Commons Sitting of 8 December 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Bury St. Edmunds, James Henry Porteus Oakes, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Stamp Duties on Patents for Inventions.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR DE LACY EVANS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, as it had been before the House upon several occasions, he would not now enter into any explanation of it. He would merely observe, that five or six years ago he had introduced a Bill which dealt with the question now under consideration, and the present Bill was necessitated by a decision of the Court of Common Pleas upon the 13th of last month. The original reason for introducing the Bill was the great disparity which existed in the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act, which were intended to exclude insolvent voters, but which really excluded a great many others; and to remedy that defect he had introduced the measure which received the sanction of the House four years ago. The original date of payment was the 11th of October; but that had been subsequently altered by the House of Lords to the 5th of January. This alteration had given rise to many conflicting decisions by the revising barristers; and therefore he had waited until the question was decided by a Court of Appeal. But the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas last month had stated that the law was uncertain, and that its practical effect was to disfranchise a great number of voters. In Westminster a great number of voters had been disfranchised; and he believed that no fewer than 100,000 to 150,000 solvent voters throughout the country had been disfranchised in consequence of the

1145
present state of the law. This Bill was proposed to remedy this inconvenience; and as he did not know what date the Government would think most convenient, he would merely move the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. FREWENsaid, it was his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, as he thought it was a little too soon after the alteration had been made by the House of Lords, and acquiesced in by this House, to come to this House for a restoration of the date that was in the Bill when it was sent up to the House of Lords.
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. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the payment of rates and taxes as a qualification to be placed on the register should be altogether abolished.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) had placed those who opposed the Bill in some difficulty, as he had really given them nothing to oppose. In 1848 the hon. and gallant Gentleman obtained an extension of the time of payment of rates and taxes from three months to six months, and he (Lord Stanley) did not think there was any necessity for a further extension. The hon. and gallant Member had not laid before them a statement of any practical grievance arising out of the existing state of the law; yet he (Lord Stanley) thought some such grievance should be shown before any alteration of the law was proposed. The hon. and gallant Member had not brought forward one single reason, stated one single fact, or alleged one particular grievance, upon which he could justify the introduction of this measure. Those who had lost their votes had lost them through their own fault. If they were disfranchised, it was because they had not paid their taxes. Had they been disfranchised through the operation of the law, recollecting the number of contested elections that there had been throughout England, recollecting how evenly balanced the state of parties was in many places throughout the Kingdom, the House of Commons would not have been left to learn the fact from the simple statement of the hon, and gallant Gentle-
1146
man. Was it probable, he would ask, that if any serious inconvenience had been found to result from the present law, public meetings would not have been held on the subject, of so large a body of persons as the hon. and gallant Member had mentioned being disfranchised in consequence of it? The only case where a solvent man could be disfranchised by the law as it now stood was, that when the collector did not call, the voter was so careless as not to tender the payment of his taxes, and that was a case for which the House could not legislate.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, if the noble Lord wanted a proof that a grievance was inflicted upon a large class of voters, he would refer him to the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who, in delivering his judgment, said—
"No doubt this was a case of great importance, because the general impression, when these taxes were payable, might have disfranchised a great number of household voters, because a householder's attention was not directed to the payment of these taxes until they were demanded, and they did not pay the tax quarterly as it was due."
It was the duty of the House to put the voter out of the power of the tax-collector as far as possible, and it had been proved that 118,000 voters had been disfranchised by the present operation of the law. It was quite preposterous that so much power should be placed in the hands of the tax-collectors, practically to disfranchise electors with whose political opinions they might not happen to agree.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was far too much occupied to be enabled to attend to all the decisions of the assistant barristers, and to be also ready to explain them. He understood, however, the case to be this: The question in the Common Pleas arose as to the time when certain taxes became payable—whether particular taxes became payable at a certain time or at a different time. The hon, and gallant Gentleman (Sir De L. Evans) now proposed to introduce a law to amend the existing one, on the ground of the hardship and inconvenience it inflicted upon the voter. He (the Attorney General) did not understand how this measure would effect that object. The same question must arise whatever limit was affixed for the payment of the rate as qualification for being put upon the register. These 118,000 voters had been disfranchised, not by reason of qualification, but by reason of not having paid in sufficient time the taxes

1147
required. Therefore, the grievance which had been pointed out was a grievance which stood on entirely different ground. Then the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) said his (the Attorney General's) noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had offered no answer to what had been adduced in support of the Bill. His noble Friend said no argument had been offered; therefore, if no argument had been offered, no argument was necessary in answer. But the House would just consider what they were asked to do*. It was proposed, for no apparent reason, to extend the time within which parties should be bound to pay their rates and taxes in order to qualify themselves to be put on the register. And why? In 1848, the three months which existed under the Reform Act was extended to six months, by carrying the time back to the 5th of January. One would really think, that allowing a person to be in arrear six months for rates and taxes was sufficient indulgence, and that there could he no reasonable ground for extending that period, and allowing a person to be in arrear, as now proposed, for nine months. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster objected to all ratepaying clauses; and though he (the Attorney General) might differ in opinion with him, he would rather see the ratepaying clauses abolished altogether than have them tampered with from time to time by proposals to extend the time within which payment should he required. The object of those clauses was to prevent insolvent persons being on the register and entitled to vote. Hon. Members on the other side were constantly saying it was their desire to have an independent class of voters, and those who were in favour of the ballot placed it entirely on the ground that it would secure the independence of the voter. Insolvent persons were not likely to be independent, and, therefore, it really seemed most important not to extend the term beyond six months, because it would be only making a man worse and worse, by allowing him to be in a lower condition. It was said the not extending the time would be a hardship, and that many might be disfranchised because the tax-gatherer had not called within six months for the rate. They all admitted the elective franchise was a very high privilege. [Sir J. SHELLEY: No; a right.] Well, then, a very high and important right. He took it for granted, that whether the tax-gatherer called or not, every man knew perfectly well whether he was in
1148
arrear; and if he had the slightest value for that important right, if he was in arrear, he would have nothing to do but to go to the tax-gatherer before the 20th of July, to put himself fully in possession of that right, which, if he did not do, showed he did not value it, and that he was not of that class for whom hon. Gentlemen opposite were so anxious to introduce the ballot. Rates and taxes were high-sounding terms; but the arrears only amounted to a few shillings after all, and the House would consider what was the state of that man who was unable to pay a few shillings due for rates and taxes in order to obtain the franchise. He really did submit that it was not a desirable thing without any reason at all, without any grievance being shown to exist, that from time to time the House should be tampering, as he had already said, with this question, and giving a benefit to insolvent persons. He trusted, therefore, the House would agree to the Amendment, and postpone the second reading to this day six months.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had charged him with having adduced no argument in favour of this Bill; but that was rather a proof that he wished to spare the time of the House, having full confidence in the merits of the Bill. The noble Lord, he believed, admitted, that in 1848 he did use arguments of weight and importance, and that he did show on that occasion that a large number of persons had been disfranchised, a large majority unfairly and unjustly, because they were not insolvent, and had no intention of evading the payment of rates.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he wished to explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, what he had said was, that in 1848 the hon. and gallant Gentleman made out a case for the extension of time from three months to six months, but that there was no necessity for further extension.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he was glad to find that at all events the noble Lord admitted his argument on that occasion was a strong one. There had been no attempt to inquire what number of persons had been disfranchised since, because the judgment passed on the 13th of last month in the Court of Common Pleas was considered the most conclusive reason for a change in the law which could by possibility be offered. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he really must assume, unless he were corrected, that the hon. and

1149
learned Gentleman had not taken the trouble to read the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!] Nothing was more clear than that the hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely unconscious of the question at issue. The fact was, that the extension of the time from three to six months had had the effect of misleading the public altogether. Payment of taxes was made half-yearly by order of the Treasury, as being more convenient, and the circumstance was overlooked in putting in the date of the 5th of January. It had since been found out that although by the legal direction of the Treasury no demand was made for taxes due on the 5th of January, yet if the voter did not go and search for the tax collector, and pay the amount before it was demanded, he lost his vote. The consequence was, that the Bill of 1848 secured no extension whatever, and the limit still remained at three months. This was delusive to the voter, and had been declared delusive by the Court of Common Pleas. Would the House then stultify itself, and refuse to correct an error which might lead to the disfranchisement of thousands of electors? The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had given himself unnecessary trouble the other night, in asking whether it was the intention of the present Government to extend the franchise, as he might be quite sure, from what now occurred, that the desire of Her Majesty's Ministers was not to extend but to restrict it.
SIR ALEXANDER COOKBURNsaid, it did appear to him, that by the present plan of collecting taxes a delusion was practised on the voters, and that something ought to be done, either by the House or the Treasury, to put matters on a more satisfactory basis. No man paid taxes until he was asked. The law required, in order to give the franchise, that taxes due up to a given period should be paid by the parties claiming the vote, and they were not asked for those taxes till the time was gone by when, by the Act, they ought to have been paid. He did not say it was intentional that the order of the Treasury should have that effect. He did not say hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to disfranchise voters; but if the Parliamentary franchise was to turn upon the payment of taxes, they ought not to have the practice of collecting those taxes in disunion with the law requiring payment within a given period. If they did not ask for the taxes
1150
before the period had expired, it was clear they put the voter in a position of great disadvantage. All he asked was, either that the practice of the Treasury should be altered, or that by some legislation they should assimilate the law to it.
MR. WALPOLEthought the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely mistaken the question before the House. The rate-paying clauses were inserted in the Reform Bill for two purposes: to obtain distinct evidence of occupation in respect to the property for which the voter claimed the right to vote, and to have the test of his credit, respectability, and independence. Whether they should continue the Reform Act on those principles was a distinct subject for discussion, which ought to be brought before the House on a distinct Motion, and not confounded with the question whether six months was a sufficient time for the payment of those taxes in respect to the qualification for which the voter claimed to vote. [Sir Be L. EVANS: We want a bonâ fide six months.] However he would first refer to the rates and then to the taxes. If any rate was imposed any time before the 5th of January, there was clearly from the 5th of January to the 20th July for payment. The Poor Rate was the principal rate, and they all knew there was hardly an exception to the rule of demanding the poor-rate within a month or two of the time of the rate being imposed: so that in point of fact the voter had the right secured to him of notice from at least the month of March to the 20th of July. The amount could only be a few shillings, and he had those months for the payment of a few shillings. The real question was whether giving six months, or four months at least, after notice, was not a sufficient latitude in point of time. With regard to the assessed taxes, upon which, he presumed, his hon. and learned Friend rested his argument that a delusion was practised, he thought he would find he was totally mistaken. The obligation was to pay all assessed taxes due and payable in respect to the premises for which the voter claimed to vote on the 5th of January preceding, or, in other words, to pay the Assessed Taxes for the house he occupied for the preceding year. The assessed taxes ran from the 5tli of April to the 5th of April following in respect to the premises occupied in that preceding year. The first half-year of those assessed taxes became payable long before the month of January, and there was the period from January to

1151
July for payment. He should agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was reasonable to require an alteration if he could show that either rates or taxes were not invariably payable at a period which allowed the voter some three or four months before he was called to pay those taxes. Under all the circumstances he certainly thought there was no justification for any alteration in the time allowed for the payment of taxes as a qualification for the exercise of the franchise.
MR. CROWDERthought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had fallen into a great mistake as to the payment of assessed taxes. It was to that point that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De L. Evans) referred when he spoke of a body of persons being disfranchised by the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. He begged permission to state the position in which he understood the matter practically to stand with reference to the collection of these taxes. They might or might not be due quarterly. Undoubtedly some lawyers maintained the one proposition on one side, and others the other, but practically that did not affect the question as to the way in which these taxes were collected. It was well known, and he thought it was well known by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), that the collection of assessed taxes was by the half-year, and that two quarters became due in April and October. The two quarters falling due in April included a quarter due in January, and the collection of those two quarters which terminated in April was made in the month of July, and in the month of July the collector might call for the payment of those quarters, which would include the quarter due in January, and not before, and therefore in truth it was a delusion on the part of the payer of these taxes, if, not being called on, without the slightest disposition to avoid payment, he was disfranchised. He thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton (Sir A.Cockburn) had put the matter in its true light, and he fully agreed with him that there ought either to be legislation such as that proposed, or a different mode of collecting these rates, so that practically the parties might have six months for their payment.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 103: Majority 36.
Words added:—Main Question, as
1152
amended, put, and agreed to;—Second Reading put of for six months.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.