The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-24 00:00:00

•-.6.-I.,ffoicossussoris_. .., ...••••••••
rated at little above 51. ; so that all, with the exception of
women, were entitled to have a vote according to the avowed
objects of the Refarm Bill. Only 45,000 vote: had been added
to the metropolis. This was the result fifteen years after the
Pasting of the Reform Bill. In fact, the constituency was di-
minishing instead of increasing. In Westminster there
were 2„3,295 rated householders, but only 13,h66 voters ;
showing that Westminst.r was in a worse state than
!at the time Sir Francis Burdett was elected in 1607, when
MOO voted. A similar result had taken place in Southwark.
In Liverool the number of rated householders was 44,924,
but only] 4,970 were voters. Jr. the City of London the con-
ttituency had been greatly reduced since the passing of thy
Reform Bill, which was mainly to be attributed to this rate-
-I,),',Ying clause. In fourteen parishes in the City of London,
‘r e overseers would not put any man on the register unless he
lire a
ties e to be rated ; so that the parties had all the technicali-
cornef the law put in force against thsrn. The decision of the
mon Pleas in the great Stockport case, was another rea-
mnehy they should abro ate this clause. Eight rates were
n that town in thegeourse of a year, and it was con-
tended that a voter ought to make ei ht different claims to re-
ceive his vote; and Chief Justice Tigndal, in deciding on the
r't, "tee, said, " it was like keeping a vote by continual claim •
41g." Certainly this was not intended by the Reform 8111.
I The Honourable Gentleman was here interrupted by the
entrance of Sir Augustus Clifford, the Usher of the Black
rßod' who summoned the nouse to hear the Royal assent given
cseveral Bills, a list of which will be found in oar Lords'
port.]
On the return of the Speaker,
itlieAptfriler.thDatllNCOMßE went on to state that he could not be-
, ties
iiviarn, yg thing so vexatious as this was intended by the
l i'M Bill. Gentlemen connected with counties did not
asearthis, as the clause only pressed in cities and boroughs.
in those places were open to considerable
°llressien from the neglect of overseers and others. This
..4‘ no new complaint. It had been the subject of complaint
t,ver since the passing of the Reform Act. The Hon. Member
{I'M read an article which appeared in the Times—which
''
t'wed some of the evils of the system. It was never the
I\l,ention of the Reform Act that such abuse should occur.
44(1 'thciuld they make a difference between county and city
? This ueson should be m
operationmorefully an
of publicone, opin io nn.er It
17E4 "1Y a uestion of the refarm more or leas, and therefore
peeged toq move for leave to bring in the Bill.
the coil RUSSELL—I stated to my Hon. Friend at
to 1 temeneement of the discussion that if it was his desire
i
sla his Bill upon the table of the House, without any discus-
to °4
sus the present time, that I should not he aversesupportort a Course, but that I could not premise him my
thoughn a future occasion. But my Honourable Friend,
plias
~. ,g it better to have the discussion now, unless I should
r;a",r,aise him the support of the Government on the second
cnreaapt:sgfr.oifnithrelewßrpill. My Honourable Friend has not entire y
graphs what was the ancient law. He has read para-
th w apers to the effect that this was an entirely
v:Principle, introduced by the Reform Act, no person
nght of paying rates to be allowed the privilege of
bsecornsigt;,h. tililee.y. was mistaken. The state took the
thought necessary; and ao in regard. to
ofzr--- where there was a common law right
thileer:it.hn,:, and where there were no particular charters to restrict
tion'grt it was vested in householders, but with this qualifies-
wB°ithitleta:lblig • should be householders paying scot and lot.
regard to en
of this was, that they should pay the poor rates.
n interpreted by the courts of justice. Therefore,
urgh,
pince -auntry voters, there was a security, and in
pets, it "" held that they should not be chance lodgers, but
whie nseeke:
sons hwortrltaified sod
house and capable of paying the poor mates,
assured to the State that they.were per-
the
the p ine. Y fe be intrusted with the right to vote , thereforeAt
tViltithuattierorne iPle la not a new one introduced by the Reform Act.
' •
Plea
Reform Act might do to change the ancien..coan-,
udnuteryb,ytthheelnir,inweaipsl:rt,hat principled p y
esfz., :a:: ntdr
fe.e
401;a!tit
tt:toili
if
etethhe rate
ancient t.i.ras-
t, a
made
„provisions of the Reform Act. My Hon. Friend
Reform Act did not extend the franchise so very
wereris''''Y as I calculated. The calculations which 1 formed
ituttithey a very wide basis, and I could not expect
a would turn out with a critical accuracy.
that
,"° thitik that the Hon. Gentleman himself has proved
by tb; 1.7 Y great extension of the franchise has been effecitne
11e,,h ereeln Act. Lambeth has the powers of retuTrn . g
tlasaler,re °I Parliament; so has Finsbury; so has the ower
ii, they .The Hon. Gentleman has stated that 45,000 f personst
shotAlanee new metropolitan burghs possessed the right o. vod itng.
Pow "er, Leeds, and Birmingham had now obtaine he
4ti ssnding Members to Parliament ; so had Bath, and
I)l:lather of other places, not on the scot and lot prin.ciple,
to that Ob a 10/. house qualification, and a test similar
the at
of the scot and lot principle, which meant
beliefPaYment of poor i rates. According to my own
of 13r0' "'then you do intrust the franchise to persons
Otis, Perty, you are more likely to have a better than with a
alai realtuffrage. I own, I think, that if you take away the
tf igation to pay rates and taxes, you would be running a risk
thin
the francbise to persons not worthy of it. And 1
ean 'we have improved upon the practice of scot and lot. I
ancitl.nts therefore, consider that the Bill is in point a good one,
e04,.,1,t would be a great innovation on the Constitution of this
shoal y+ that persons not in the possession of any property,
~.,_°' be entrusted with the right of voting. I shall, therefore,
l';ise duction of this Bill.
thoughtr• GISBORNE said he should support the Bill. He
reasonable
the occupancy of a House quite enough, and saw no
"nnable grounds to deprive a man of a vote because he had
not Paid his rates on a particular day. He should, therefore,
"Apart the introduction of the Bill.
841-1 E LACY EVANS was in favour of the Bill. The
Lreal qi estion they had to consider was, did the rate-paying
a°3e3 operate in the way originally estimated. He sub-
tted
bathe that they did not. They were no test of the solvency
•
parties, as he could prove from several instances which
d happened in the city of Westminster. In the parish of St.
George's no less than 339 persons had been disfranchised by
tthese clauses ; yet these parties resided in St. James's-square,
elgrave-square, and Great George-street. Was it to be said
that these were insolvent persons ? Now it was a remarkable
fact that not one of these had been disfranchised far the now-
Payment of the poor-rates, but because they had not paid the
Government taxes. He trusted that the House would allow
the Bill to he read a first time, and that in a future stage the
'ldeation might be fully discussed. He asked the House to do
th'then they considered that in the metropolitan boroughs
teheee were not more than 50,000 qualified electors, while at
least 100,000 occupiers were deprived of votes by the operation
of these clauses.. ( Hear, hear.)
tilt' P• HOWARD could not agree to the principles of
Fie -kill sought to be introduced by the Hon. Member for
~,-uut`.l Y. If they gave up the rate-paying qualification, he
It 20 net see hew they could stop short of universal suffrage.
toewtitaa the duty of every man to pay the poor-rates and Govern-
laet.o 'aes, and therefore he thought the provisions in the
oidedrre Bill should be maintained. He would give his de-
negative to the present motion.
rai.Aflr. HUNIE agreed with the last Hon. Member, that every
ttlegn°_°g,,l' to pay his ra es and taxes, but there were ether
at 'till. : hltie ad inducing
R•
e th itn:
Lord, when to do so than by the provisions of this
that it w 1(1 be the hear the intimation of the Noble Lord
• Government to oppose the Bill. The
.Nobled
he introducted the Reform Bill, said he believe
,_,.s.a not been thae
This had
Generally against these ati f ction to the 1
enaaas: .of giving satisfaction to the country.
The Reform Bill hadnot given
e
e of this country. They against the Bill in its present shape, and especially
I,bunttils Taelsees ienlaeuvseear'yPeoWphy at the present time, there were
100 'rho had a vote. The Noble Lord
had failed, his
recollect that his prophecy about the Reform Bill
if it „_led• He stated in introducing the Reform Bill, that
less :s,arn e into operation there would not be a borough with
boroughsL° 300. voters. At the present moment there were 35
hfaies:z;viohttieethsoe had less than this number. Some of them, in
would at'', as few electors as 150. He trusted the Noble Lord
tmheatßteirlls.into his consideration, and withdraw
Sir yi Tr
clatues nt,sl,L thought that the repeal of the ratepaying
boron, absolutely neeessar ' In many of the principal
eaaeastos these clauses we s- 3-t
p essive He knew from
hiLi Vence that
trostuee,en disfranchised b
a great nruLtmhmbeors oof
payment
respectable persons
of rates. He
rho ° that the Bill woulyd heealnlaowned to proceed, and that if
d be
rt"l'inn.S were not agreed to, that at least a longer
rates.
Air, all wed than at present for the payment of
rat
Bill
Ihe state " Y NCOURT was in favour of the present
farnilrnent of the Noble Lord had proved that the Be-
lle satroldllhad came far shott of his original calculation when
aegt an, aced the Bill. The Noble Lord had referred to the.
slid
tl't ba"ta t'tlit
the
before the passing of the Reform Bill, and
wiltri-C,,, ip),
of
th,, oprrinevintsuisllgearried ou in another form the
uglification.He could not agree
proposition, as the Government taxes had nothing
Wag anyetVn do with the right of scot and lot voters. If there
lon:
if the
s
ifitheonstitutional in the Reform Rill it was taking
the Nnb", t and lot qualification that formerly existed; and
ttalifleati
Lord would introduce a measure to restore that
e thanaLb,' he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) would support it.
Which ;on that Under the present system there were cases
Wished nautred some alteration of the law, and therefore he
or takf.^, his Noble Friend would either give them this Bill,
a:t2,ne matter into his own consideration.
hots,: lin PECHELL thought that any person holding a
repre_ '''r !ihich he paid 101:, ought to have a voice in the
rnajoraetntation of the borough to which he belonged. The
satisfil 7 e,f the people of this country were very much
till, ea with the present system as framed under the Reform
an na,nd thought that considering the present pressure of the
ardi`f3's and the quiet state of the people, it was most extra-
totnuarY that the Noble Lord refused to allow this Bill to
intr.° t 0 a first reading. He could only say that having been
r sled with a petition from his constituent!, asking them to
toe Peal these hateful clauses of the Reform Bill, he felt bound
iltiPport the
a, ir• WAKLEY trusted that a division would take piece at
ar
-ee. and if it were to occupy another night, when the same
tigainents only could be used, it would be a waste of the public
rile. The Noble Lord had, in his opinion, failed in shewing tha
the measure of the Hon. Member for Finsbury was an unjust
t
"es Alt g hou h the Noble Lord had spoken earnestly—more
earnestly than usual—he did not appear to be actuated by a firm
conviction. The Noble Lord seemed to advocate the principle
that the poor man should be excluded from the registration.
It often happened that men were made poor by improper legis-
lation, and then they told him that lie should be deprived of
ththat which every free man ought to have—a right to Tote in
e representation of his borough. Under the present cir-
cf;rtneesdtanees many who had a right to vote were influenced
entirely by their landlord, or some tyrant of a steward, who
them to vote inconsistently with his opinions.
HP • thought the present system was merely a trick
so rob the poor mark of what the law pretended
,1:. give him, namely, a 101. franchise. He called upon the
iiloouvernment to show to the satisfaction of the public and of the
:vile se' why the borough voter should be deprived of the pri-
dge enjoyed by the county voter. He was surprised at the
naen,ce vshich prevailed on the Treasury bench, and he called
' them to show an good and valid reason why the Bill should
I'"'t be granted. y
I,'
aBLir G. GREY said that the Hon. Member who had just
3"n had complained of the silence which existed on the
threeasury bench ; but he (Sir G. Grey) thought that any fur-
et, r explanation on their part was tendered unnecessary by the
atetneat of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Member had also
said, that the_ arguments adduced against the Bill were of no
weight, There were many of those arguments which went
11°)°nd the Bill; but he differed from the Hon. Member when
tii3 said they had no weight. The argument of the
;Ic:incurable Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, did
i!teeretnaitnirievly go the length of universal suffrage,
.but
It , went on to an indefinite extension of the franchise.
tat'iras of
clear that the Bill would fail to satisfy the expec-
itvioof a large class of the people of this country, but iit. was
point°a proper mode to speak of the Bill, to say that it had t !sap-
:: expectations of the country. His Noble Friend,
.7n n the Reform Bill was passed, gave it as his opinion, that
better to adhere to the old constitutional maxim, of
Ile l'i aYroent of rates, as included in the scot and lot principle.
~,,L,lOl been Pointed out that there were .many abuses
th'"c existed under this system by candidates paying
c rates of
but there would be considerably more difficulty in adjusting
asure of the Hon. Member, and it was tor that reason
s.he, as a Member of the Government did not support it.
FinsburyC NAPIER was very glad that the Hon. Member for
Members had succeeded in unsealing the mouths of some of the
, of the Government, and he (Sir C. Napier) would
"r. !II glad to hear the opinions of the Hon. Members for
shoats and the Tower Hamlets en this subject. He had
understood that this clause was for the purpose of mak-
idiitd ' P"Ple pay up their rates and taxes, but it had evidently
be re 'a that okjett. He thought 1114., the fr.on.hi,e ought to
~.oro extended, and therefore he should support the Bill. 'll WILLIAMS did not think the scot and lot system had