Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

upon him except the constraint of custom, in a Bill which he introduced some years of public opinion, and of individual feeling. ago relating to mortgages, but he could Under these circumstances, and without assure the House he had quite trouble entering into any detailed objections to the Bill founded on the difficulty of carrying its provisions into operation, he opposed it upon principle. Ile objected to it funda mentally, as at variance with our monarchical and constitutional institutions, and as tending to produce either despotism or republicanism. He was unwilling to promote either the one or the other; and he must therefore oppose that measure to the utmost of his power.

MR. LOCKE KING said, that he thought the noble Lord had given expression to what he (Mr. Locke King) must consider prejudice, such as he could scarcely have expected in the leader of a Liberal party. The noble Lord's speech would better have become the head of Her Majesty's Government in "another place." The noble Lord had not contributed much information to the House, for the solitary case of the landowner in the New Forest had been previously brought to their notice; and if that individual was so exceedingly proud of his estate having been handed down so many years, surely it would not be a very great hardship for him to hand it down to his heir by will instead of by descent. The learned Attorney General had made what he thought a very good point when he commented on the evils of permitting an estate to go away from the eldest son. He said that a man died in peace under the existing law, because he knew that his estate would go to his eldest son. He died in peace, then, because the rest of his children and his widow were entirely destitute. [Cries of "No!" He thought that naturally followed. As an unfortunate layman, it would ill-become him (Mr. Locke King) to attempt to answer the arguments of the learned Solicitor General; but whilst he acknowledged the fairness of that hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments on most occasions, he (Mr. Locke King) thought that they were in this instance both far-fetched and technical. He spoke of the case in which a man might die, having by will disposed of his personal but not of his real estate. That was a very small matter, and by way of contrast he (Mr. Locke King) would put the case of a man who had bequeathed his personalty and then after the date of his will contracted for the purchase of real estate. He had been asked why he did not embody a provision to meet that case

enough to pass that Bill as it was, without introducing such a provision. However, in the event of this Bill not passing, he would promise to introduce such a Bill to the House. Again, the learned Solicitor General said the House was not to make a will for a person who neglected to do so himself; and he seemed to intimate that the person ought to suffer for his neglect. But that person was not the one who suffered. The man was dead and could not suffer, and it was the widow and children who suffered, not so much from the neglect of the deceased as from his ignorance of the state of the law. The learned Attorney General had stated that the small landowners were aware of the state of the law, but he (Mr. Locke King) possessed undoubted evidence to the contrary, and that the discussion which had taken place on the subject in the House had done much good by calling attention to the subject. The learned Solicitor General had, in a good-natured way, bantered him on his views with regard to the law of entail. He (Mr. Locke King) thought the system of entails was not desirable for this country; but he did not propose to alter the law on that subject, and for the very reason which induced him to bring forward the present Bill. This Bill was in harmony with the feelings of the people on whom the law of intestacy acted unjustly; the system of entails was in harmony with the feelings of the large landowners. He therefore proposed to deal with one case, and not to touch the other. The right hon. Member for Radnor did not seem to understand the law of dower. He said, if a man possessed of land died intestate one-third went to his widow. Practically this was not the case, for in all deeds of purchase the dower was barred. If an estate came to a man by inheritance dower operated; but then it was very small, because, although in personalty dower was a third of the principal in case of realty it was only a third of the income — a very small sum indeed. In conclusion he would express an opinion that public feeling was very strong on the subject of intes tacy, and that the division list would be discussed on the hustings whenever hon. Members again made their bow to their constituents.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided :-Ayes 76; Noes 271: Majority 195.

Words added. Main Question amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for six months.

NEWSPAPERS, &c., BILL.
SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. AYRTON, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was not necessary to discuss the measure, because it was altogether a question of detail, and if there were any objections on the part of Government they could be considered in Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, there was no objection to the second reading.

Bill read 2o.

CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS BILL.

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read. MR. COLLIER moved the second reading of this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HUNT proposed, as an Amendment, that the debate should be adjourned. The solution of the question relating to the conveyance of voters would depend upon whether the House adopted the system of polling papers which formed part of the new Reform Bill, and it would, therefore, be a mere waste of time to discuss it now. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned.'

MR. HEADLAM said, he would advise his hon. and learned Friend to proceed with his Bill as rapidly as he possibly could; first, because it was extremely doubtful whether the Ministerial scheme of reform would ever be discussed in that House; and secondly, because the question relating to the conveyance of voters was in that measure mixed up with the objectionable proposition of polling papers. It was now seriously proposed for the first time that a gentleman sitting in London should be entitled to vote for a borough without being an inhabitant of it, and without having the smallest connection with it. He might vote for Morpeth, for Penzance, or for a Welsh borough, neither of which he had ever seen, simply from having ordered his agent to purchase in it a 40s. freehold. What

would be the consequence? Any person for a small amount of money would be able to purchase for himself a freehold in twenty different boroughs, and would be entitled to record his vote in every one of them without stirring from his own house.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the observations of the hon. and learned Member, as far as I can understand them, have reference to the Bill now before the House.

MR. HEADLAM proceeded: Of course he would bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, but he wished to submit to the House that the reason he urged for the adjournment of the debate was that the question of polling papers was to be considered on a future occasion; and his object was to show that the great objection to the polling papers, proposed as a substitute for a system entailing great expenses on the candidates, was, that a person sitting in London would be able to vote for any number of boroughs throughout England without having seen one of them. If one person could do this, so could a combination; and so, therefore, could a club in London, and thus rule the elections throughout the country. He said it deliberately, that by means of these polling papers a club might interfere with all the elections in the kingdom. He wished to state this in the clearest possible manner.

MR. PACKE rose to order, The hon. and learned Gentleman was discussing a Bill not before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I have already expressed an opinion that the course of argument which the hon. and learned Member is pursuing is not in accordance with the regular practice of the House.

MR. HEADLAM said, he would then recommend his hon. and learned Friend to go on with his Bill, because no good reason had been urged for the postponement.

MR. STEUART said, he should vote in favour of the adjournment of the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Newcastle was mistaken. He had not carefully perused the provisions of the new Reform Bill. If he had done so, he would have found that, in addition to the proposition relative to polling papers, there was a clause respecting the payment of the expenses of voters. He would then only say that the question would come before the House whether the expenses of conveyance should be paid. That, he believed, was in the Reform Bill. That question would before long have to be solved in another

place; and he thought, therefore, it would not be wise to go into it now, especially as there would not be time to complete the discussion before the House rose at six o'clock.

MR. BYNG remarked, that the Act which legalized the payment of the expenses of voters was passed in a very thin House, and at a period of the Session when the Government were able to carry any measure they pleased. He maintained that to convey voters to the poll was contrary to sound principle, and he trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth would persevere in his endeavours to repeal an obnoxious and dangerous enact

ment.

MR. COLLIER observed, that when he introduced the Bill he was told that the subject had been so much discussed during the last Session that it was exhausted; but now that the House was on the second reading an adjournment was urged on the ground that there was not time for discussing the question. [Cries of "No!"] He so understood the objection. He asked leave to introduce this Bill, which was a Bill to repeal a continuance Bill that expired in July, on the ground that the law was objectionable, and that there might be a dissolution, in which case the influence of the purse would be enormously increased. He saw no reason now to induce him to think that a dissolution was less probable; and when he was asked to postpone his Bill because there were similar provisions in another measure before the House, his answer was that he did not think that other Bill would pass, that he considered it to be a bad Bill, and that he should endeavour to prevent its passing. He should proceed with his Bill.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON remarked, that he could not say that he had heard any good reason why the House should not proceed to consider the Bill. Whatever opinion hon. Gentlemen might entertain of the Bill, he thought there could be no reason why the House should not enter on its discussion, and ascertain what arguments could be adduced on either side.

On a former occasion he had expressed an opinion against one of the provisions of the Bill. The other-that, he meant, with respect to polling places-he thought no one would object to. He hoped, therefore, the House would not insist on the adjournment of the debate, but that they would allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed to the second reading.

MR. BARROW said, he objected to the proposed multiplication of polling places. No man in the House was more opposed to bribery than he was. At present the law permitted candidates to pay the expense of sending voters to the poll; and he did not think the substitute proposed by the Bill would diminish the expense to the candidates. If there was a polling place in every parish he knew places where voters would still have to travel seven, eight, or nine miles; but the multiplication of polling places would greatly increase the present expenses.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, he rose to order. The hon. Gentleman was discussing the merits of the Bill, but the question before the House was the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman is not irregular.

MR. BARROW proceeded: There might under the Bill be twenty polling places, but if so, there must be twenty deputy sheriffs, twenty professional gentlemen, twenty poll clerks, and twenty persons to take care there was no personation. The increase of expense would be enormous.

MR. HUNT said, that as it was the wish of the House to discuss the question, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion for the adjournment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. EDWIN JAMES said, the question before the House appeared to him to be a very serious one. Every Member of the House must be thoroughly convinced that the enormous expense which attended elections was a scandal and disgrace to the constituencies of the country. It was a violation of the policy of the House of Commons as expressed in several Acts. It was well known, for instance, that the first Treating Act, passed in 1688, recited that the enormous expenses, not merely with reference to treating, but to the expenses generally, to which candidates were subjected violated the independence of the House and defeated the free choice of the electors. Why, in the metropolitan boroughs [a laugh]-he was entitled to speak on the subject, for be had his agent's bill in his pocket-the expense of the conveyance of voters to the poll was enough to deter men of great eminence and talent from offering themselves as candidates for seats in the House of Commons. The metropolitan boroughs presented most extraordinary scenes upon

the occasion of parliamentary contests. He would take the case of Finsbury or Lam beth, where every species of "vehicularity" was put into requsition for driving voters anywhere but to the poll. The expense thus occasioned deterred candidates from coming forward to contest these boroughs. It was said that this system had been legalized. Before the case of "Cooper v. Slade" had been decided, at a period when he frequently had the honour of practising before Committees of that House, his advice was often taken upon the point by gentlemen who intended to offer themselves as candidates; and his reply was that in point of strict law such expenses were not justified, but that if the practice were carried on by both parties, and the case came under the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons, they would take a fair and liberal view of the question. No doubt, however, it was a violation of the law. The country would not believe that the House of Commons was sincere unless this Bill were passed to repeal a law enacted somewhat rashly, if he might venture to say so, in the preceding Session. The House was anxious that elections should be free, and he must observe that the honest voter did not require to be conveyed to the poll. He was charged £400 for his polling places for the borough of Marylebone, and the hustings would have been a disgrace to a gingerbread-stall proprietor at a fair. In his opinion the candidate should be freed from all unfair and unjust expenses, and as the present Bill had that object in view he trusted it would

pass.

MR. O'BRIEN said, he wished to point out to the House the effect of the measure in reference to the Irish constituencies. In that country there was a large territorial aristocracy holding strong opinions of a Conservative character. They had the means of conveying voters to the poll, and if the poorer classes had not some person to carry them also to the poll, they would in point of fact be handed over to the teritorial aristocracy. He should therefore oppose the present Bill, which would have the tendency of suppressing the popular element in Ireland.

MR. STEUART said, he thought the House ought not rashly to repeal the legislation of the former Session. That measure had been fully discussed and decided upon by many divisions during the last year, and no plea of surprise could be advanced for reversing the legislation then

adopted. The objections to that Act were that it would increase expense to candidates, that it would legalize expenses which some persons contended amounted to bribery in disguise, while others said, that though not actually bribery, the act must lead to that result. With regard to the first of these objections he thought there was a consideration paramount to expensethat every voter should have an opportunity of recording his vote. They might increase the number of voters by enlarging the franchise, but this was a step in the opposite direction, and was calculated to disfranchise a large class of voters. Again, it was argued that the payment of the conveyance of voters should be made illegal, as it trenched on bribery; but he did not believe that the moderate expenditure required for conveying a voter to the poll would operate as any venal inducement in respect to giving his vote. Bill appeared to be a perfect pitfall, through which any hon. Gentleman might fall into the clutches of an Election Committee, and it would at the same time have the tendency to disfranchise a large class of voters.

The

MR.WHITE said, he had been surprised that Government should adopt the retrograde policy of supporting the Bill of last Session for allowing the expenses of conveying voters to the poll; but his surprise had ceased since this Session had commenced. He saw it was the precursor of a novel and transcendental system of politics of which before he had no idea. He had thought that they were to have representation founded upon numbers and upon property; but he had lately learned that representation must have reference to particular interests, and the Government evidently wished to promote the omnibus and cab interest.

MR. DEEDES said, he would have been ready to join any one in endeavouring to postpone the consideration of the present Bill until the larger measure of reform, now before the House, had been more ventilated, if not disposed of; but as he was called upon to vote on the matter, he should pursue the same course as he did last year, and oppose what he believed to be fraught with danger to the country,the introduction of any system legalizing any payment to voters. If a voter was to be paid for travelling a long distance, why not also give him something to eat and drink? And if that was allowed a door was at once opened for remuneration of a doubtful character. He should

[blocks in formation]

desirable state of things? He stated it as a case within his own knowledge. When the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James) said that Committees of the House would exercise their own discretion, provided the expenses were paid on both sides, he virtually proposed that the election of hon. Members to seats in that House should be decided by Committees of that House at their discretion. For the sake of freedom of election, and of due respect for the franchise of the people of this country, he hoped the House would not revert to the former state of things.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that last year he was of opinion that it would not be right, by the operation of any Act, to disfranchise those who could not convey themselves to the poll. The Bill of last year, however, was proposed as a temporary measure; and if any one in the present Session brought forward a plan constituting more polling places, the desired object would be attained in a better way. This proposition had now been made by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. It was obvious that the paying of expenses was near akin to bribery, and instances had been known at county elections of candidates paying a sovereign to persons in order that they might go to the poll, when perhaps the expense of conveyance would not exceed 2s. 6d. or 3s., and he had heard the same complaints in the metropolis. Seeing, then, that his hon. and learned Friend's Bill provided for an increase of poliing places at no great distance from the residences of the voters, he should with pleasure give his vote for the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he wished to state his reasons for voting against the Bill. He considered that this was a Bill for disfranchisement. Hon. Members might need, and the borough electors might need conveyance much less in boroughs; he wished to state what was the case as to the counties. He was prepared to affirm, from full knowledge of the case, that the passing of this Bill would be the actual disfranchisement of a large proportion of the county voters of England, and he would mention a case which occurred in his own constitueney. Previous to the passing of the Act legalizing the conveyance of voters to the poll, there was a contest for North Warwickshire. In a particular division the great majority of the voters intended to poll for his hon. Colleague and himself, but both the candidates opposed to himself resided in that division, both of them largely connected with landed property; the one a landowner, the other the brother of a large landowner. Many of the voters in the division were tenants of these Gentlemen, both of whom were well qualified to represent the division. So these electors of their own accord, from a feeling of respect for their neighbours who were candidates, but of different opin- MR. HUNT said, he should move as an ions from themselves, determined to form Amendment that the Bill be read a second their own Committee, separate from the time that day six months. He did not general Committees, with which he (Mr. support the Bill proposed to be repealed Newdegate) was connected, and polled a as the best measure that could be devised, large majority for his colleague and him- but as the best practicable one. He did self in their district. When asked at the not believe that any one was anxious to inconclusion of the contest, by the agents crease the expenses of elections, but many of the general Committee, if there were were anxious that poor voters who were any expenses to be paid, they replied not able to reach the poll without assistthat they would bear their own expenses, ance should not be disfranchised. and that they were glad that the candi- ing that Bill would lead to the disfranchisedates they favoured were returned. But ment of a large number of voters. For would the House believe, that if a peti- his own part he should like to see the tion had been presented against their polling booth brought to every man's door return his hon. Colleague and he would and he trusted to see the number of polhave been unseated because these indeling places very largely increased. Every peudent men had carried some of their man ought to vote in the place where his fellow voters to the poll? Was that a qualification lay, and the same system of

Repeal

« ZurückWeiter »