HC Deb 30 May 1851 vol 117 cc325-6

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a Second Time."

MR. STANFORD

Sir, I shall very briefly state the reasons why I feel it right to oppose the second reading of this Bill. I do not think it possible to provide any adequate means of testing the correctness of the qualification which it is here proposed to create; for instance, a gentleman gives in to the clerk of this House a declaration that he possesses 600l. a year in Ceylon or in the Punjab. How is the accuracy of this declaration to be tested? Would the House be satisfied with the certificate of some Government official in the colony? I apprehend not. The alternative is to send out a Commission to inquire and report. This is clearly out of the question from the delay and expense. If this Bill passed, the result would be that the House must he satisfied to take entirely upon trust the allegation of the party that he possesses the qualification required by law. Now, Sir, this appears to me inexpedient, So long as the Legislature think it right to require the possession of a certain annual income as a condition of a person sitting in this assembly, so long, I think, it ought to be such as there are means of ascertaining its existence. If the hon. Member had proposed to abolish a property qualification altogether as a condition of sitting and voting in this House, I admit that there is a great deal to be urged in behalf of that course, though I beg to guard myself against the supposition that I am favourable to the proposition; but I don't see a single argument in favour of the present Bill, which confirms the propriety of insisting on a qualification; but extends it in such a manner as to render it nearly impracticable to ascertain its reality or existence. I think, Sir, likewise, that these alterations in the law would be better considered whenever the question of Parliamentary Reform is raised, as we have learned it is to be in the next Session. We have several Bills now before the House affecting the franchise indirectly, such as the "Inhabited House Duty," which is to exempt persons from the house tax whose rent is under 20l. a year, while they are still to enjoy the privilege of the franchise, which is based upon the principle of the payment of rates and taxes. This is frittering away important general principles, and tampering with legislation in a way I cannot help thinking highly inexpedient; and for these reasons, Sir, I beg leave to move that the Bill be read this day six months.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"

MR. HUTT

said, that he intended to introduce some clauses which would, he thought, remove the objections of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading.

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

said, that he was opposed to all property qualification, and, therefore, he should give his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading.

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 21: Majority 51.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°.