The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-04 00:00:00

REFORM BILL.

Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.

Mr. E. DENISON,in reference to the 27th clause,would
adduce an adjudged case to prove the endless litigation and
general confusion which would arise under its present
form. It had been decided at the General Quarter Ses-
sion, that a person inhabiting a house and paying 4s. a
week had a settlement under the clause, but when brought
before the King's Bench, it was decided that although
the payment of 4s. a week was a larger sum than 104
a year, yet it did not give a settlement. That lef
question where it was, and, in the same way, endless liti-
gation and squabbling would be occasioned without com-
ing to any satisfactory conclusion. The decision left
is open to what weekly amount would give a settlement.
His proposition, however, which was indeed substantially
that of his Hon. Friend, would be founded on the simple
rate, and not upon the value. The question of rate was
preferable to the question of value; he would, therefore, fix
the franchise upon the former. It might be objected that
a new assessment would be occasioned all over the country,
which being so universal, might admit of much job-
bing. He was anxious, therefore, tct avoid the necessity
of a new Reform, and he should propose that reference be
made to the Commissioners to the rate as it stood at present.
If the 101. clause were sent forth in Cumberland, by
the objection arising from value, it would be a ver
fruitful source of litigation, which under his prop •:51-
tion might be prevented.—( Hear, hear.) He shoald
therefore move as an amendment, to leave out the words in
clause 27, which followed the word " occupy" in line 28,
down to the words 101. in line 33, for the purpose of in-
serting the following words! "Any premises answering
to the description hereinafter mentioned."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL understood his Hon. Friend to
propose that the franchise should be attached 'to the house,
rather than the persons inhabiting it, and that houses having
been ascertained to be of the value of 101., a settlement
under the clause should belong to it. But the difficulty,
if it existed, did not to his mind appear to he at all les-
sened by the effect of this proposition, The difficulty would
be at that to ascertain whether the house was of that value.
It would not be necessary to enquire into the subject of
the value again, for, as a point of practice, an occupier of
a house would be admitted to rate as the occupier of a
house of 10/. a year. The difficulty was with respect to
those houses to which an additional value had been
affixed, and which the Honourable Member who
had just sat down, had proposed should not be
placed in the register till after the lapse of three
or five years, with regard to that difficulty which he felt,
he (Lord J. Russell) did not think that it was
just to act as he had pointed out, because
persons who had built houses of considerable value
ought to derive the !same advantage and the same
privilege which was enjoyed by persons inhabiting a house
of 101. a year. With respect, however, to what
the Honourable Member had stated with reference
to houses rated at 10/. a year, as to the difficulty of as-
certaining their value, on which a good deal of discu.sion
had taken place last night, there was only one fact by which
be (Lord John Russell) had tried to put aside that
difficulty, namely, that in the city of Norwich there
bad been for some length of time very serious disputes
with respect to the appointment of the guardians of the
poor by the corporation, and at length an inhabitant of
Norwich applied to Parliament for a Bill, by which
the right of voting for guardians of the poor was
vested in persons occupying lands or tenements of the
value of 101., and who should be rated to the relief
of the poor.—(Hear.) That Act had been in operation
for some time in the city of Norwich, and a year or two
ago, that Act requiring an amendment, certain parties
brought in a new Bill, which was the subject of much dis-
cussion in that House, but the clause which enabled persons
occupying tenements of 101. a year to vote at the
election of guardians for the poor, had been found
so efficient in practice, that it was introduced into
the new Bill without any alteration. The Noble
Lord then read a letter front a gentleman residing in
Norwich, strongly advocating the good effects which
had resulted from that clause to the city of Norwich.
The Noble Lord referred to the Act of 1827, and read the
clause in it relating to the 101. qualification, and stated
that it had been found easy in practice, and wasar carried
on now without difficulty. The application forafranchise
would be tried with a kind of favour on one side, ,
on
tiun
would have but little difficulty hi having that c ann decided.
Mr. W. WY.NN thought the election of guardian of
different from that of a Member of Par -
the
the poor was very
ptheerssoirdlse
colfaitnl,iionsge
tcolavinoatiengiuth:ifrrtauneclo:ira, 101.
(:)tt.tr.ici
1. oh: ca
It would be impossible to lay down in this Act
liatnent.
a set of rules by which ull the assistant barristets ant
iibt,ionbsesitogulddelciledgcid.nues,d.:th :1
the
teboein titineeef ethleectifoina-niciebt

favour to the claimant, he thought that the investigation
of such claims would be attended with great inconvenience.
After a few words from Lord ALTHOIi P, which welt:
inaudible in the Gallery,
Sir R. PEEL said that the Act alluded to regarding
Norwich was passed when party spirit, ran very high in
that town ; but whether the Act was applicable to the case,
or afforded every proof of the benefits to be derived
frt.m the clause in the Reform sill under dl,cussion
remained to he seen. The Norwich Act was passed
solely with a view of assessing the houses to the poor rate,
and he had not heard the Noble Lord opposite say
that the inhabitants of Norwich voted according
to their contribution to the poor or county rate.
If there was to he one criterion for the franchise and
another for the contribution to the rates, and if_

they agreed, it would be well, but if they did not, in
what state would the qualification be. He advised
the Noble Lord to get rid of these annusl rates, and tix it
for three or five years, and for God's sake to get rid of the
difference of value.—(Hear.)
Lord J.
_RUSSELL would be glad to take the assess-
ment to the poor or county rate as a criterion, if he
possibly could ; but it was so irregular, that it would be
impossible to adopt it. The question to decide was, whether
the House would take on one side, a rule for the franchise
that would lead to many inconveniences, or whether they
would exclude from the franchise a great many house-
holders. The Government preferred incurring those incon-
veniences which would exist but for a time, and to give
to the constituency a large proportion of respectable house-
holders.

Sir R. PEEL asked why Government did not at once
have a new and complete valuation of property; that was
the best mode of doing justice, for the overseers would be
anxious to make the rate as high as they could, and the
rate-payers would have an interest in making it as low
as they could, so that in the conflict between them
justice would be done, besides the creating another benefit,
that of making all persona pay their just proportion to the
poor rates.
Lord ALTHORP thought that the Right Hon. Baro-
net's proposition, if acceded to, would tend in a most mate-
rial degree to increase the obstacles opposed to the right
progress and well-working of the Bill. The Noble Lord
then alluded to the difficulties which invariably occurred
in ascertaining the real present value of property at the
quarter sessions, and, in conclusion, maintained that the
mode of inquiry, and the criterion of value, proposed to be
adopted in the el:use then under their consideration, was
infinitely the best and the fairest.
Mr. C. W. WYNN repeated his argument against this
part of the clause.
Mr. BEST offered a few observations, which were to-
tally inaudible.

Lord SANDON had no doubt that the effect of the
Bill would be that, in all parishes in which any political
difference of opinion existed, a re-assessment of the whole
would take place, and thus all disputes and all difficulty be
for ever put an end to.

Mr. WARBURTON thought it would be a matter of
great difficulty to arrange a new plan for assessment, and
Ministers, it was well known, had difficulties enough on
their hani!s at present He had heard an illustration of
that argument the other day. On assessing some property
in the Tower Hamlets an attempt was made to under
value it, for the purpose of preventing the possessor from
voting.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, notwithstanding what had fallen
from the Hon. Gentleman, was still convinced—and, in-
deed, the argument of the Hon. Member helped to convince
him—that the plan he proposed was the best.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that tl:e
poor-rates could not be safely trusted to, as they were
placed on a different footing in different parts of the country.
Mr. MASON objected to the poor-rate as a criterion.

After a short conversation between Mr. GRANVILLE
VERsos, and Lord Jolts RUSSELL, as to the time for
the Hon. Member moving his resolution, of which he
aye notice on Thursday,
Mr. G. VERNON proceeded to state the nature of it
The great objection he bad to the plan of the Bill, arose
from the difficulty of getting parish officers to act impar-
tially. It was a matter of great difficulty at present to get
persons to discharge the duty of overseers, and it would he
still more so if such a power as that proposed should be
granted to them. Indeed, it was so difficult to procure a
fair test, that he would almost prefer payment by scot and
lot as a criterion, and he was induced to think that in four
times out of five that would be the safest way. The Hon.
Member, after m iking some further observations, which
were very indistinctly heard, moved the following resolu-
tion :—" That after the word landlord' these words be
inserted, rated to she relief of the poor, or, in places
where there has been no such rate, to the county.'"
Mr. FRESHFIELD had an amendment also to pro-
po.e, which if the Hon. Gentleman would now permit
him he would move. It would precede ti e motion of the
lion. Gentleman, if he would waive his priority, as the
would which he wished to have inserted in the clause
came before the word " landlord."

After a few remarks from the Chairman of the Com-
mittee, Sir C. WETHERELL, and Mr. Otos:En,
Mr. VERNON consented to waive his proposition
until that of Mr Fri-shfield should be disposed of.
Mr. FRESHFIELD then proceeded to move his
amendment, viz., to leave out the words after the word
" tenant" in lines 32 and 33, i lause 27, in order to insert
these words, "under the same landlord."
Lord ALTHORP considered the amendment would be
detrimental to the Bill, and therefore he should oppose it.

After a few observations from Mr. C. PELHA3f, the
amendment was put and negatived without a division.
Mr. VERNON then moved bib amendment, as above
given.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON oljected to it, and declared his
intention of supporting the clause as it originally stood.
Colonel WOOD should certainly support the amendment.

After a few word, from Colonel biviEs,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment, as it
would prove an additional obstacle to the Bill if it were
adcpted.
_ _ _

After a few words from Mr. P. HOWARD and Lord
SANDON,

Mr. S. WORTLEY suggested that the statement of the
value of houses should be taken from the assessment of the
poor rates.
Mr. J. CAMPBELL said, that if such a suggestion
were to be adopted, great dissatisfaction would be created,
for the assessments to the poor rates were bad!ymade.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said that out of doors this
clause had excited great attention. He was himself
opposed to the motion made on the previous evening by the
Hon. Member for Preston, but he could not conceive upon
what principle it was the advocates of this clause should
have on that occasion voted against the Hon. Member ; for
he believed, partially speaking, this clause would give a
vote to every person who would have been comprehended
in the motion of the Hon. Member for Preston. No
houses under the value of 10/. were rated to the taxes, and
therefore all householders paying taxes must be househol-
ders to the value of 101., and entitled to a vote according
to the clause as it now stood. The value was so open to
litigation and disputes that the Legislature ought to make
rent the standard. He again contended, the effect of
this clause would he to produce universal suffrage. The
Noble Lord admitted the respectability of the inhabitants
of the rural districts, but he said they wanted the political
knowledge which was to be found in towns. The inha-
bitar.t• of towns, then, had political excitement and Poli-
tical Unions to recommend them to the consideration of
the Noble Lord.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.)
A rent of 11., a rate of 1/., and no inhabited house duty,
would produce at the election a crowd of witnesses to shew
tl at the house was of the yearly value of 10/. He main-
tained that a reformed Parliament would laugh to scorn
the very measure which the Noble Lord was now advocat-
ing. He contended that the 101. franchise given by this
clause was too low, and was generally felt to be so. The
etf.ct of throwing so large a proportion of the representa-
tion of the country into the hands of the 10/. househol-
ders would be to call into existence a degree of political
excitement, which he considered extremely dangerous ; but
if that political excitement was considered necessary or de-
sirable, he could see no good reason for opposing the mo-
tion made by the Hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hunt).
Some lion. Members, be had no doubt, considered the
discussion on this subject extremely ttdious, but be beg7,ed
to remind the Committee, this clause was the most im-
portant in the Bill, and it would have to be considered in
another place.—(}lear, hear.) He thoug'.t it impossible
that it could pass through that other place in its present
shape, and it was the less likely to pass if it had not been
fully and deliberately considered in the Committee. H.
contended that, as the clause now stood, persons in joint
occupancy, having a first floor, a second floor, or a base-
ment story, having a common staircase, and paying
38. 101. a week rent, would be entitled to sots. There
was another mode in which votes might be multiplied,
which be did not believe had been contemplated by the
framers of this clause. Six persons might take a house
worth 60/. a year, and all six be entitled to vote as tenants
in common.—(Cheers.)
Lord .ALTHORP agreed with the lion. awl Learned
Member who bad just sat down, that the clause now under
consideration was one of the greatest importance. It was
the clause on which he (Lord Althorp) set the greatest
store.—( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
argued that it was unnecessary to introduce the provision
waking it necessary that the bout, holder should be rated

to the poor rates, as tl e other test—the 101. value way
sufficient. It was well known, however, that many per-1
suns were rated to the poor rates who did not occur,
houses of 10/. value ; and, on the other hand, many pi r-
sons occupied 10/. houses, and were not rated to the poor
rates. The clause, tl'erefore, did not go to the length of
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Preston, and fell
far short of universal suffrage, which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had described it as nearly amounting to.--
(Hear, bear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman ob-
jected that the alteration made in this clause, as compared
with the corresponding clause in the last Bill, would le,d
to a grest_extenaion of the franchise, because, in the last
Bill, there were several tests necessary, in addition to the
value of the house. The intrinsic value of the house,
_however, was felt to be the simplest test, and all the
others had been dispensed with. Another objection
to this clause was that, whilst, in the rural districts,
respectable persons occupied 10/. houses, and houses
of a smaller value, in large communities houses of
that value were generally occupied by persons of
the humbler classes. He agreed with his Noble
Friend (Lord John Russell), however, that persons
occupying 10/. houses in large communities, from
the political knowledge, and the information which
they often possessed on public matters, were well entitled
to vote, and might eserci.e the elective franchise with
great advantage to the public. All the information
which he was possessed of led him to the conclusion that,
under this elause, the franchise would not be extended
in large towns to unfit persons or those who would be
incapable of exercising it beneficially—(Hear, hear).—
Being rated to the pocr rate', was an additional security,
as it would give a great facility in discovering who per-
sons were, and where they resided, upon their claiming the
right of voting. With respect to the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman's objections as to joint occupancy, he (Lord
Althorp) did not admit that it was well founded. Per
sons occupying the several floors in a house with a com-
mon staircase, could not vote under the clause unless their
holdings were taken as separate tenements and separately
rated to tlse poor rates.
Mr. BUNT would vote against the amendment, because
the effect of it would be to lessen the total number of voters,
to which he was opposed on principle.
Mr. GRANVILLE VERNON begged tobe allowed to
state again why he propos-d the amendment. He was a
sincere friend to the Bill ; but he thought the Noble Lord,
by this clause, was putting it in the power of the over-
seers throughout the country to decide who should or who
should not have votes.

The Committee then divided.—The numbers were—
For the original clause °5•2
For the amendment lB4

'Majority for the original clause

On the re-opening of the gallery Lord ALTHORP was
addressing himself across the table to Mr. Goulburn,
hoping, as it was understood, that, as the hour was so late,
the Right Hon. Gentleman would not make any opposition
to the resolution which he would move in the Committee
of Supply on his undertaking that the report should he
brought on the first thing on Monday night, when the
Right Hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of
making any observations which he judged necessary upon it.
Mr. GOULBURN would acquiesce in the Noble Lord's
proposal, on the understanding that on Monday the report
would be brought o❑ at a sufficiently early hour to admit
of a satisfactory discussion.
The Committee then proceeded with the clause, and the
blank was filled up with the words "ten pounds."

Mr. DAVIES GILBERT moved an amendment, that
after 101. should I e inserted the words " above the value
of any part or parts of such property uuderlet in any
manner %%hatsoever."

Lord ALTHORP opposed the amendment, on the
ground that it would have the effect of excluding the best
etas of voters in the large towns.

The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. WARBURTON should have presented a petition
from the 'National Union relative to this clause, if he
Lad hail an opportunity. He had not been able to do en,
but lie should now state some of the objections contained
in the petition, and which occurred to himself. Tiie pe-
titioners stated that from what they knew in Westminster,
the making the payment of rates or assessed taxes, par-
ticularly of rates. a condition of voting, would lead to bri-
bery. Every one knew that such things had taken pace as
candidates paying rates for poor voters, and he feared that
that practice would he resorted to under this provision, in
spite of any Act against bribery which might be intro-
duced. The Hon. Gentleman moved the omission of all
that part of the clause which made the payment of rates a
condition of voting.

Lord ALTHORP objected to the amendment.
Mr. HUNT was aware that the practice alluded to pre-
vailed in the west of England, hut he now heard for the
first time that it was known in the city of Westminster.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT did not know what might
have been the case in ancient times, but he did nut be-
lieve that any such practice had prevailed while he was
connected with Westminster.

Mr. WARBURTON alluded to ancient times, but not
so far distant as to be beyond the memory of man.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
The Committee having got through the several verbal
amendments on the clause,

The CHAIRMAN put the question that it do stand
part of the Bill, when
Mr. HUNT should not trouble the House at any length
upon the motion which he had to make upon the present
question, as it had already been discussed. He should,
therefore, content himself with saying that the proviso
which he wished to add to the clause was in strict con-
formity to the principles of the Constitution, which did
nit contemplate subjecting any subject to taxation who
had no share in the election of the representative who as-
sisted in imposing taxes. His motion was—" That all
persons who should be excluded by the operation of the
present Bill from having any share in the election of the
representatives in Parliament of the nation, should he
exerni,ted from the payment of rates and taxes, and also
should not be called upon to serve in the militia, or be
made liable to impressment for the army or navy." The
Hon. Member declared he should not divide the House
upon this proviso.
The questio❑ that this proviso be added to the clause was
then put from the Chair, and negatived without a division.
On the question being again put front the Chair,—
" that the clause, as amended, do stand part of the Bill,"
3lr. HUNT rose fir the purpose of bringing forward
the motion of which he had given notice last night. Why,
asked the Hon. Member, was the borough of Preston to
he excluded in this measure, and to he disfranchised? He
ha! never heard any charge brought against the electors
of corruption. If the clause passed, one of the largest
boroughs in the whole kingdom would be reduced to a
condition as rotten as Old Sarum. For a great number of
years the borough of Preston had been equally divided he.
tween the Whig and Tory interests. The Noble House of
Derby had influenced the return of one Member, and the
large manufacturers in the town had returned the other.
The people of Preston, however, had emancipated them-
selves from the former influence, not out of any disregard
to the Hon. Member whose return tvas so influenced—the
present Hon. Member for Windsor ; but because they had
thought proper to select himself for their representative.
He should feel it his duty to move that a proviso be added
to the present clause to the effect, " that nothing in the
present Bill do have any operation on the borough of
Preston."

Lord ALTIIORP said that the Hon. Member had
asked him why Preston was selected in particular for dis-
franchisement? To this lie must answer, that Preston
was by no means selected from any other places, but it
happened that a great portion of the electors fell under the
general rule which, for the benefit of all, it had been
deemed advisable to adopt as the principle upon which the
franchise was to be conferred. The lion. Member had
asked why the Preston electors were disfranchised by him ?
Would the lion. Member allow him to ask, in his two,
why the lion. Member wished to disfranchise them him-
self, when he moved so recently that all who did not be-
come entitled to a vote under this Bill should he exempted
from the payment of rates and taxes ?
Mr. nuNT—When I made that motion I hail not the
slightest expectation of its being carried.—(Loud laughter.)
I said so, did I not?—(Laughter.)
After a few observations from Mr. ROBINSON and Mr.
NJACKINNON, the Committee divided, when there appeared
aK.)
For Mr. Hunt's amendment 5
Against it
Majority ----:93

Mr. MACKINNON moved that at the end of clause 27
there shall be added as a provis,,, that in all boroughs,
towns, and cities, in whic:i by this Bill the franchise shall
depend on a qualification of 101. rental as a householdtr,.
the right of voting for such places where the number of
voters shall be 500, shall be confined only to such house-
holders as pay a yearly rent of 15/ and that when the
voters shall amount to 1,000 in number, the right of voting
shall be confined to those paying a yearly rent of 201.
Lord ALTIIORP felt decidedly hostile to the principle
of the amendment, as drawing invidious distinctions as to
the right of suffrage in different classes.
Mr. W. PEEL should support the clause.
Mr. BARING suggested that it would be wiser to leave
tLe proviso in blank, as to the amount.

After a few words from Lord Althorp, Sir J. Scarlett.
Lord .Milton, Col. Davies, Mi. Heywood, Lord Morpeth,
ird Sandon, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Wason.

Mr. iII•KINNON tuid tl:at at tlCia late ll,ur of the

night (half-past twelve) lie would not give the G.antnittee
the trouble of dividing, but begged leave to withdraw the
motion, and he would bring it forward again in an amended
shape
After some cries of " Divide !" the motion was with-
drawn. The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress,