The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-06 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION

.• chire to these freeholders residing within the district; it
would have the effect of disfranclesing many voters ; an'l
be also thought that all the voters ought to to reeis•ered.
He moved that the words " residing within such district"
be left out.
Mr. HUME objected to the omission of the wcrds.
The retention of those words would tend to diminish the
- the expense of out-voters. When the Bill was introduced
he had objected to disfranchising any persons who had the
- right-of voting for coronet.. He believed that at the pre-
- -sent mo-nent coroners were elected by Universal Suffrege.
He proposed to give the right of voting to all persons
',..rated to the poor, which would give a constituency 90E-
. eiently extensive aed would secure a register unconnected
either with town or country register. The poor man had
as great an interestin the election of coroner as the rich
• are, and he should move an amendment to the effect that
the coroner should be chosen by all persons rated to the
poor in the district. He had no objection to have the person
. rated for three months ; what be desired was that in taking
• up the overseers' book to the booths, and it should consti-
tete a list of electors and a check upon the voters.
Colonel T. WOOD objected to the Hoe. Members
proposition as a swamping of the freeholder?. He should
• • press his amendment before the 11011. Members was put.
Mr. HUME objected to retaining the outvoters, and
hoped the Hon. Member would not press his amendment
to a division.
Mr. PAKINGTON suggested that they should dis-
cuss the amendment of bis Hon. and Gallant Friend first,
and he must object to it as his great object would be de-
feated if the words were left out.
Mr. WA K LEY was glad to hear what had fallen from
the Hon. Member who spoke last. He considered it the
most important provision that the Bill contained, and one
that would tend more than anything else to diminish the
enormous expense of elections.
Mr. ESTCOURT supported the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Middlesex, and hoped the Hon. Gene
tleman who had the care of the Bill would consent to his
proposition.
Mr. FOX NIA ULE supported the clause as it stood in
the Bill, because the small amount of disfranchisement it
would cause would not be so great an evil as the enor-
mous expense of bringing up out-voters. He trusted the
Hon. Gentleman would not consent to withdraw the words.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the clause.
Mr. BARNEB Y thought the clause ought to run in
such a manner as to give the franchise for the coroner to
whoever held it for Parliamentary purposes.
Mr. JOHN JERVIS supported the clause, as the bring-
ing up of out-voters was a very great evil in the election
of a judicisl and ministerial officer iike the coroner. Of
two evils he would choose the least, and would therefore
support the clause as it stood.
Lord DUNGANNON supported the amendment. He
could nct see the justice of the proposition. Upon the
same principle they ought to say that no freehold,er should
vote for more than one Member of Parliament. He pro-
tested against such a monstrous doctrine—it was tatting
away the rights of property.
Mr. BR OTHE RTON supported the clause. It would
save great expense in the election of coroner, and prose a
great benefit to the officer and all concerned.
Mr. WARBURTON said that if it was true, as was
asserted, that the wishes of the landlords were generally
followed in elections, what more could the Hon. Member
for Oxford desire? The Hon. Member would have a
vote fur the county in which he resided, and in the county
in which be might have property he would have influence
through his tenants.
After afew words from Mr. JERVIS, Colonel WOOD,
and son e other Members, strangers were ordered to with-
draw, and the House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment —.-
Against it
Majority
Mr.' ',HUME then moved as en amendment to in.
sere the words " as shall at the time of such election
have beet wed fur six months for the relief of the poor
in any parish iu such district," so as to give every rate-
payer the right t r vete.
Mr. PAKINGTON opposed the amendment.
Mr. FOX MAULF. said he could not think there was
any office in the country in which the lower classes were
so much interested as in the office of coroner, and be should
therefore support the amendment of his Hon, Friend. He
objected to the franchise of the dance, because it would
substitate the present franchise, which was almost an eni-
venal franchise, far a more restricted one, ( hear, hear.)
Mr. J. JERVIS felt obliged to vote against the amend-
mete, thinking the right of voting should be confined, as
it always had been, to the freeholders of the county.
The freeholders were, by the c tmmon law, responsible
for the conduct of the cororer, and it was now proposed
to give to a diff•rent class—the rate-pavers—the power of
electing that officer. The whole of the law on the sub-
ject of the office must be altered if this amendment were
adopted, and immense difficulty would arise in many cases
affecting the liberties of the people, such as outlawry, &c.
Questions connected with these subjects were already sur-
rounded with many perplexities, which the legal profession
found a dlicult to resolve, but they would be icfir
multiplied by this pr iposition,
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the amendment, because
it ,would do away with a great deal of perjury and simplify
the qualificatior, besides extending the franchise.
Mr. WARBURTON agreed with the Right Hon.
Gentlemen the Under Secretary to the Home Department,
that it was most desirable to extend as widely as possible
the franchise for the election of popular rergistrates. The
Coroner was the most popular officer in t-ie State, and
derived his title from the words de corona populi, because
it was contented he should be elected by tee crowd of the
people. Under the present system, the elections were
.carried by corruption ; and every person who could be
brought up to swear that he was a freeholder, was per.
milted to vote. The Hon. and Learned Mi niter was
mistaken in his antiquarian lore. If the coroner did
wrorg, and was fined by the Court cf Queen's Ber ch,
then, in hit default of payment, the fine must be paid out
.of the county razes, which were contributed, not by the
freeholders alone, but by the class of persons which his
flee. Friend the Member for Middlesex proposed to en-
franchise.
Colonel THOMAS WOOD was surprised to hear a
me.nber of the Government defend a franchise from the
abuse of it.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He opposed
the amendment.
Mr. WILBRAHAM supported the amendment, be-
csuse the original clause would tend to disfranchise exist-
ing voters, and the amendment would enlarge the franchise.
Mr. HAMILTON expressed his determination to vote
with the Hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Jervis), and
against the amendment of the Hon Member for Kilenny.
After some further discussion the House divided when
there appeared,
For the amendment 4B
Against i. 63
Majority against the amendment —ls
On our return to the• gallery we found Mr. JERVIS on
his Clogs proposing an amendment to retain the old class of
vatiTll.
St 'angers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi-
sion took place. On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Mr. 147AKLEY on -his legs, expressing his wish that
the Hon. ' and Learned Member would withdraw his
amendment, as it would tend to limit the constituency
materially, wbercas the clanse itself would greatly in-
crease it.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared--
For Mr. Jervis's amendment
Against it 3O

40

Majority in favour of the amendment —4B
On our re-admission, we found
Mr. PAKINGTON inquiring whether the amend-
ment having been carried, the Hon. Member proposed
:that the franchise should remain as it was now, or did
be propose to disfranchise the out-voter freeholders ?
Mr. JERVIS did not mean in any way to limit the
franchise. Be thought every freeholder of any kind and
every kind should have the franchise.
Mr. WAKL EY said the House did not know what they
were about. The amendment of tl.e Hon. Member for
Cheshire bore the most outrageously disfranchising di a.
racter of any he had cv: r sewn ; because, in a previous
part of the clause, it was declared that the franchise should
.be confined to ret•idonts. The effect of it was to reduce
the constituency of West Middlesex to 4,000, whereas, by
the Bill of the Hon. Member for Droitwich (Mr. Rile.
ii.gton) it wAold 'each 27 000.
Mr. GISBORNE defended the amendment of fee
Hon. Member for Chester. Why should th, nearly last
privilege of the 40s. freeholders be taken away ?
Mr. GODSON suggested as there was such a di,: r-
-4,:ty of opinion on this clause, it would be better to post-
-7,10e it till another n'ght, when they might settle it upon
too:. rood understanding.
The Committee then divided upon a formal amendment,
moved by Mr. JERVIS, for the purpose of carrying out
his former amendment, when there appeared_
For the amendment 75
Agair:st it 97
Maj,,rity
c wrn to the gallery we found
On our rWO OD.
Colonel moving that the Chairman report prc-
gres?, and Ask lyh'eloNsitoageairi.
Mr. PAK ING Tv_ 13e sed the motion. Although
he thought tbe BM waA injured by the decision at which
.the House bad just ate ive4. neve:tneless if he succeeded
in carrying the ;Leasure he would, he conceived, effect a
great improvement in the subjt.lt,to which it referred.
Colonel WOOD
was prepar. d
.to do whatever the
general sense of the House might L'irect. His object was
that the House having come to the determination what
the franchise should be they should enahl. the lion.
Member to tike time to see how he could best carry his
views into effect.
Mr. PAKINGTON did not want time.—(A laugh.)
Colonel WOOD then said that he would withdraw his
motion.—Motion accordingly withdrawn'
Mr. WARBURTON then moved an amendment to
include the class of voters which would have been included
in the Bill as it originally stood.
Mr. Jeevis and Mr. AGLioNBY opposed the motion,
'which was withdrawn.
Mr. T. EGERToN and Mr. E,TCOURT Said they would
op?, .ac the clause.
m, . GODSON advised his Hon Friend to withdraw
the elasese, and bring uo another with the Report.
Mr. VOX NI A ULE was of opinion, that residence was
essential to carry out the principle of the clause, in (.+s our
of which he i:ati already voted.
After a few, words from Mr,.J..i),i;sz., strangersvand Nlr.JwetevrTersoirn.
explanation, amidst vice of
dered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the
numbers were--
For the clause. 73
Ag .inst the clause 4
Majoeity for the clause —2s
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bid.
aClatres 7,6, and 9, were agreed to without any of,p,_
- . sifitli.
NEi
i.S I A it plAuses 10, 11, 12, and 13 were then agreed to.
i..,. __ Oa Clause 14 being proposed,
Mr. TATTON EGERTON moved an amendment,
zeb4: - .
teemapdoareetiongf
athweitaceoaro,naeari toie is:ausee
ehfisrewfearsraainttefoirmtpbreisaeta-
1. —, . *
~1/471cItly ;. him.
.._. The_amendment was opposed by Lord Dungannon, Mr.
:a--- 7 :Jervis, aiid Mr. Godson.
e .•
----,, Mr_frASTCOURT would not object to the imposition
411 44 ;