§ Order of the Day read, and the House went into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
§ Question put on the 27th clause, that relating to the 10l. franchise.
§ Lord Wharncliffeproposed an amendment to the effect, that instead of taking the "clear yearly value" at 10l., as the qualification, that the value should be estimated by the house or tenement's being rated at 10l. for poor's rates. When the former Bill was under discussion, he was one of those who thought that a 10l. qualification would be mischievously low; that it would, in fact, swamp the country with masses of electors the least likely to exercise the right of suffrage with discretion or advantage. On more mature inquiry, however, he found that, though 10l. might be too low a rate in some few places, yet that, considering the country at large, it was by no means so objectionable as he had at first supposed. In the metropolitan districts, in Liverpool, and one or two other places, the 10l. rate would admit very many persons to the right of suffrage, from whom it would be idle to expect a temperate, or wholesome, or well-directed exercise of it; but then these persons were but a few thousands at most among numberless thousands of intelligent and respectable voters; so that it could be hardly worth while to attempt to make local distinctions, so as to separate the worthy from the unworthy. Throughout the several towns of the empire, he did not hesitate to confess that the 10l. rate, so far from being objectionable would provide a very respectable constituency. He had a great objection, however, to the mode in which the franchise was to be ascertained, because he was convinced that the new plan for registration would give rise to more litigation and suits in Westminster Hall than any other legislative enactment ever made. He was really at a loss to know how the amount of rent, or 112 rather the real value of the house, was to be ascertained. The Bill, he did not think, provided sufficiently for that, and he should, therefore, propose a more simple—he would say the most simple—mode of ascertaining the value of the house; namely, the amount of assessment for the poor-rate. It was said in objection to that plan, that the poor-rates were not levied in proportion to the full value of the house, but he thought it would be quite easy to arrange the matter without increasing the rate. He would also propose that, in place of the words "have resided six calendar months," there be substituted a clause making it imperative on the voter to prove that he had rented the same house for twelve months. With these alterations he thought the clause would meet approbation.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the chief question was, whether the voter was a bona-fide householder of 10l. yearly rent, and the mode of ascertaining that was precisely the same with the mode adopted in the counties relative to 40s. freeholders. The question was put to them on oath, if required; and in case of a disputed return, then either a scrutiny took place, or the matter was referred to an Election Committee. The same would be the case with regard to the 10l. franchise, and the means of ascertaining the right of voting would be just as good in the one case as in the other. He admitted there would be much litigation the first year after the Bill became law; but, nevertheless, it was necessary to bear in mind, that though it might lead to some evils, a great good would be obtained in the long run. Every year after the first the litigation would become less and less; and the new mode of registration, though clumsy and rough, perhaps, at first, would be found in the long run to be most beneficial. He could not, however, agree to the plan of his noble friend for ascertaining the right of voting from the amount of assessment for the poor, because that would disfranchise at least 100,000 persons, and it would be much better to do that by a straight-forward legislative enactment than indirectly, and by a side-wind. In addition to that, the principle of levying the rates varied in almost every parish, so that no correct standard could be obtained. He approved of the provision which retained to a 10l. house-holder the right of voting, even if he did not continue to reside for twelve 113 months in the same House, provided always that he did not remove to a house of inferior value.
Lord Ellenboroughmaintained, that, as the clause stood, the Overseer had the power of disfranchising any man to whom he objected.
The Earl of Malmesburywas of opinion that the clause would give a power of making voters. It would be only necessary for a landlord or manufacturer to raise the rent of his cottage, giving at the same time a compensation to his tenants by a rise in their wages.
The Lord Chancellorthought, that the necessity for a man to be registered for a long period before he was called on to vote, would effectually prevent the evil apprehended by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Malmesburyfurther objected, that in consequence of the trouble imposed on overseers, respectable persons would decline the office of overseer. It would be sought rather by electioneering demagogues, and the poor would be neglected. He would take that occasion to observe, that if there were to be one happy corner in this country after this Bill was passed, it would be that in which there was no local Representation, no extensive manufacture, and no Political Union.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the Overseer was the only proper officer by whom the registry could be made, and in considering what should be the provisions of the Bill, it was deemed less objectionable to add to the duties of the Overseer, an officer already in existence, than to create a new officer. The expenses would be defrayed by the 1s. a head levied on the voters when they registered.
§ Lord Wynfordwas of opinion that this arrangement would lead to false swearing as to the value of property.
The Marquess of Butesaid, that the 10l. qualification, as it now stood, would not give an independent body of electors, and he should support the Amendment.
The Marquess of Lansdownobjected to the Amendment, that it would disfranchise a great number of electors. He rose, however, principally to express his satisfaction at hearing the opinion of the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) in favour of the 10l. qualification, which some noble Lords had described as revolutionary.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The Clause with verbal amendments ordered to stand part of the Bill.
114§ On Clause 32 being read,
The Marquess of Londonderryobjected to that part of it which limited the right of voting in boroughs to those persons who resided within a circuit of seven miles. The effect of the clause would be, to deprive many of his tenants of a vote for the city of Durham, while it gave new votes to the tenants of the noble Baron opposite (Lord Durham), and added to that alarming preponderance which other parts of the Bill conferred on that noble Lord in the Representation of the county. He had already alluded to this most disgusting partiality displayed towards the property of the noble Baron in the county of Durham, and although the noble Baron had attempted a reply to his objections, its flimsiness was obvious to the House. It was said, that the arrangement was the result of the unbiassed judgment of Commissioners, but those Commissioners, it should be borne in mind, were appointed by the Government, and, without casting on them any very improper or unnatural reflection, he might say, that they would always be anxious to take a course pleasing to their employers, rather than to others, when any hostile interests came into conflict. He again called on the noble Baron to explain, to the satisfaction of the House and the country, why it was that this boundary of seven miles, which gave his property such a preference, was inserted in the clause.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought the noble Baron near him should not answer the imputations of the noble Marquess, that he had, for his own private purposes, inserted particular words in the Bill before the House. The noble Baron should not condescend to reply to such allusions. As to the charge brought by the noble Marquess against the Commissioners, it was equally unworthy of refutation, and he believed there was no other assembly in the country, in which an individual could be found, who would throw out such insinuations against his fellowmen, or impute to them such motives.
§ Lord Durhamhad always observed at that particular hour (ten o'clock), that an extra degree of animation was infused into their debates, and one which formed an agreeable change, from the previous dullness of their discussions. With reference to the call made on him by the noble Marquess, he did not recognise the right of the noble Marquess to ask such questions; 115 nor would he, but that it was mixed up with other matters, have noticed them. The noble Marquess, presuming, probably, on what would have been his own course, had taken leave to suppose, that he (Lord Durham) had turned the power of the situation in which he was placed, to the purposes of private jobbing. He trusted it was not necessary for him to say, that he was not a person to do that. Every one was not of the same frame of mind on such subjects, and he had never felt an inclination to traffick with the liberties of his country. With respect to the boundary of seven miles, he knew nothing of it till long after it was fixed; but he cared so little for it, that if the noble Marquess moved that it should be only one or two miles, he might command his vote; for he had no desire to drive his voters to the poll, whatever might be the practice or the wishes of other noble Lords on such subjects.
The Earl of Radnorobserved, that the noble Marquess had quarrelled with a number which was generally considered peculiarly fortunate. There were seven days in the week, and there were seven wonders of the world; and there were seven wise men; and seven was the favourite hour for dinner; and it was now three hours after dinner.
The Marquess of Londonderry, after the explanation of the noble Baron (Lord Durham) would not say more on the subject, although he still thought it very extraordinary. The noble Earl had been very facetious at his expense; and he had, as usual, been supported by the cheers and yells of the noble Lords opposite, whenever fault was found with a colon or semicolon of the Bill. He had not the ability to answer them; but if the unconstitutional exercise of power had not driven from his side the phalanx that could have put them down, there would not have been so many shouts of triumph.
§ The Duke of Richmondfelt himself called on to say, that he was the person who proposed the boundary of seven miles; and he could add, that the noble Baron (Lord Durham) was utterly ignorant of it, for he was not at that time in England. The noble and gallant Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) had said, that he, at least, would hold out courageously to the last. He had never doubted the courage and gallantry of the noble Marquess, whatever he might feel as to his discretion.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould also say to the gallant Duke, that he had no doubts of that noble Lord's courage, but he had some doubts which would preponderate if the noble Duke's gallantry and his indiscretion were put into opposite scales.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the gallant Marquess was unable to charge him with indiscretion.
§ The Duke of Richmondchallenged the noble Marquess to point out the act of his life in which he had been guilty of indiscretion.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The question having been put on the 34th Clause,
§ Lord Wynfordobjected to the clause, that it would disfranchise those who, by recent Acts of Parliament, throwing open certain boroughs to the hundred, had been enfranchised. For example, it would deprive the inhabitants of the Rape of Bramber of their votes for the county of Sussex.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, the object of the clause was, to prevent any man having two votes for the same property.
The Marquess of Londonderrybegged to ask the noble Lords opposite, why a freeholder of Newcastle, who resided at Gateshead, was allowed to vote for both those places?
§ The Duke of Richmonddid not think it necessary again to revert to the case of Gateshead. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) could not be an unbiassed judge, since he had objected to the distance of seven miles, because that did not include Seaham, which was his property.
§ The Duke of Richmondthought, that such language ought not to be used in the House of Lords. Their Lordships could scarcely wonder that people out of doors should say, that the Lords were guilty of atrocious acts, when, in that House, one Lord was heard to charge another, in the face of their Lordships, with improper conduct; nor could they blame people out of doors for saying that their Lordships were worthy of contempt, when a noble Marquess spurned with contempt another member of that House. The noble Marquess was one of the last persons whom he 117 should choose to insult at any time; but if he had any wish to insult him he should certainly not do so in that House, where their Lordships' rules would prevent him from repelling an insult.
The Marquess of Londonderryacquitted the noble Duke of any wish to insult him, and apologized to the House if he had fallen into any error.
§ On the question having been put upon the 41st Clause,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the power must be vested somewhere, and he thought that the Judges were the persons best fitted to exercise it.
§ Clause agreed to, as were the other clauses down to the 80th, inclusive.
§ The House resumed. The Committee to sit again on Wednesday.