The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-05 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE

Sir HESKETH FLEETWOOD then rose and
said, the question he was about to bring befc re the
House was one of the most important of those which
could possibly affect the elective franchise in this coun-
try, and he should confine himself as much as
possible, to the reasons which led him to move for leave
to bring in the Bill which he now was about to describe.
He had sought information from all political parties on
the subject, and had invariably found that all parties
admitted that it was founded on just constitutional prin-
ciples, and contained within it nothing that could alarm
the most timid, as being likely to affecting the existing
institutions of the country. He had given notice of
his motion on the subject long before the Noble Lord
the Member for Stroud had published his address
to his constituents, and the sentiments in that pamphlet
were in accordance with the views he (Sir H. Fleet
wood) was now advocating. Being accustomed
to regard that Noble Lord as the leader of the
question of Reform in that House, it was gratifying
to find that such was the case, and that he could ex-
tend the franchise to an immense number of persons,
without militating against the present constitution of
the Reform Bill. He held that the question could be
entertained without at all affecting that measure, as
it was at present constituted. It merely ment to
confer upon parties possessing the same qualification
and amount of property the franchise at present en-
joyed by others under the Reform Bill. He
held that the 10/. household franchise which was
enjoyed at present by parties residing in cities
and corporate towns should be extended to those
who possessed equal property and intelli-
gence in the counties.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
If the individuals he was seeking to: obtain the fran-
chise for possessed the same property qualifications as
those who at present enjoyed it, it could not be said
that he was extending the principle of the Reform Bill.
There was:another objection brought forward against his
proposition, namely, that although the 101. householder
might be a fit voter for a town he had not the pro-
per qualification for a voter for a country constituency.
Those to whom he was about to extend it were
not persons within the Parliamentary boroughs, but
among the remote districts, and in the small towns
and villages in which there was no borough represen-
tation existing. If he referred to the speeches made
its the course of the Corn-law debate in the House
by the agricultural representatives, he found that in
their enumeration of individuals as being part and
parcel of the land, they invariably included all those
resident in the rural districts and small towns and vil-
lages, who, although they did not live by the cultivation
of the soil alone were occupiers, of land and residents
thereon, as IA longing to the landed interests. He had,
been met by another objection, which was this—that
this measure would in large manufacturing districts be
attended with this danger that the natural constituency
of the country might be swamped by the creation of a
large number of voters' dependent upon the mill owners
having property in those districts. In answer to this
he would direct the attention of the House to the
wording of his notice, whicb only gave the franchise to
the actual occupiers of 10/., the same as in boroughs ;
but if there were any danger of swamping the consti-
tuency he could not but think that the same thing;
would happen in borough towns in which the mill
owners possessed large property. Now, he knew that
this was not the case, and he would mention as a case.
in point the borough of Lancaster, in which a large num-
ber of opulent mill-owners resided of Liberal principles,
and which yet returned two Conservative members ; and
he was satisfied that it was impossible for any mill-owners
to swamp the constituency of a county. There was a
curious fact connected with the passing of the Reform
Bill and the 101. qualification for borough voters. 10
the borough of Preston, which he bad the honour to
represent, he found many of the constituency who were
possessed of small freehold properties, and who were
able to vote both in the borough and in the county ;
and he found other individuals who, in consequence of
the provisions of that:Act, were debarred from the ex-
exercise of their franchises for the county. It might be
said that it was not desirable to give individuals a vote
for a county and a borough, but he found that the .501.
tenant-at-will clause votes were given under the same
occupancy as would give a town qualification, and
thus gave individuals in some instances two votes for
two Members. He was aware of one great difficulty
which he should have to contend with in urging this
question on the attention of Bob. Gentlemen
opposite, which was that they would be unwilling
to support this measure, because they might
suppose that his proposed measure would have a ten-
dency to alter the tone and feeling of the constituency.
But he believed that Hon. Gentlemen opposite were
indebted for the support of the county constituency
principally to the Corn-law question. He would sup-
pose that Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Adminr.
stration, and that the Corn-laws were made an open
question, he would venture to say that this would most
materially affect the return of Representatives in every
one of the counties with which he was acquainted.
Many Members opposed to him had stated to him that
the addition he proposed to make would add to the
spectability and intellect of the constituencies. His
was a Conservative proposition—it was conservative 0'
property and intellect, and would never tend to the de"
struction of any one of the institutions of the country.
It was a question of very great moment, and he in in-
troducing it had kept as close to the subject ils!
passible. He only wished to say that it would not
in any way vitiate the principle of the Reform
Bill or extend the franchise one step beyond it. Itt
rural district, and in villages, a 101. value was known to
all present to be the residence of men of property ot
intelligence—it would add to the constituencies man;
clergymen, lawyers, physicians, and tradesmen, who bad
i
their residences out of the Parliamentary borough, and
in villages it would add many of the more respectable
of the shopocracy.—(Laughter and " Hear, hear. )
He wished that the franchise should be given to those
who were omitted, by some oversight, in the Reform
Bill. He hoped that his motion would draw from the
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) some statement rela- •
tive to the furtherance of Reform.—(Cheers.) The
enthusiastic Reformers throughout the country were oo
the tiptoe of expectation. He would only call the Nob
Lord's attention to the present state in which the whole
body of Reformers were.—(Cheers.) They remenP
bered the benefits they had received from the Govern-
ment, but at the same time they were most anxious to
e
feel that there was some hope for further improvement
in the Reform Bill. The franchise ought to be x.
tended.—(Cheers.) He would not trespass furtheer
to onr
the attention of the House, and begged to mov
leave to bring in a Bill for extending the qualification
of voters for Members of Parliament, representing
English and Welch counties, to the occupier of a house
of the clear annual value of ten pounds, the same as in
boroughs.—(Cheers.)
Mr. T. DU NCOM BE seconded the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said- the Hon. Baronet
he
who had brought forward this question had stated
t st
reasons on which he founded his motion 10 the zn
He
temperate and judicious manner.—(Hear, bear )House
had stated the ground upon which he thought th
consistent
me_
ought to accede to his motion, both as being nt
in
with the Reform Bill, and as being an improve
There
the present state of the franchise in t 0.4 Els;
was a part of the Hon. Baronet's argument, in which
undoubtedly he agreed, and upon which his agreement
was well known to the world. He certainly considered
the introduction of the 50/. tenant-at-will clause into
the Reform Bill—the carrying it to the extent of giving
the right of voting to occupants of property in countiles,
and placing at the same time a limit to the value of the
and thereby destroying the ancient tenure of freeho dt
property at 50/., was a most injurious and dangerous Bill
charge in the Reform Bill, and it was one which the
Government of the day felt themselves bound to .r
The ground upon which it was argued by
Pa°N.oble Lord, now a Member of the other House
(the Duke of Buckingham) was that if it was
right to give the ten-pound householders the right
of voting in towns, it was very unjust to deprive
the 101. householders in counties of the same right ot.
voting ; that it was en obvious partiality in favour of
the residents in towns, and an injustiCe and an injury to
the agricultural population. If that argument was
good one, and he (Lord John) did not think it was,.'!
undoubtedly would go to the extent of giving to to:
voters in counties the same right of voting which wagiven to the voters in towns, because, in point ofII.,
cha-
racter, of property, and of respectability no one coup
deny that the occupier of a house out of the limits of
borough was as fit to enjoy the franchise as those
d to
Therefore he thought time conduct pursued
who opposed the Reform Bill, was calcula
ti""
lead in point of effect to ultimate change.
ceasion
hear.) However, the Government on that 0
for
was defeated. Lord Althorp stated his reason`'
byethose