HL Deb 15 June 1858 vol 150 cc2089-96

Order of the day for the Third Reading read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read, 3a.

LORD RAVENSWORTH

said, he was not about to offer any opposition to the passing of the measure; but he thought it should not go through this, its final stage, without their Lordships' attention being shortly directed to certain results which he was of opinion were likely to flow from it. From close observation of the sentiments expressed, and the language uttered at all popular meetings upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform, be was convinced that the object of the democratic party in this country was by no means confined to so apparently simple a measure as that which now came before their Lordships for third reading. That party did not scruple to declare that in their appeals to the Legislature for a change in the constitution, they would not consent to stop short of that which was well known to the public under the denomination of "the five points of the Charter;" and by this Bill their Lordships were about to agree to one of these five points. It had been alleged that the law of property qualification offered no real impediment to the admission of Members to the other House of Parliament who did not possess that qualification, because in such cases there were means of making provisional arrangements for obtaining a sufficient qualification to enable a person to take his seat in that House. But he would ask their Lordships, in what manner it was probable the concession they were now called upon to agree to would be received by the party of whose creed it formed one of the points? For his own part he apprehended that it would be regarded simply in the light of an instalment of their demands. The four other points of the charter were universal suffrage, vote by ballot, short parliaments, and payment of members. Upon some of these he granted the present measure would have no bearing at all; but upon the first and most material point, universal suffrage, he considered it would have a must important bearing. If the Legislature determined on abolishing the property qualification, and declared that property afforded no security for the character of a representative, the leaders of the democratic party would not unreasonably ask, if they had any right to insist longer upon a property qualification for the constituent body. Now, the basis of the Reform Bill of 1832 was property; and was it not a logical inference that those men who were anxious to carry out to their full extent those popular principles, would say that having abolished the property qualification for representatives, the Legislature had no right to insist upon a property qualification for constituents. That, then, was one of the consequences of the measure to which he desired to direct their Lordships attention. But further, the moment that the qualification was dispensed with in the case of Members of Parliament, precisely the same argument would be advanced against the continuance of the legal qualifications which were now necessary for the holders of different public offices. He did not know what was the qualification for a borough or county magistrate; but he believed that a property qualification was required, and the moment the qualification for so important an office as that of representative of the people was abolished, the same argument would be urged for its abolition in these cases also. The other question upon which the measure before their Lordships would have an important bearing was the payment of Members of Parliament; and if by the abolition of the property qualification persons were sent to the House of Commons who were not worth a shilling it was only just and logical to conclude that they would say to their constituencies, "If we give you our labour, you at least ought to pay us for it." That, then, was another consequence of the passing of this Bill, the concession of a third point of the charter, the payment of Members. Now, their Lordships' House was looked to with confidence by all the friends of order and of the constitution in the country; and he was sure there were few, if any, of their Lordships who believed that the "five points of the Charter" could be conceded without the risk, nay the certainty of a change, if not the ruin of the existing constitution. If universal suffrage, vote by ballot, amid annual parliaments were granted, the constitution would be no longer safe, and neither our limited monarchy nor the privileges of the House would be maintained in their integrity. Their Lordships must, therefore, be prepared to make a stand against further attempts at legislation in this direction. It would not be long before another Bill would come up from the House of Commons for lowering the franchise of county constituencies. The present measure was therefore only the first of a series of demands that would be made upon the Legislature, and he feared that its effect would be to put additional weapons in the hands of the democratic party. He had confidence, however, in the good sense of the people of England. He did not believe that that party, powerful, restless, and able as it undoubtedly was, did really represent the unbiassed opinions of the people; and, with reason and justice on their side, he was certain their Lordships would receive the support of the people in resisting the unconstitutional demands of the democratic party.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY

My Lords, I very much concur in what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just sat down. In the course of the discussions that have taken place upon this Bill its real importance has been too much overlooked. It has been commended to your acceptance mainly on the ground of its removing from the statute-book Acts of Parliament that have become inoperative, or that have been fraudulently evaded. Upon the abstract propriety of repealing such laws no objection has been, or could be, urged; but viewing the Bill as properly part of a general measure of reform, viewing it also in connection with other Bills at present before Parliament affecting the representation of the people, and seeing that the tendency of them all is to relax every restraint upon the democracy, I cannot but think that more consideration ought to have been given to its policy than it has received at your Lordships' hands, and that it has been hurried through its several stages with a precipitation that precluded the possibility of due deliberation. The importance of the Bill now before your Lordships clearly cannot be limited to the repeal of inoperative laws. Upon such a question there could not have arisen in the other House of Parliament that controversy which we know by the votes upon the table of this House it gave rise to. The real purport of the Bill is rather to be inferred from the principle of the laws which it repeals. Those several Acts of Parliament were, from their very titles, manifestly designed to exclude from the Legislature persons who were not in circumstances of independence, and had no stake in the country for which they were to make laws. This principle you are now called upon to give up unconditionally, and for no other reason than because it has been insufficiently provided for. When the Bill shall have passed, you will practically have declared that property, and the independence which its possession imparts, are not necessary as qualifications for a seat in Parliament. Such a step, my Lords, is not unimportant, and will be regarded by the Chartists as of marked significance as the concession of one of the points of the Charter, at the very eve of the introduction of a Reform Bill by Her Majesty's Government. Again, my Lords, you have on the table of the House Bills, to which I will not now more particularly refer, for dispensing with Christianity as a qualification for a British legislator. There are therefore at present in progress in this House Bills which, if they should become laws, will at once sweep away every test of property, of personal independence, and of Christian profession, at present required of those who are to make laws for this wealthy, commercial, and Christian country. Further, we learn by the Votes of the Commons that other measures connected with Parliamentary Reform are under consideration in that House. A Bill for the establishment of Vote by Ballot, another point of the Charter, has not, indeed, made much progress, but its principle has not been repudiated. But another Bill, for the institution of a £10 franchise for the constituencies of English counties, has met with more favour and is likely soon to be sent up to this House. I do not give any opinion upon the particular merits of measures not yet before this House, nor will I anticipate what your Lordships may do with them when they are brought before you, but I cannot help remarking that the tendency of all this piecemeal legislation appears to be, without any counteracting agencies whatsoever, to raise up an unbridled democracy that may imperil the liberties of the country by first destroying the proper balance of the constitution. I would, therefore, desire to impress upon the House, and especially upon Her Majesty's Ministers, the importance of putting a stop to the passing of Bills involving concessions to the democratic power in the country, that must operate to the prejudice of that free and full consideration of the subject of a general Reform Bill, which the public now look forward to. Though I can hardly hope that any suggestion of mine will have weight, I yet feel it right to express my opinion that a Select Committee should be appointed to take the evidence and collate the opinions of the most eminent reformers, so as to give to the country the best measure that can be framed. It is reasonable to suppose that the subject had been very fully considered by the late Ministry, when it was specially noticed in the Queen's Speech, and that it included the recommendation of a £10 franchise for counties, is to be inferred from Lord Palmerston's recent vote upon that question in the House of Commons. The value of what the late Ministry were prepared to recommend should be examined into, as well as the published views of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) and the proposition of an educational franchise. If the introduction of a Reform Bill be not preceded by such an inquiry, it is hopeless to expect any satisfactory settlement of the question. But if your Lordships, in place of instituting such an inquiry, should determine upon proceeding by piecemeal legislation, I would earnestly hope that, as some compensation for the Bill now before the House, another Bill should be forthwith introduced to abolish the privilege of freedom from arrest for debt which Members of both Houses at present enjoy, and to prevent bankrupts from sitting in either House. It is true, that by the 52 Geo. III., c. 144, bankrupts are declared incapable of sitting and voting; but as the Commissioners' certificate is not transmitted to the Speaker till twelve months after the bankruptcy has been declared, and there is no penalty against the infringement of the law, there is practically a sanction given for men of the most desperate fortunes acting as legislators for this great country. Measures for the remedy of these evils would, I believe, go far to reassure the public mind, now becoming not a little alarmed regarding the character of the promised Reform Bill. These observations, my Lords, I have considered to be not uncalled for by the nature of the Bill now before the House, and I trust your Lordships will not deem them irrelevant to the question of the abolition of a property qualification for Members of Parliament.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

said, he certainly had not expected that this Bill would have been presented to their Lordships without any opposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government, for it repealed no less than seven Acts which had been pass- ed by their predecessors for the purpose of securing the respectability of the House of Commons. He quite concurred with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Ravens-worth) in thinking that if a property qualification were dispensed with in the case of the elected, Parliament would thereby be paving the way for its abolition in the case of the electors, and would, as a consequence, be taking a most decided step towards the introduction of universal suffrage into our representative system. Now, one of the main arguments which had been advanced by the noble Earl who had moved the second reading of the Bill in support of the measure was, that the law as it now stood was so frequently evaded that it was useless to maintain it. He must, however, remind the noble Earl that there was not a single enactment upon the statute-book against which the very same objection might not, with more or less justice, be urged, while, for his own part, he could not help thinking that under the operation of the existing law, notwithstanding its occasional evasion, some security was afforded that an individual who had been returned to the House of Commons was, at all events, to some extent entitled to aspire to that honour, inasmuch as if he did not happen to possess the necessary qualification himself, he must, before he could take his seat, obtain one from somebody who did possess it, and who might be regarded as being, to some extent, responsible for his being a person of respectability. There was also the further advantage in maintaining the law as it stood that men who had not the necessary qualification were in consequence discouraged from coming forward and creating disturbances among the constituencies through their being aware that, even though they should succeed in obtaining the majority of votes, they could not take their seats in the House of Commons. The arguments which had been advanced by the noble Earl at the head of the Government in reference to the Bill upon a former evening, he had, he must confess, heard with considerable surprise. That noble Earl had, upon the occasion to which he alluded, stated that the measure was an unimportant one, and that, therefore, he did not deem it necessary to oppose its passing into law. Their Lordships must, however, bear in mind that to yield position after position to the enemy, was in warfare a most dangerous policy, inasmuch as it tended to give confidence to one's opponents, and that if they were to go on passing measures such as that under their notice they would be rapidly tending to the slough of Socialism. He firmly believed that their Lordships were doing very great injury to the public in allowing this Bill to pass.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, the Bill had been supported in the other House by a large body of Gentlemen who were as much opposed to the "Charter" as the noble Lord (Lord Ravensworth) himself could be. It had been said that persons who wanted to become Members of Parliament might borrow property qualifications from somebody else. Yes; but at what a sacrifice of principle! They were required to take at the table of the House of Commons a solemn declaration that they possessed this amount of property for their own sole use and benefit; whereas it was perfectly well known that the qualification was lent to them only for electioneering purposes, and that they neither had received nor ever could receive any possible use and benefit from it. Was it possible that a law which operated in this way could be called a bulwark of the constitution? He was happy to find that a majority of their Lordships, including the members of the Government, were opposed to such practices, and that they had the courage to surrender that which they would not be justified in withholding. By such concessions, as the noble Earl at the head of the Government said, they would place themselves in a better position for resisting demands which they believed to be improper.

LORD DENMAN

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time this day six months, because it appears to me most unconstitutional. In all cases of common and special jurors and relieving officers a money qualification is required, and I believe that in Sydney, New South Wales, at one time a qualification of £500 in household property was required, and afterwards dispensed with in the Assembly of Representatives; but that it was found necessary, from unfit persons being elected, to return to a property qualification. I was taken by surprise on this question, and intended to divide the House upon it; but as I can enter a protest from merely voting against it, I will, with the leave of the House, withdraw my Motion.

Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert (" this Day Six Months").

LORD BROUGHAM

supported the measure, not because he believed the existing law to be one of no importance, but be- cause it was vexatious in its operation, because a compliance with its provisions was constantly coupled with falsehood and sometimes with perjury and because he thought it much better on the whole to get rid of this qualification. He thought, however, that Parliament ought consistently to accompany this measure with another,—not to take away the privilege of Members from arrest on judgment, but to put all persons on the same footing as traders were placed by the Act of 1812, so that they should be incapable of sitting and voting, and a new writ should issue as though the seat was really vacant, if within twelve months after bankruptcy they did not pay the whole of their debts and have their commission superseded. He had in 1845 introduced an Act to this effect, renewing the attempt without avail in 1849; and he felt confident that, if the property qualification had then been abolished, his proposal would have been accepted. Impressed with this belief, he should, after the passing of the Bill now before the House, reintroduce a measure to the effect he had stated.

LORD CAMPBELL

appealed to the noble Lord (Lord Denman) not to divide the House on this subject.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Then the Original Question was put, That the 13111 be now read 3a; objected to; and on Question, Resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.