LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 12 May 1857)

MR. LOCKE KING,

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Property Qualification for Members of Parliament, said that it appeared to him a fitting time for bringing the question forward when the whole House, with some few exceptions, had been so recently compelled—many of them at some trouble and expense—to hand in a statement of their qualifications. The present state of the law was surrounded by anomalies, He was well aware that it was still considered by some to be desirable that differences and anomalies in the qualifications of electors should be kept up—that while an inhabitant in one locality was represented if he occupied a house of a certain value, an inhabitant in another locality must occupy five times as much in value in order to be an elector. He could not understand why there should be anomalies among the elected—but county Members were obliged to have a property qualification of £600 a year, while borough Members were only called upon to show a property qualification of £300. Gentlemen north of the Tweed were elected without any property qualification at all. Members for the Universities, the eldest sons of Peers, and the sons of knights of the shire also took their seats without producing any property qualification. When he compared those Members who produced a property qualification with those who were exempt from this necessity, he could not see that the Members for counties, and for England, Wales, and Ireland generally, were 222 so superior to those from Scotland and the Universities as to show the necessity for the distinction. Among other anomalies which the present state of the law presented, it would be in the recollection of many Members that an hon. Gentleman had a seat in that House, and remained a Member of it for forty years. He sat as the eldest son of a Peer, and at the general election after his father's death he continued to sit without banding in his qualification. Had it not been for the leniency of the House in acceding to a Motion that he might be allowed to hand in his qualification, this Gentleman might have been in a serious dilemma. The case of the son of a knight of the shire was another absurd anomaly, for if re-elected after his father's death he could not take his place without handing in his qualification. But the strongest argument of all was that supplied by the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. He had been unanimously elected by the House, and the Crown had approved the election; yet the right hon. Gentleman stood upon the steps of the chair, and before he could take his seat in it, was obliged to hand in a statement of his qualification. The property qualification had its origin at a period when it was considered desirable to shut out the trading classes from the House, and an actual qualification, in landed property, was accordingly insisted upon. But that necessity for a qualification had been removed, and the trading classes were now allowed to sit without landed qualification if they possessed the requisite amount of personal property. If Members were elected by universal suffrage there might be some argument in favour of a property qualification, but as there was no approach to such a state of things, he saw no reason for any longer insisting upon a property qualification. He would accordingly move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Property Qualification for Members of Parliament.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I thought it had been the understanding of the House that all questions connected with the representation of the people in Parliament and the organization of this House, should be postponed until next Session, and should not be brought into discussion in the meantime. At the same time, if my hon. Friend is desirous, as he may well be, of laying before Parliament the ideas that he wishes to see embodied 223 in a Bill on this subject, I am not going to oppose his intention. It will be satisfactory to him, no doubt, to lay before Parliament the arrangement that he prefers to see adopted in the place of that which exists. Under these circumstances, I hope he will not think it amiss if I abstain from entering upon a discussion of the Bill that he proposes, that I approve of it, and I hope he will forgive me if I say that he has not stated any very conclusive grounds why we should agree to the change he proposes. It appears to me that my hon. Friend has himself acted on the understanding that exists, that discussion on these subjects is not desirable during the present Session. I trust, therefore, he will not complain if I follow his example; and if, while he has not given us any reason in favour of his Bill, except that there are anomalies at every point in in our legislation, I should, on the other hand, abstain from entering into a discussion or from offering any objection to the Bill, I shall not offer any obstruction to the introduction of the Bill, but I hope my hon. Friend will be content to let his Bill lie on the table for consideration between this and the next Session of Parliament.