MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make the franchise in counties in England and Wales the same as that in boroughs, by giving the right of voting to all occupiers of tenements of the annual value of 10l. The proposition was the same as he had brought under the notice of the House on former occasions, when it was considered to be a just, equitable, and simple measure. In introducing it last year he included two other questions—one limiting the polling in counties to one day, as in boroughs, which, 1046 through the exertions of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), had already become the law of the land; and the other shortening the period in which the elections must take place, which another hon. Member had taken charge of and introduced into that House. The question of placing electors in counties and boroughs on the same footing had been so often discussed, had been so highly approved of out of doors, and had been supported by such large and increasing majorities in that House, that he could not doubt of its shortly being adopted in Parliament. He deeply regretted that the last Parliament should have been dissolved without the Bill being passed, because he felt they ought to have the benefit, advice, and co-operation of that class which would be enfranchised by it. He was aware they now approached the question under far more favourable circumstances than on any former occasion. It was not only the first time of its being discussed by a new Parliament, many Members of which were pledged to reform, but it was brought forward under the auspices of a Government which was essentially a Government of progress. They had seen a wise spirit of conciliation and concession in the admirable Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing which, he confessed, the right hon. Gentleman showed himself worthy of being a disciple of that great man Sir Robert Peel. He trusted, in the same spirit, the Government would support this measure, as tending to enfranchise a class who would assist in carrying any good, honest, free-trade Budget which might hereafter be proposed. He hoped that he should not meet the excuses and objections which had been thrown in his way on former occasions. He hoped he should not be told that this was not the season to introduce such a measure, because if it was shown that a great anomaly and a great injustice existed, and if that injustice could be removed without inflicting corresponding injustice on any other class, it was their duty to remove it. He hoped still more that he should not be told that he ought not to press it now, because they had a promise of reform. He was heartily sick of these promises of reform. It was the discussion on a similar occasion which induced the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to make a promise of reform; but the fulfilment of that promise caused nothing but dissatisfaction and disappointment. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would not object to 1047 the introduction of the Bill, and, whatever they afterwards did with it, that they would affirm the principle, and show that they were in earnest in their desire to improve the present system of representation. No one in that House had ever said anything against the class which it proposed to enfranchise. It was true, a distinguished person elsewhere described it as a dangerous and mischievous measure; hut, seeing what had taken place at the last election, and the conduct of the Government of Lord Derby, he could well understand how it was Lord Derby entertained that opinion. In discussing this question, he had to meet, not objections, but deeply-rooted prejudices; for, after all, there could be no reason why they should admit the occupier of a 10l. house to the franchise in one place, and exclude the occupier of a 10l. house in another. He could see no reason why this important class should longer be excluded from the pale of the franchise. With a population of 7,438,000 in the boroughs, there was an electoral body of 410,929; while, with a population of 10,488,000 in the counties, there were only 507,754 electors; whereas to keep up the proportion in the boroughs there ought to be 575,000. If the property test were tried, the result would be the same. In the boroughs the property assessed to the poor-rate was 23,181,580l. In the counties it was 44,518,516l., and according to that proportion the counties ought to have an electoral body of 788,000, instead of 507,000. In boroughs, for instance in the county of Wilts, the intelligence of the agricultural body was represented by 10l. occupiers, whilst at Dewsbury, Barnsley, Staley-bridge, and other places, the occupation of a 50l. house was necessary. The former were allowed to choose their representatives in Parliament; but the latter were treated as aliens, and altogether denied representative institutions. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London formerly met the question by arguing that they ought to have one kind of franchise in counties, and another kind in boroughs; but when, in his last Reform Bill, he proposed to reduce the qualification in counties to a 20l. occupation, he deprived himself altogether of that argument. The class which it was proposed to enfranchise were a most independent class, and he thought it very desirable, before there was any new Reform Bill at all, that their claims should be allowed, occupiers in town and country being placed exactly on the same footing. 1048 In asking this extension of the franchise, he was not like a right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the late Government, selecting for voters men who might be drilled for elections as well as for other occasions. Neither was he asking them to extend the franchise to the counties here in the same way that it was extended to Ireland, where they increased it when there was distress in the country and a decrease in the population. He, on the contrary, demanded it on the ground that our wealth and our population were increasing, and that this being a country of progress, the area of our representation should, in consistency, he enlarged. Holding that it was the duty of the Government to look out for political fitness, and to confer the franchise readily on those equal to its responsibilities, he advocated its extension to the class now proposed, as a matter of justice, for they were unexceptionable. It was, he thought, especially necessary, after the late elections, in which it appeared the former Government had itself been mixed up in corrupt practices, that they should do all they could to purify our institutions, and not suffer them to become a mere laughing stock to despotic Europe.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEseconded the Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That Leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the Franchise in Counties in England and Wales the same as that in Boroughs, by giving the right of voting to all occupiers of tenements of the annual value of ten pounds.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI do not mean, Sir, at all to enter into a discussion on the question now before the House. It seems to me, and I think it will be admitted that it must appear generally to the House, that the question of extending the franchise, as is proposed by the hon. Member for East Surrey, which would make a very great change in the electoral system, is a question intimately connected with our whole system of representation. Now, that appears to me to be a question you cannot at present take up. Whether it is wise or unwise, right or wrong, to make this change, it is a change of very great importance, and one which must affect our representation to a very considerable extent. Such being the case, which, by the general consent, I believe, it must be admitted to be, it is impossible, with the important questions now before the House, properly to consider such a Bill as this proposed to-night, which must lead to dis- 1049 cussion on the whole subject of our representation, and thereby postpone all the important questions now before this House. I can only say, on the part of the present Government, that we are not indisposed to consider the whole question; and though the hon. Member who introduced the Motion may be unwilling to give credit to our declaration on the subject, perhaps other Members may not. I can only say to the rest of the House that we are duly impressed with its importance, and that we hope to introduce a Bill at a time and in a manner when it will occupy the serious attention of the House. Under these circumstances, I should suggest the withdrawal of the Motion.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he did not think that his hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) had had any option but to submit his Motion this year, as he had done in former years; but he trusted that it was not his intention to divide the House, though, if he did, he should of course vote for him.
MR. HUMEsaid, his hon Friend the Member for East Surrey had done no more now than he had pledged himself last year to do. He was perfectly satisfied, unless the Government betrayed those who placed confidence in them, that they would have a fair and satisfactory Reform Bill introduced next Session. This being so, he advised his hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a division, because it would afford no indication whatever of the real feeling of the House.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was obliged to his hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) for having brought forward this Motion. The state of the representation of the country was most unsatisfactory. In a population of 27,000,000, the majority of the Members of that House were returned by 174,000 electors.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he had no wish to incommode the Government, and, in compliance with the suggestions made, would withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.