to parishes to get the landlords to compound, and, according to the Court of Common Pleas, it would not do to make a single claim to be rated; but that Court decided in the Stockport case, that where there were eight rates in one year, the voter must make eight separate claims in the year to keep his vote upon the register: so that, in the words of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, "it is like keeping up a right by continual claim." That was found to be vexatious and harassing, and had produced results which could not have been contemplated by the original framers of the measure. It was only citizens and the inhabitants of boroughs who were obliged to have their taxes paid against a certain day, and whose votes depended on their punctuality; and he could not understand upon what principle of fair play it could be maintained that citizen sand residents in boroughs should be subjected to a restriction which was not applicable to country voters. Besides, under the present system too much power was vested in the hands of the parochial officers, who by their neglect or remissness could vitiate any man's right they pleased. In the borough of Marylebone, no less than 1,200 electors had been disfranchised in consequence of there being no collector to receive the rates from them. The former collector died, and as no one was appointed to fill his place until within seven days of the expiration of the period within which the rates were to be paid, there was not time to receive them all. But for the injured parties there was neither remedy nor redress. Last year a curious case occurred in the borough of Lambeth. There was some squabble between the poor-law collector and the overseer, and it so happened that a week before the 20th of July the collector was dismissed. When an elector applied to him, he referred him to his successor; but as the successor had not the books at his command, he sent the applicant on to the vestry clerk, who in his turn referred him to the overseer, who for a time received the rates. But observe to what interminable annoyance and vexation the unfortunate elector was exposed in running from one official to another. At a meeting at St. Mary's, Islington, in July, 1845, the vestry clerk stated that there were no less than 2,000 houses the rates of which had been compounded for. This composition system he did not all approve of, though it was easy to see why it found such favour in the eyes of the parochial officers, who were spared a vast deal of trouble and annoyance by it, inasmuch as the payment of the poor rates conferred a title of settlement. He did not hesitate to assert that, on the whole, the present system was in many respects highly objectionable, and in no respect more objectionable than in this, that it encouraged all kinds of favouritism and bribery. If the collector and overseer were inclined to a particular party, they had it in their power to grant facilities and show marked partiality to members of that party; whereas, on the other hand, they could throw great obstructions in the way of persons of the opposite party, whom they could disfranchise at will by not applying to him for his rates until it was too late to pay them in such a manner as that the payment would secure their being registered. He had heard of many cases of that kind. It was occasionally the practice of collectors, before the 20th of July arrived, to tear out of their books the receipt of any man who was their friend, and to keep it by them until the time of making objections had passed by. When this period had gone over, the collector stuck or pinned it into the book again, and when the time of the election came, the defaulter was told that he had no option but to vote for suck or such a candidate who had paid his rate for him. If he remonstrated or showed any unwillingness to comply, he was reminded the receipt was not in his own possession, but in that of the collector, and that if he were to persist in his obstinacy, a distress on his property would be the result. Surely these were gross and scandalous abuses, such as could never have been contemplated by the original passers of the Reform Act. Indeed the particular abuse to which he had last referred, had grown to such extent, that in Cambridge, Bristol, and other places there were associations for the express purpose of paying the rates of electors. He was for abolishing this state of things, and putting the borough and city constituents on the same footing with the county voters. This was no new demand now made for the first time by him (Mr. Duncombe). The mal-practices, grievances, and abuses which he had detailed that evening in full, had been a subject of continual complaint for a length of time—in fact from the passing of the Reform Act to the present day. He would read for the edification of the House, and more especially for that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the opinions expressed upon this subject in the year 1834 by The Times newspaper. In an article in that journal, on the 16th October, 1834, there occurred the following passages, commenting on some pa- ragraphs which appeared in the Leeds Times:— The subjoined statement from the Leeds Times is curious, and stimulates curiosity the more for being so meagre and imperfect:—'In the township of Leeds the names of 418, and in the out-townships the names of 93 Whig voters, have been struck off the list, forming a total of 511 votes lost to this party. In the township of Leeds, the names of 219, and in the out-townships the names of 49 Tory voters, have been struck off the list, forming a total of 268 lost to this party. Here then, the Tories have gained an advantage over the Whigs tantamount to 243 votes But this is not all. In the whole borough, 45 new Whig claims have been allowed, and 76 Tory claims, giving the latter an advantage of 31 votes. The whole advantage of the Tories, therefore, amounts to no less than 274 votes. The Leeds Times concludes its enumeration by adverting to this memorable fact—that the Whigs and Tories, in their mutual squabbling, have succeeded in disfranchising no less than 822 inhabitants of Leeds! Now, the unsatisfactory meagreness whereof we complain in the above five or six short paragraphs from our Leeds namesake, consists in the absence of every fact from which might be inferred the causes of rejection, as influencing the revising barristers in their treatment of the several claimants, whether Whig or Tory. It appears indisputably, if the account be correct, that on the new registration of voters for the township of and out-township of Leeds, a much larger number of Whig votes have been struck out of the list than of Tories; also, that as respects new votes, a smaller number of Whigs have been admitted than of Tories, making a total difference in favour of the Tories of 274. One of our contemporaries alleges it broadly as a charge against the working of the Reform Bill, that so vast a body of constituents should under its operation have been deprived of their votes; and so far we are disposed to agree with him, but not when he extends his grievance to the fact that the revising barristers' court has in the present instance disfranchised a greater proportion of Whigs than of their adversaries. The law of registration being the same for both parties, it is plain the surplus of rejection falling upon one of them must have been produced by something extrinsic to the law, and arising out of the different conduct or circumstances of the individuals; that nothing can be more obvious, without going into details, than the mischievous structure of the law itself, in the gross amount of the disfranchisement which it has effected, exceeding 800 inhabitants of a single borough in a single year; and that without the slightest criminality or fault on their part, as regards the exercise of their franchise; but the truth is, that a very disputable policy has been exhibited in the framing of that portion of the Reform Bill which specifics the limitations to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. It does not seem to us that any natural connexion exists between a man's right of voting and his punctuality in paying the King's or parochial taxes. Are there no means of enforcing the demands of the tax-collector, but by making the deprivation of a high political trust the consequence of any delay, however short or unavoidable, in discharging them? If no such thing as a distress-warrant were known to the law of England, or if the honest pride of voting were a more powerful agent in the recovery of a debt for Crown or parish, than the dread of seeing one's furniture sold by auction; something might be said for this harsh innovation upon the usages of a free people. The question is not whether the tax shall be paid or left unpaid; it is merely a question of punctuality, whether the tax shall be paid a few weeks sooner or later, for its ultimate recovery is well enough secured already, and better by the old and acknowledged law, than by this newfangled political process. We ask, would it be no misfortune to the State, if, through the crabbed and obstrusive intermixture of fiscal obligations with political functions, half the kingdom—as there is no difficulty in supposing—were to be disfranchised on the same day, and that day six months a dissolution of Parliament were to be desirable? It is clear, and we do not deny, that some test may be necessary to prove the continued possession of a certain class of qualifications; but we are sure that proof of having paid a man's taxes, when by a hundred tricks of the tax-collectors, the payment might be most innocently and unavoidably (on his part) delayed, is most harsh, most ill-judged, and unconstitutional. Why was such a thing never thought of before in England? That extract was in itself a much better speech than he could deliver. It came from a paper which was the present organ of the Government, and he hoped that Ministers would attentively learn and inwardly digest it. If they did so, they might rest confidently assured that that paper would bear them out and carry them triumphantly through any struggle and difficulty which might ensue in the passing of the Bill, which he hoped to have the honour of introducing. It was quite time that abuses which could never have been contemplated by the framers of the Reform Act, and which disfigured and dishonoured that measure, should be now abolished, and that electors of counties and those of boroughs should be placed upon the same footing. Why should not the former be compelled to pay the county rates against a certain day, if the poor rates and assessed taxes were to be paid against a certain day by the latter class of voters? He hoped he had said enough to induce the noble Lord at the head of the Government, not only to give permission for the introduction of this Bill, but also to afford some hope that it would obtain the support of the Government. If they would do so, he should look with confidence to the ultimate success of the measure. It was in the power of the noble Lord to get the Bill passed if he pleased. It was only for him to threaten to resign. Recent events had shown that any measure could be passed just at the present moment. He knew that many of the present Ministers had already, when differently situated, voted for this measure of his. Some of those who were now Members of the Government opposed the noble Lord for opposing this measure on a bygone occasion; and he hoped that, now they were in office, they would be consistent with themselves, and give him their continued support through the different stages of the Bill. At all events, where could be the difficulty of leaving it an open question? It was merely a question of Parliamentary reform more or less, of extension of the franchise more or less. It was, in fact, a matter not of principle but of degree; and if Government were not prepared to actively support it, they might at least leave it an open question, until it could be seen in what direction public opinion bore. The hon. Member concluded by moving— That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of an Act passed in the Reign of William IV., entitled 'An Act to Amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales,' as makes the right to Registration in Cities and Boroughs conditional on the payment of Poor's Rates and Assessed Taxes.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Sir, I stated to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, at the commencement, that if he was desirous of laying this Bill upon the Table of the House without entering into a discussion upon its merits at the present moment, I should not be adverse to such a course; but that I could not promise him my support in the future stages of the Bill. My hon. Friend, however, thought it better to have the discussion on the subject immediately, unless I could promise him the support of the Government on the second reading; and in the absence of any such engagement on my part, he has now stated the purport of the Bill, and the reasons on which he grounds his introduction of this Motion. In meeting my hon. Friend, I must be permitted to state what he does not appear to have at all clearly apprehended, namely, the ancient law and constitution of boroughs in this country. The hon. Member has read paragraphs, stating that it was entirely a new principle that was introduced by the Reform Act, and that before the passing of that measure nobody ever thought that the payment of rates was a necessary preliminary to the acquisition or exercise of a vote. He is entirely mistaken upon that subject. The ancient right of voting in counties was the possession of certain property, and anybody having it to the amount of 40s. a year, on proving that he possessed it as freehold, was considered as a person of sufficient property to afford a guarantee to the State that he was a man fit to be entrusted with the privilege of the franchise. In that respect the State took the security it thought necessary. So, too, in regard to boroughs where there was a common-law right of voting—that is to say, in boroughs where there were no particular charters to restrict and regulate the right—the right was vested in householders, but with this qualification, that they were to be householders paying scot and lot. The meaning of that was, that they were persons liable to pay and paying the poor rate. So it has been interpreted by the courts of justice. Therefore, as with regard to county voters, there was a security of their being possessed of property, so too, with regard to boroughs, was there a security not only that they should inhabit a house as regular occupiers, not as chance lodgers, or occasional residents, but that they were persons who, by their payments of rates, were certified and assured to the State to be persons fit, according to the opinion of those who framed the laws of this country, to be entrusted with the exercise of a vote. Therefore the principle was not one introduced and acknowledged for the first time under the Reform Act. Whatever the Reform Act may have done to modify or change the ancient constitution of the country, the principle that occupiers should pay some of the rates, in order to qualify them for the exercise of votes, was the old principle transferred from the ancient constitution of this country into the provisions of the Reform Act. The Reform Act extended very much the right of voting in this country. The hon. Gentleman maintains that it did not extend it as much as I had anticipated. My calculation at the time was, of course, formed on a crude and vague estimate; and I could not expect that that estimate would be borne out with critical accuracy in its details. But my hon. Friend has himself satisfactorily proved, that there has been a very great extension of the franchise through the operation of the Reform Act. For example, the borough of Lambeth formerly returned no Members to Parliament—the borough of Marylebone formerly returned no Members to Parliament—neither did the borough of Finsbury nor the Tower Hamlets; and with regard to those different places thus admitted for the first time to the right of having representatives, my hon. Friend himself calculates, that in those newly constituted metropolitan boroughs, there are no less than 45,000 persons enjoying the right of voting for Members of Parliament. Surely that is in itself no inconsiderable extension of the elective franchise. But there was also an extension of the franchise to a great many towns which never before enjoyed the right of sending Members to Parliament; as, for instance, Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, where the right of voting was given to 10l. householders; and Bath, where hitherto the exercise of the right was limited to some twenty, twenty-three, or twenty-five persons. To all those places we gave the right of sending Members to Parliament. We did not make it a household franchise, in the strict scot and lot sense, but we proposed that the House should be of the value of 10l. a year; and the test was similar to the old test of scot and lot, for we proposed that the payment of taxes should be ascertained, and that the assessed taxes and the poor rate should be payable by the man seeking to be qualified to vote. I own that, in my opinion, that was a wise and constitutional provision. It was in strict conformity with the ancient law of this country for entrusting the right to vote to persons holding a certain amount of property. It was wise, I think, to ascertain that the persons to whom you grant the franchise, are men of a certain amount of property; not but that there may be persons with no property whatever who would make as good a choice, but because, in my belief, when you do grant the privilege to men possessing a certain amount of property, there is a likelihood that you will have a better election generally, than you would have if you were to make the suffrage universal. Now I do think if you lay down the qualification that there must be this certain amount of property, you must test it in some manner or other, and give some practical proof that those pretending to the use of the franchise do really possess property, and do not simply inhabit a house, but that they are men in the regular payment of the rate which is due by them for the usual and regularly assessed taxes of the State, and of the poor rates which go to maintain the poor of the borough. It seems that there is now mixed up with those payments a certain amount of county rates, such as the maintenance of gaols, and other expenses of a similar kind. The principle, however, is the old constitutional one of the country. I own I think that if you take away all obligation to pay rates and taxes, and say that the mere occupation of a house of 10l. yearly value is to qualify a man to vote, it would be difficult to resist the argument urged by many, that such mere occupation would not be sufficient test for eligibility to vote, but that the right should be extended very much farther, for that there is no virtue in brick and mortar to distinguish between regular fixed residents and mere casual lodgers. But when, in addition to this, you require that there shall be practical proof that they are solvent men and regular in the payment of their rates, you have the security of the State that they are men of credit and substance, having a stake in the country and an interest in the maintenance of the law and the constitution. The hon. Member asserts that there have been many omissions of persons who ought to have been qualified; and he has stated, what I am surprised he should state as favourable to his argument, namely, that after persons have paid the rates and taxes for others at the time of their registration, they have not been able to secure the votes of such persons at the ensuing election. In that respect I am decidedly of opinion that a very great improvement has been introduced on the old constitution of the scot and lot boroughs; because, as we said at the time, if you require in the scot and lot boroughs that no man should vote unless he pays his rate, this will happen, as it frequently has happened, that a few days before the elections, some two or three hundred voters will go to one candidate or other, and say, "We are ready to vote for you, but our rates must be paid." The principle was an excellent one; but it carried that taint along with it, that it had the tendency of giving rise to bribery, and the tendering of votes to whichever party would be the first to pay the rates. We said, "Alter that, and have a registration to take place at a fixed time of the year, and not at the time of the election, and there will not then be this sin of bribery, for the candidate will not find it his interest to buy the voters at that time. There may not be an election that year; or if the election should take place in December or January, the candidate will have no reason to be quite sure that the man whose rates were paid for him in July, may be disposed to carry his gratitude through so long a period as the whole six months." The hon. Member proves the truth of our anticipations, and tells us that complaints are continually made that persons whose rates have been paid in July by one party, cross over and vote for the opposite party when the election comes on. Why, Sir, that is the very consequence we expected; but I hope that it will serve as a lesson to hon. Gentlemen never to be guilty of attempting that kind of bribery again. I hope that the hon. Member for Finsbury will give all Gentlemen who may be inclined to do so the benefit of his advice in this respect, and exhort them thus: "You see it is no use your trying to play this game. You do not carry the voters with you by paying their rates for them, and therefore I would advise you to leave it to such of the electors themselves as are willing and able to pay. Trust to their politics, whether they be Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, and, trusting to your own merits, take your chances to get their votes as best you may." But there was, it was said, a defect, and I felt it, namely, that the period of registration came very suddenly after the time at which the rates which were due, should be paid up, and that electors from being away from their town or borough, or by reason of any other accidental circumstances, were left out of the registration, when really it was not so much by any fault of their own, as because of their not having notice that such omission was likely to take place. But since that was complained of, an alteration has been made in the law, not to the effect that a longer period should be granted, as I suggested, but that due notice shall be given to all persons that the payment of the rates will be required for the purpose of being registered. The Act 6 and 7 Victoria, c. 8, contains this provision in its 11th section, and enacts that the overseers of every parish shall give notice in writing, on the 20th day of June, that nobody can be admitted on any list of voters unless he shall have paid, on or before the 20th of July, all poor rates and assessed taxes which may have become payable by him in the course of twelve calendar months, ending on the 12th of April previous. If a man be really anxious to have a vote, and willing to pay his usual rates, and has sufficient money to be able to pay them, he has, on the 20th of June, a notice posted up in his borough that the rates accruing due in the preceding April must be paid in a month from the date of that notice, for that otherwise his name cannot be registered as a voter. This is quite a fair and sufficient notice for all voters, and in- deed I must maintain that a man really anxious about the privilege of the franchise, having at his command the means of paying, living in a 10l. house, and seeing a notice posted up in his borough for a whole month before, advertising him that if he does not pay the rates within a month from that period, he will be struck off—I say that a man thus situated is utterly inexcusable if he neglects to pay in time. If he is solvent and able to pay, he ought to pay; but if he is not able to pay, if he is incapacitated from paying the rates due on the 10l. house which he occupies, then I say he has no right to claim a vote in respect of that house, for he is a person likely to be corrupted by the payment of his rates for him by other persons, and he ought to be content to forego his vote. I cannot think that the Bill of the hon. Member is at all defensible in principle. So far from the Reform Act having been an innovation, the Bill of the hon. Member, which would go to repeal some of the clauses of that measure, would be the greatest possible innovation on the constitution of this country. Nothing surely could be more foreign to the principles of the constitution, than to declare that the payment of rates of all kinds without proof of any possession of property, should be omitted from amongst the qualifications for a vote. My hon. Friend has thought fit to enter upon this discussion. I have stated the reasons and considerations which appear to me to work against his Bill; and as he has chosen to go into this disquisition, I have only to state, in conclusion, that I will oppose the introduction of the Bill, and vote against it.

MR. GISBORNE

was in favour of the Bill. He hoped that it would obtain a first and second reading; for he warmly approved of the principle it affirmed. If an occupier of a 10l. house was a defaulter in his taxes, let a distress be levied against his property; and if the return should be nulla bona, then let him he by all means rejected from the registry. A sufficient guarantee would be thus secured.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

observed, that if the Bill proposed by his hon. Friend was to be rejected on the ground of a comparison between the corruption that existed before the Reform Bill, and the corruption that now exists, or a comparison of the numbers of the constituency before the Reform Bill, and the numbers of the constituency now, they might be unable to adduce sufficient arguments to induce the House to pass the Bill. But the question was, had the avowed objects of those ratepaying clauses been really no more in practice than they were informed they would be? It was considered that the only object of those clauses was to afford a test of the solvency of the voters; but there were returns before the House which proved that they went beyond that, and that they deprived one-half of many constituencies altogether of their franchise. He should not trouble the House with many details; but he would refer to returns from St. George's parish, Westminster, by which it appeared that 399 persons had been deprived of their franchise. And what was the description of persons who were so deprived of the franchise? And what was the description of houses occupied by them? The houses were in St. George's Square, and Belgrave Square, and Belgrave Street, and Great George Street. The noble Lord had stated, that it was an ancient principle of the constitution that the rates should be paid; but, even assuming that to be the case, it was not an ancient principle of the constitution that the taxes should also be paid; and the Act required, not only the rates, but the assessed taxes to be paid. The electors were subjected, not only to the proper or improper performance of their duties by the parochial officers, but they were also subjected to the proper or improper performance of their duties by the Government officers. In the whole of the parish to which he had referred, not one person was disfranchised for non-payment of rates, but the whole 399 were disfranchised for non-payment of Government taxes. That was a proof of the mischievous consequences of adding to the old qualification of rating the payment of assessed taxes. There were 100,000 qualified persons in the metropolis deprived by this clause, and the obstructions that were produced by this clause, of their votes, including people, not merely occupying 10l. houses, but the great majority of whom occupied 40l. and 50l. houses. With that fact, which was undeniable, he should leave the matter to the House, and trusted they should not be called upon to divide on this Bill.

MR. PHILIP HOWARD

remarked, that if the persons referred to did not pay their rates and taxes, and if they did not exercise proper diligence in doing so, it was through their own fault they were disfranchised. The payment of the poor rates he conceived to be one of their first duties to the poor; and those persons who composed the constituencies of Great Britain ought to be ready to pay them cheerfully. It would, in fact, be impossible to object to universal suffrage, if they did not require from the persons who had property the payment of those rates; and he should give a decided negative to this measure.

MR. HUME

agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was the duty of every man to pay his poor rates and taxes. It was a duty which he hoped every man who had property would perform; but the law should provide the means by which those taxes could be collected in a manner altogether distinct from the elective franchise. He would remind the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that when the Reform Bill was introduced, a proposition was made to expunge this very clause from the Bill, and on the occasion a very strong petition was presented from the city of Westminster on the subject, showing that one of the greatest abuses of which the electors had to complain during the preceding twenty years, had arisen from the payment of scot and lot, and predicting that it would be a great means of impeding the exercise of that power which was intended to be given by the Bill. It was said by the noble Lord, when he introduced it, that he was not about to give a fanciful reform, but a House of Commons to represent the mass of the community. It was, he said, his object to extend their franchises so as there should not be any constituency less than 300; and he expressed a hope, that, at least, the constituencies would consist of from 500 to 1,000 electors: and the noble Lord certainly surprised him by the statement which he now made, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury was a violation of the principle of the constitution. He would vote for this proposition, because the noble Lord who was at the head of the Government when the Reform Bill was passed (Earl Grey), had made use of this very important phrase when introducing that question, on the 3rd of October, 1831. He said— I believe the present measure to be a measure of justice, sound policy, peace, and conciliation. I believe that on its acceptance or rejection depend, on the one hand, peace, tranquillity, and prosperity; on the other, that state of political dissatisfaction and discontent, the continuance of which threatens all those disastrous consequences which must arise when ill-feeling is engendered in the people towards the Government of the country. The noble Earl, therefore, urged the measure on the understanding that it would give satisfaction to the people of England, and remove dissatisfaction. But what was the case now? He believed that only twelve males of twenty-one years of age in every hundred in this country had the elective franchise. In Ireland there were a great many less. Was it possible to believe that these men, thus deprived of the franchise, would be satisfied? It was plain that numbers were deprived of a portion of those advantages which it was intended they should have by the Reform Act, owing to the operation of these clauses. To remove them would be an act of justice, would be the means of extending the franchise, and of giving greater security in the election of representatives. If the noble Lord resisted the proposal on the ground that it would be a violation of the constitution, he could not understand why the supporters of the Bill were not entitled to call on the noble Lord to see that each borough had a constituency of at least 300 electors. He had in his hand a list of 35 boroughs, in each of which there were less than 300 electors at this moment, the numbers being, in some 250, in some 180, and in others 100. Now, every man who was disfranchised, he said, was a slave; and every man who was not qualified to vote for a representative in Parliament was in the condition of having a master over him whose orders he must obey at any rate. Being desirous to conciliate and keep the peace of this country, he should vote for the Bill, because it would tend to increase the number of electors, and to remove those impediments to the acquirement of the franchise which were most inconvenient to the mass of the people.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

called the attention of the House to returns showing the number of persons disfranchised in Marylebone for non-payment of rates and taxes; and from which it was to be inferred that the total number disfranchised for non-payment of the assessed taxes amounted to 1,033, and for non-payment of parish rates 339. Persons were often disfranchised by the wilful carelessness of those persons who were appointed to collect those assessed taxes; and he would give one instance in which the election of a borough was all but turned by the negligence of the collectors. It had occurred to himself. In the year 1834 he found that the assessed-tax collector in the borough which he had the honour then to represent—Monmouth—did not call for payment of the taxes on those persons who were likely to vote for him; and this fact coming to his knowledge, he called at the office in London, and insisted that the collector should call on those persons. The result was, that four of them were put on the register. He happened to be in Italy at the time of the election, and he found, to his surprise, that he was returned to Parliament by a majority of four; and, therefore, it was owing to the circumstance of his making the tax-collector do his duty that he obtained the seat; for if he had not compelled him to do his duty, another Member would have been returned to Parliament for the borough. The present law gave the assessed-tax collectors great power to exercise favour towards those parties who entertained opinions similar to those which the tax-collectors themselves were supposed to hold. If the noble Lord were resolved to persevere in his determination to oppose the Bill, and if the Bill were not carried, he (Sir B. Hall) did hope the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration. He trusted that at least they would give more ample time to parties to pay the rates; that they would put back to a more distant period the time for the collection of the rates; and that they would not allow the collectors to have that great power which they had at present.

MR. T. D'EYNCOURT

was of opinion that the collector should be obliged to call on the individual who owed the tax, and that he should not have to seek out the collector. The collector should be bound to make a demand on the taxpayer, and if he did not call on him the law should be that the party who was to pay the assessed taxes should not lose his vote. It was anticipated at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill that the constituency would receive a very material addition, amounting, as had been stated, to somewhere about half a million; and he thought that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had admitted that the number had fallen short of that. He believed the increase of the constituency was two hundred thousand short of that; while the population, which in 1831 amounted to 16,000,000, was now somewhere about 18,000,000. It appeared, therefore, that while the population had materially increased, the constituency was very materially short of the number specified. His noble Friend had talked a great deal of constitutional practice, and of the unconstitutional nature of his hon. Friend's Motion, and seemed to think that the payment of scot and lot formed a part of the ancient constitution of the country; but if the noble Lord restored the right of voting on payment of scot and lot, and treated householders paying scot and lot as substantial voters, the noble Lord should have his support. That was the proposition he had the honour to submit to the House at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill; and he thought if there was anything unconstitutional in the Reform Bill, it was the introduction of that clause which made it necessary for the electors to pay the King's taxes in addition to the scot and lot payment. That was quite a new principle to the constitution of this country; it was a matter of novel introduction that the payment of the King's taxes should form part of the franchise of this country. It was necessary to give a substantial franchise to the electoral body; but that was impossible as long as they made the payment of the assessed taxes an element of that franchise. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to propose, next year, some scheme by which they might get rid of the assessed taxes altogether; and what then was to become of this important element of the franchise, according to the opinion of the noble Lord? On the whole, he trusted that if the noble Lord persevered in his objection to the Bill, he would see the necessity of bringing in a Bill to make it imperative on the collector to call for payment at the house of the individual who owed this tax.

CAPTAIN PECHELL

said, that it was clear, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, that the people must take this case into their hands, as they could not look for the assistance of the Government. He confessed that he was grievously disappointed at the speech of the noble Lord, when there was such a large mass of the people so much discontented with the present state of the representative system in this country. The large meetings which had been recently held in so many populous places, showed the state of public feeling as to the failure of the Reform Bill. If the Motion was pressed to a division, he should give it his cordial support; and, above all, as he had been entrusted with a petition from his constituents, which demanded, in strong language, the repeal of the hateful ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act.

MR. WAKLEY

said, if the noble Lord intended, at some future time, to oppose the Bill with the whole strength of the Government, he trusted that the noble Lord would do so at once, instead of wasting so much public time, and at the same time exciting expectations which he did not mean to fulfil. The noble Lord, how-over, had that night shown great valour in opposing the Bill, but he did not show much discretion or wisdom in the course he had taken. He would appeal to the House as to whether there ever was a case on which the arguments were so completely on one side. The noble Lord had altogether failed in showing that the proposed measure of his (Mr. Wakley's) honourable Colleague was of an unjust or unconstitutional character. The case, as stated by his hon. Friend, had not even been touched upon by the noble Lord. It was very remarkable that there was nothing like the ratepaying clause in connexion with county voters. Why should the poor voters in towns be put under such restrictions, when the county voters were altogether exempted from everything of the kind? Again, Scotch Members were not required to show any qualification before they took their seats in that House; while a 10l. householder could not be placed on the register until he had shown that he had paid his rates. A man who inherited a landed property in a county, or a clergyman who had been inducted to a living, could at once be placed on the county register; while a person claiming to vote for a borough, must have resided and paid rates in it for upwards of twelve months before his name could appear on the register. In the counties, also, the 50l. tenants at will were, for the most part, the mere serfs of the landlords, and often did not know the name of the candidate they were to vote for, until they received directions to go up to the poll. It was a mere pretence to say that the people had a 10l. franchise conferred on them, when such a trick was played as to place the restrictions on it which were imposed by the ratepaying clauses. It was not always the poor that were affected by these clauses, for at one time the Governor of the Bank of England, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, were disfranchised for not having paid their rates within due time.

SIR G. GREY

entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that it was very desirable that the decision of the House should now be taken on the Bill proposed, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury had stated its objects so clearly, that if they had the Bill before them, they would know no more about it. But the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had complained of the extraordinary silence of the Treasury Bench; and a strange complaint it was after the speech of his noble Friend, who had so clearly stated the views of the Government, holding out no hope whatever of their being able to support it at any stage, that it was quite unnecessary for any other Member of the Government to address the House on the subject. At the same time the hon. Member expressed no surprise, unlike the hon. Member for Brighton, who had been greatly disappointed by the speech of his noble Friend, of which he had heard only a small portion. Having listened to the speeches which had been delivered in favour of the proposed measure, he could not but think that many of the arguments adduced were very wide of the question; and that some of them might have been urged, and were, indeed, urged, when the hon. Member for Westminster brought forward this measure for facilitating the operation of the franchise, by extending the period for the payment of the taxes to avoid the accidental disfranchisements which had occurred. The theme of many of the speeches embraced a question not now before the House. The Member for Montrose had used an argument that seemed to go far beyond the question. He complained that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had held out an expectation, when he introduced the Reform Bill, that a large increase would take place in the number of voters, and that he (the hon. Member for Montrose) and others had been much disappointed at the non-realization of that expectation. The hon. Member for Montrose had said that not more than twelve in every hundred capable of exercising the franchise had a vote; but he would ask if the present Bill, which merely went to repeal the ratepaying clauses, would be a remedy for that evil? Did his hon. Friend believe that the repeal of these clauses would double the voters in the metropolis? The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had gone to a very indefinite extent, and had asserted that the Reform Bill had utterly failed to answer the expectation which he, in common with many others, had entertained at the time of its passing. It should be recollected, however, that a very large increase in the constituencies of the country had taken place through the instrumentality of the Reform Act, not only in the metropolis, but in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and other populous boroughs and districts; and, therefore, it was not a proper mode of speaking to say that that measure had disappointed the expectations of the people. It had been stated, however, by his noble Friend, that he, and the others who introduced the Reform Bill, thought it desirable to adhere to the principle that the payment of rates ought to be a condition, and it was accordingly embodied in the measure. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Montrose presented a petition against the scot and lot franchise, showing that the greatest abuse had been committed by candidates paying the rates before an election. That statement was well founded. It ought to be recollected, that the grievance which was found to exist in the working of the original clause, had been corrected; and it might also be borne in mind, that the measure proposed to be introduced, did not rest on any alleged corruption. His noble Friend, in replying to the remarks of the hon. Member for Marylebone, had alluded to the alteration which had been made in the law, by which overseers were compelled to give notice to voters of the payment of their rates, in order that those persons who were able or willing to pay the rates might do so in time. Reference had been made during the discussion, to the difference which existed between county and borough voters; but his noble Friend had shown that that distinction had not been created by the Reform Bill. Previous to that time forty-shilling freeholds were recognised as evidence of the possession of property, and no other test was deemed necessary. But there was another difference besides this. There was no such thing as a 10l. franchise in counties, although many thought there ought to be; but if it were contended that the county and borough franchise should be assimilated, the House must be prepared to go far beyond what was provided for in the Bill now sought to be introduced.

SIR C. NAPIER

was glad to find that the hon. Member for Finsbury had succeeded in unsealing the lips of some of the Ministers; and he wished that he had the power of unsealing the lips of some other hon. Members. There was the hon. Member for Greenwich: he (Sir C. Napier) would like to know what he would say to his constituents when he met them. There was also the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), who held the office of Under Secretary for the Colonies; there was also the Member for the Tower Hamlets, who held an office in the Ordnance Department. He should like to know the opinion of these Gentlemen at the present moment. [An Hon. MEMBER: Not to-night.] Oh, yes; to-night. An election was coming on, and it was necessary that the constituents of hon. Gentlemen should know on what ground they stood. He had always understood, so far as his limited knowledge went, that one object of the clauses objected to, was to induce people to pay their rates and taxes with greater facility than before; but he did not think that that object had succeeded. It had been found that people had not paid up their rates and dues any readier than before; but as the law possessed the power of compelling payment, he did not see the necessity of giving an additional stimulus to the payment of taxes by visiting non-payment with disfranchisement. His own opinion was, that the repeal of the ratepaying clauses would tend to practically extend the franchise; and such being his opinion, he should vote for the introduction of the Bill.

MR. WILLIAMS

said, that, the noble Lord had only two points of opposition to urge to the proposed measure. The first was, that previous to the passing of the Reform Bill the franchise was that of scot and lot; and the second reason was, that 40s. freeholds afforded a great security that property was possessed by the holders. He was really surprised to hear the noble Lord introduce the scot and lot franchise as an argument, for he must have known that only a very small portion of the constituencies which existed previous to the Reform Bill were made up of scot and lot voters. He should very much doubt if the noble Lord could prove that any one of the towns in schedule A had a scot and lot voter, or that schedule B was in different circumstances. In fact, that class of voters was exceedingly limited, and almost confined to large and populous towns. The noble Lord had forgotten one important class of voters, the freemen and burgesses, who were not called upon to pay rates or taxes as a condition of their voting. Now, it appeared most extraordinary that the noble Lord, in introducing his Reform Bill and defending it now, should consent to allow a large class of freemen and burgesses to have votes without any sort of qualification whatever, with the exception of that of continued residence for twelve months. It so happened that he (Mr. Williams) was possessed of each of the three kinds of franchises he had specified. He was a voter in virtue of being a householder, and as a qualification for the exercise of that vote he was compelled to pay rates and taxes within a certain time. He had also the honour of being one of the noble Lord's constituents as a liveryman of the city of London. In connexion with that vote he held no property, and yet he was a constituent of the noble Lord, and one of his supporters; but really, looking at his backward movement on the question of the franchise, he believed that were it not for the good he had done in former days, he should be inclined to oppose him on the next occasion. Among his (Mr. Williams's) own constituents were six hundred freemen—honest freemen—from whom no qualification was asked save that of having resided in the borough for twelve months. Amongst these voters were men of large property; but the generality of them were not in the same circumstances as the 10l. voters, and yet by the operation of the clauses in question an obligation was laid in a most inconsistent manner upon the richer portion, and an exception made in favour of the poorer. In the borough in which he resided, there were at the present moment on the register 2,814 householders, many of them holding large property, who were disqualified through the operation of the clauses which formed the subject of discussion. Now, this had not arisen from inability or unwillingness to pay the taxes, but from oversight. A gentleman came to him lately—a man possessed of great wealth, and the occupier of a house worth perhaps 500l. a year—complaining that in consequence of his having mislaid a paper which had been left at his house by a tax-gatherer, he had overlooked the payment of his taxes, and had just received intimation that he would be prosecuted in the Court of Exchequer if he did not make the payment within a fortnight. Now that gentleman never was applied to for payment before. He wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Stamps, complaining of what he thought to be negligence on the part of the collector; and to his letter he received a pithy and dry answer, stating that the collector had no business to call for payment, and that if he left the paper it was all that he was required to do—it was the business of those owing the taxes to call upon the collector and pay the money.

LORD G. BENTINCK

The hon. Gentleman has charged my noble Friend with making a backward movement. Now, if my noble Friend had been guilty of a backward movement, he should not have had my support; but it is because in my opinion he is taking a firm stand upon that great measure of reform of which he is himself the father, that he meets my support; and I think that all those Gentlemen who were Members of the House of Commons in 1830 and 1832, and who can remember also that the country was appealed to on "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," and that the clause objected to is identically the same with that upon which the country was appealed to, are bound in honour and consistency to support my noble Friend on the present occasion in rejecting the proposition of the hon. Member.

MR. B. ESCOTT

said, that the appeal which had been made to the country relative to "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," had nothing to do with the present question. The question at issue was this, whether the respectable middle classes of England should have a clear stage and a fair opportunity of returning Members to represent them in Parliament, uninfluenced by corrupt motives. For himself he should vote in favour of the introduction of the Bill. He believed the existing law was exceedingly productive of corrupt practices at elections. He believed that there were whole boroughs which were entirely swayed by the corrupt payment of the rates. This was one of the worst kinds of bribery—it was a mixture between charity and bribery, so closely combined that it was difficult to distinguish between the two. Under the pretence of charity, coals and candles were distributed in some quarters; but the real object was to ensure the return of Members to Parliament. He (Mr. Escott) believed that the noble Lord would be the first to condemn any such practice, because he did that noble Lord the credit to believe that he wished a pure representation of the people. He believed that the Bill which that noble Lord introduced the Session before last was one which would have a material effect in preventing that effect. He was sorry that the noble Lord should deem it his duty to oppose the proposed measure, as the effect of that opposition would no doubt be to secure its defeat in the present Session.

COLONEL WOOD

was satisfied the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that there was any corruption of the kind he had referred to going on in the borough towns of Middlesex. He believed the hon. Gentleman could not give a single instance of the corrupt payment of rates and taxes.

The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 58: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.
Barnard, E. G. Molesworth, Sir W.
Blake, M. J. Morris, D.
Bowring, Dr. Napier, Sir C.
Bright, J. O'Brien, W. S.
Brotherton, J. O'Connell, M. J.
Christie, W. D. Pechell, Capt.
Collins, W. Plumridge, Capt.
Crawford, W. S. Ricardo, J. L.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. Roebuck, J. E.
Duncan, Visct. Scott, R.
Duncan, G. Thornely, T.
Duncannon, Visct. Turner, E.
Escott, B, Villiers, hon. C.
Fielden, J. Wakley, T.
Gisborne, T. Warburton, H.
Hall, Sir B. Williams, W.
Hume, J. Yorke, H. R.
Humphery, Ald.
Marsland, H. TELLERS.
Mitchell, T. A. Duncombe, T.
Moffatt, G. Evans, Sir De L.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Mainwaring, T.
Anson, hon. Col. Mangles, R. D.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Manners, Lord J.
Maule, rt. hon. F.
Bailey, J. jun. Morpeth, Visct.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. O'Brien, C.
Bentinck, Lord G. O'Conor Don
Boldero, H. G. Paget, Lord A.
Borthwick, P. Pakington, Sir J.
Butler, P. S. Palmerston, Visct.
Copeland, Ald. Parker, J.
Craig, W. G. Plumptre, J. P.
Dick, Q. Ponhill, F.
Dundas, Adm. Rich, H.
Forbes, W. Russell, Lord J
Fox, C. R. Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Sandon, Visct.
Gore, hon. R. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Greene, T. Spooner, R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Stuart, J.
Harcourt, G. G. Stuart, W. V.
Hawes, B. Tollemache, J.
Henley, J. W. Vesey, hon. T.
Hervey, Lord A. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Howard, P. H. Wood, Col. T.
Johnstone, Sir J. Wyse, T.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. TELLERS.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Hill, Lord Marcus
Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. Tufnell, H.