The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-04 00:00:00

, he very honours of ordination—aye, and even to shake the
powder from the wig of the all-potent but bewildered Lord Ad-
vocate of the day. And is it not wisdom to foresee that all
this may soon return? If you stop up the channel which the
Constitution has provided for the feelings of the people, de-
pend upon it they will break out through other channels
which the law has not acknowledged. The Scotch have but
lately tasted the swects.of freedom, but their appetite for re-
form has only been sharpened by enjoyment ; and if their
enemies should succeed for a time in depriving them of its
expected fruits, believe me, sooner or later, they will bring
the evil to such a head, that it can neither be continued with-
out danger, nor ended without convulsion. Sir, I have now
concluded all I have to say upon the subject. I thank the
House for its attention ; and I have now to say, that the peti-
tions presented to you upon it are just and reasonable in their
nature—the arguments they are founded on are strong—and
the appeal to your protection is not likely to be made in vain.
—(Hear, hear.) When the Hon. Gentleman sat down he was
greeted with four distinct rounds of applause.
Mr. ROBERT FERGLTSON seconded the motion.
After the eloquent and imprc.isive speech of his Hon. Friend
who had brought the subject before the House, he felt that it
was altogether unnecessary for him to make any lengthened
observations. It was clear that the object of the Reform Bill
was destroyed by such practices as had been alluded to by his
lion. Friend. The continued exercise of such means of in-
fluence as had been stated to the House would at length
compel the Legislature to adapt the ballot as a means of pro-
tection to the honest voters.—(Hear, hear.) He had long
been opposed to the ballot, but the recurrence of such pro-
ceedings as had been so eloquently described would render its
adoption a matter of absolute necessity.
Sir GEORGE CLERK felt bound to compliment the
Hon. Member on the talent and eloquence he had displayed
in bringing the subject under the notice of the House,
and on the manner in which he went into the various details
connected with it ; but at the same he (Sir G. Clerk)
hoped that he might be allowed to say that the Honourable
Gentleman had drawn somewhat an exaggerated statement.
Although the Honourable Member disclaimed being actuated
by party motives in bringing the subject before the House,
yet Honourable Members could not fail to be struck by the
difference of language in which the honourable gentleman al-
luded to certain proceedings of those with whom he acted and
to similar transactions of the political party opposed to him.
( Hear, from the opposition). If the system to which the hen.
member alluded were calculated to destroy the principle of
the Reform Bill no doubt steps should be taken to put a stop
to it; but it was not too much to say that it had been prac-
tised as much by the Whigs as by the Tories.—(Hear, hear.)
Ile was prepared to say that if there were an extensive crea-
tion of fictitious votes by collusive qualifications which was not
contemplated by the Reform Bill, means should be taken of
put a stop to the system. It, however, must be obvious that
when parties were nearly balanced, neither of them would be
very scrupulous in going to the very verge of the law for the
purpose of supporting their various interests. But he very much
doubted whether the Honourable Member had taken a cor-
rect view of the Reform Bill in the observations he had
made. The Honourable Gentleman stated that one of the ob-

jects of the Reform Bill was to get rid of non-resident voters.
Now the Noble Lord who had introduced that Bill stated that
it was intended to get rid of non-resident voters in cities and
boroughs, because the Members of those places represented
local interests; but that non-resident voters were to be preserv-
ed in counties, :because the county representation was rather
the representation of property than interests. On this ground
the right of voting was preserved to all persons who held a
sufficient property qualification, whether the party were resi-
dent or not. Thus a person might have property in various
counties, and would be allowed to have a vote for each of them.
Under the system of the old political franchise in Scotland,
there was little disposition or interest to divide property, and
multiply qualifications. When the suffrage became greatly
extended it led to a great division of prope,ty. This was par-
ticularly observable in Ireland, where the soil had been so ex-
tensively parcelled out for the protection of the political inte-
rests of the great landed proprietors. The lion. Member
spoke in terms of great reproach of gentlemen who had ac-
quired property in a number of counties for the purpose of
voting. If there were a bona fide purchase of this property,
he could not see what possible objection could arise to the
owners having the suffrage. The objections of the Honour-
able Gentleman should be entirely to the creation of collusive
qualifications, which was not contemplated by the Reform Bill.
___(Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt that there was
a great difference between the number of voters in 1832 and
in 1836. It reference was made to any town or county
in England, it would be found that there had been an in-
crease in-the number of the constituency in nearly the same
proportion as had taken place in the several Scotch counties.
At first many persons were ignorant of the nature of the rights
conferred upon them by the Reform Bill, and did not take the
proper steps to be placed on the register; but in a short time
this became generally knowy, a..d those who bad the qualifica-
tion took care to be placed in a situation to be enabled to cxer-
c;se tncir right. He could not help, however, observing that
it appeared to him to be rather a novel doctrine on the part of
Gentlemen opposite, to object to the increase in the number of
names on th:., register as voters.—( Cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) He recollected that while the Reform Bill was before
the House, an able article appeared on the subject in the
" Edinburgh Review," in which the writer objected to the
disfranchisement of the old voters in Scotland, although
under this Bill the right on which they claimed the suff-
rage was taken away. The argument was that the more
extensive the suffrage was made the better it was. Such
objections as had been urged by the Honourable Member
would almost justify the insinuations thrown out while the
ReForm Bill was under discussion, viz., that by the arrange-
ments then proposed, Hon. Gentlemen opposite were rather
anxious to frame and extend the franchise in a way calcu-
lated to promote their party purposes than for the pro-
motion of the general public good. Such conduct would
fully bear out the assertion made a few nights ago by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath, that they had introduced and
pressed forward such measures as they thought were calculated
to advance their own interests, instead of looking forward to
such plans as were conducive to the public benefit. The prin-
ciple to which he had alluded with reference to the franchise

had already been partially acted upon, for it would be recol-
lected that it was some time ago found out—when the English
Municipal Bill was before Parliament—that the freemen of
England were too poor to be entrusted with the franchise ; and
an attempt was made to take away from them those rights
which had been guaranteed to them by the Reform Bill.
Under these circumstances he could not help looking at
the subject with some degree of suspicion ; but, at the same
time, he was willing, and indeed anxious, to put a stop to
any system by which fictitious votes were created.—( Hear,
hear.) He had no objection to inquire into the existence
of fictitious votes, provided the inquiry was conducted with
fairness and impartiality. In doing this, however, they
must draw the distinction between this class of voters, and
certain classes of voters created under the Reform Bill. For
instance, the Hon. Gentleman objected to a farmer having the
names of his sons included in his lease, that they might enjoy
the elective franchise. This could ❑ot be done unless with
the full consent of the farmer, and he ( Sir G. Clerk) could
not see what objection there could be to allow this to be done.
The Hon. Gentleman also objected to life-renters having the
francbise. He wished to know whether the Hon. Member was
prepared to deprive all this class of voters of their franchise.
The question with reference to these votes was fully considered
and debated, when the English Reform Bill was before the
House. At that time a forty-shilling life-rental was consi-
dered too small qualification. After a very long discussion, it
was with great unwillingness that the present Lord Spencer.
consented to disfranchise even the forty-shilling life-renters.
If, therefore, a Committee was to be appointed to inquire into
the collusive creation of voters, he did not see what necessity
there was to go into the question of life-renters. He was aware
that attempts had been made to create fictitious votes—but did
not the Reform Bill provide a remedy for this ?—for the parties,
before they could be registered, had to go before the Sheriff's
court and establish their claims. He would refer to a case of
this kind, which he believed was well known. In Roxburgh.
shire an attempt had been made to create fictitious votes, but
this had failed; for when the parties went before the sheriff to
establish their qualifications, they did not succeed.--( Hear.)
And what, he would ask the lion. Gentleman, was the party
with which these persons were connected ? The Hon. Gen-
tleman alluded to a list which he held in his hand, but which
he did not read, of persons residing in Edinburgh who had
votes in several places. Now he (Sir G. Clerk) had no doubt
that a similar list might be made of pesons pursuing exactly
the same course on the other side. He was quite as far as the
lion. Gentleman from regarding this as a party question, for
it was the common interest of all to take care that none but
those duly qualified under the Reform Act should have votes.
The Hon.- Gentleman had limited his motion to Scotland, as
though the manufacture of fictitious votes was never heard
of in England.—( Hear, hear.) The innumerable instances of
such abuses in the English Registration Courts, however,
should have suggested to the Hon. Member the desirableness
of setting the matter to rights South as well as North of the
Tweed.—(Hear, hear.) The House need not be reminded of
the instance in one of the English counties (Huntingdon),
where an attempt was made to create forty votes out of one
single field, though not one of the forty worthy electors,
when inquiry came to be made into the subject, was at all
able to point out which out of the forty portions of the land it
was that he claimed to vote in respect of.--( Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Nor was the evil confined to English counties, for
the instance could be pointed out in which very nearly the
same parties who were concerned in making such good use of
the field he had spoken of, had also exerted themselves with
great industry in the manufacture of fictitious votes in a city
not far distant.—( Opposition cheers.) He therefore did
hope that the Hon. Gentleman and the other pure Reformers
—(a laugh)_who had brought forward this subject would
not confine their exertions to Scotland.—(Cheers from the
Ministerial Benches.) He would at once say that if the
Committee were fairly composed, so as to preclude the
prospect of its being actuated by any party bias, he was per-
fectly ready to vote for its appointment to inquire into the
whole subject, not only as regarded Scotland, but in reference
to the counties and towns of England, and, if necessary, of
Ireland.—(Cheers from both sides of the House.) This,
at any rate, would be doing great justice to Ireland.—( Hear,
hear.)

Mr. ROEBUCK said the country was much indebted to
the Hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion, as it
afforded a tangible means of testing the sincerity of those who
said they wished for a really responsible representation ; of
ascertaining whether the House would do as former Houses
had done in the matter of bribery—admit every thing but the
right means of putting an end to the grievance. The evil
which the Hon. Member had complained of with virtuous in-
dignation was one. which necessarily arose out of the present
character of the franchise qualification, and was, with other
evils, only' to be remedied by the extension of the suffrage
and of the introduction of the vote by ballot. The Hon. Gentle-
man opposite was quite right in saying that the evil was not