What was household suffrage

Stirling in response to the Adult Suffrage Bill. The petition claimed opposition on the following terms [ii] :. Just shy of 10 days later on 23 August another petition was tabled in Parliament, this time to the Legislative Assembly, by parliamentarian George Hawker, the then member for North Adelaide. This petition was much larger. Signed by at least 11, [iii] men and women from across the colony, from Kadina and Wallaroo to the South East of South Australia.

The petition was a huge turning point in the debates, and we will hear more about those later this year. Saturday 18 August, Page 9. Friday 24 August, Page 3. Accessed 30 July This blog post was researched and written by our Curator Craig Middleton.

Contact Craig by emailing cmiddleton history. My great great grandmothers name is on that petition Emily Bridgman.. Emily was also the area midwife helping mums deliver babies in Adelaide city where their little cottage still remans. Some contributed content on this site ie not written or owned by the Centre of Democracy is licensed differently and indicated accordingly on the relevant pages and within the relevant media.

About Contact Facebook Twitter Instagram. The elective franchise was at present very contracted, and it was impossible to draw any tangible line of demarcation between the competency, moral or intellectual, of the tenants of 5 l. He was anxious that both limitation and extension of the franchise should be based on some reasonable principle, and that it should not be determined on vague and inadequate grounds.

The representative system, as settled in , was disfigured by anomalies which the noble Lord himself could not venture to defend. How did it happen, for instance, that 10 l. Was a householder in a little town which was not a Parliamentary borough, and returned no Member, less intelligent or respectable than a 10 l.

Into the question of universal suffrage he would not now enter. He understood his hon. Friend desired the admission of all householders under 10 l.

Member concluded by saying, that he should lend his support to the motion of his hon. The constitution of England consisted of the estates of the realm. The Commons of England in Parliament, were one of those estates. If the elective body in the country were to be an estate of the realm, it was absurd to have a House of Commons to represent the volition of the nation.

Gentleman, the Member for Kilkenny, talked of the people, he should give some definition of what he meant by the term "people. Member's notion of a people was the electors of Kilkenny; that of the hon.

Member for the city of London those who hallooed him on the hustings. D'Israeli said, that that House, an estate of the realm, was the only representative of the Commons of England.

The gentlemen who smiled or sneered at this, were sneering at the English constitution. Member for Kilkenny said, that the theory of the constitution was, that taxation and representation should go hand in hand. Where did he find that principle? In what part of the constitution did he find it? Member once welcomed with so much enthusiasm, and now attacked with so much causticity? Member had no definite idea of representation.

D'Israeli took it for granted, that the hon. Member supposed, that the principle of representation was the principle of popular election, but the principle of representation did not necessarily include election, as there might be representation without election.

The Church of England was represented in the House of Lords—there was representation without election, for the bishops were not elected by the clergy. The House of Lords was quite as much a representative body as the House of Commons—as much an estate of the realm as the House of Commons, and that House was not elected.

He should like, too, to have a definition of taxation by the hon. If this dogma of taxation and representation going hand in hand were true, he hoped the hon. Member would not deny, that indirect taxation gave as good a claim to representation as direct taxation. If taxation was a qualification for the elective franchise, he wished to know whether indirect taxation was not, and why they should stop at household suffrage.

It would be desirable also to know what the hon. Member meant by the "fundamental foundation" of his scheme. Member took a sentimental view of the politics of the country, and supposed that education would qualify persons for being electors, he would soon find, that when they got household suffrage, they would was universal suffrage, and then they would have no suffrage whatever. Member had supposed that a fallacy had run through the very ingenious speech of his hon.

This was clear; that the hon. Member had pointed out a great truism, that the House of Commons is not the house of the people. This was not the only truism; he had stated another, that election and representation were not synonymous and reciprocal; which he admitted. With respect to the motion of his hon. Friend, if he had confined his notice to the first part of the resolution which he had placed on the votes, he was convinced there would have been a fuller House. Many Members had been prepared to go with his hon.

Friend in his speech as to the extension of the franchise, who were not prepared to go with him as to that part which related to household suffrage. He was prepared to go with him as to household suffrage, leaving the committee to say how far that principle should extend. The noble Lord took the same ground now that he had occupied for the last five years—resolved to adhere to the finality of the measure of The noble Lord had created a new school of politicians—the finality school.

He held, that the reform bill, though not to be tampered with unnecessarily or lightly, had created a tribunal, before which all measures affecting the country could be properly discussed. Before, there was a packed jury to deal with; now, there was a jury before whom there was a chance of a fair verdict.

The noble Lord considered that the changes must come within the competency of the tribunal, and must not diverge from the line prescribed in But the reform bill as we now had it was not the reform bill which the noble Lord had introduced. It had been mutilated in some of its most essential parts by the amendments of the noble Lord's opponents.

We had the bill with all its defects, and were told that it must be considered as a final measure; and this objection went to all matters connected with the bill, in anything relating to the reform bill, the finality principle was brought to play against them. The noble Lord had alluded to universal suffrage. Ward did see grounds which ought to induce the noble Lord to pour in his hostility to this principle.

He had looked pretty closely to the state of feeling in the country amongst those who were excluded from the franchise, and he saw the worst spirit amongst them, which was assuming a shape it was difficult to control, except by agreeing to a resolution like that proposed by his hon.

Friend, that the House would concede to that class a share in the constituency of the country. He knew that this spirit could be kept down by physical force; but he could not look forward without apprehensions of evil to the possible violent explosion of feeling on this point. He hoped that the motion of his hon. Friend would receive the consideration to which it was so fully entitled, and he was sure that the time must come soon when the House would be forced to a consideration and an acceptance of the measure.

In this great commercial country he was anxious to spare the merchants and traders a renewal of the agitation which they were subject to during the Reform Bill.

He thought that any great increase of suffrage would produce still more anxiety for further extension among the non-electors. They would see themselves still nearer the goal, and they would become still more restless and dissatisfied. He believed that the desire for change had no deep root among the constituent body generally.

If their opinions were taken, there would be found a very large majority in favour of the law as it at present stood. Member for London and the hon. Member for Sheffield. Member for London had said, that he Lord John Russell had stated, that the inequality of representation was a defect of the Reform Bill. He certainly did not state, that it was a defect in the Reform Bill ; but he had expressed his opinion, that no fair representation of the numbers, property, and intelligence of a country could be secured by the alteration proposed.

Member for Sheffield had said, that he Lord John Russell had denied the competency of Parliament to entertain the present question. Now he had by no means denied the competency of Parliament to entertain the question, but he had said, that it would not be wise to entertain it.

They were pulling against each other on the brink of a precipice, and it was a matter of perfect indifference to him which pulled the other over. As for the existing suffrage, he was rather disposed to complain that the 10 l.

He thought there ought rather to have been a 5 l. Members for Carlisle and Maidstone seem disposed to treat it in a tone of grave mockery. They might attempt to treat it with ridicule, but the public at large could not be made to treat it in that way. Before the Reform Bill , as was admitted by the hon. Member for Maidstone, the people had no representation. Seats were sold in the market. Gatton was bought for 70, l. Stalls in Smithfield-market were not more regularly sold than seats in that House.

The intention of the Reform Bill was to transfer the power of legislating from the nominees of individuals to the representatives of the people. He hoped the hon. Member for Maidstone would not be offended with him for talking of representatives of the people.

Gentleman did not choose to assume that capacity. He rather chose to take upon himself some imaginary dignity, as one of the estate of the commons, and not as a representative. He would leave the hon. Member in the undisturbed enjoyment of his new dignity. The principle of the Reform Bill gave up the nomination of a certain class of the people, and gave the power professedly to the nation at large. But how? In a most capricious and absurd way.

It gave the elective franchise to persons occupying a house of 10 l. It gave the franchise to freeholders having a particular profit, and left it with freemen by birth or servitude, though they might have no property at all. They gave it to men having this right depending on the mere accident of birth. They left it to scot and lot voters in some towns. They gave it to persons who, instead of having property belonged to the class of paupers.

They refused it to persons of independence, and gave it to tenants at will, who were dependant on the breath of their landlords. They had introduced no distinct principle; while they had admitted a portion of the people for some fantastic reason, they had for reasons equally capricious excluded others.

Did not the people at large know, and say now, that there was a master class which had votes, and a slave class which had not votes?

Talk of property indeed! What property was more sacred than a man's physical powers and his intellect? The artisan by the exercise of these powers must earn more than 10 l. What could be more sacred than the property which God and nature gave? Yet they excluded the intelligence of the artisan from the franchise, and while upon some imaginary and preconceived notions they admitted others, they told the working man, that he was to be excluded.

Such a system could not last. Common sense and common honesty were against it. Member for Carlisle had talked of a compromise. But had there been any compromise? Who were parties to it?

The Radical reformers, of whom he Mr. O'Connell reckoned himself one, had determined at the time of the Reform Bill to make an experiment, and see whether they could get popular government by that experiment.

The moment they ascertained the failure of that experiment, they were hound to carry their principles further—and was not that failure ascertained?

Look at the boroughs and counties. What were the means by which the returns were influenced. If it had not been for an absurd cry in support of the Corn-laws, and a bigot cry on religious subjects, would the Gentlemen opposite crowd the benches as at present.

If the boroughs were not reduced to nearly their old state of slavery, would the opposite benches be crowded as they were with borough mongers. It was true, they were sustained by the folly of a portion of the people.

The wild ravings of the Chartists had fortified them in their abuses; but the popular sentiment could not be excluded. If those misguided men had not proclaimed principles which every honest man must abhor, which no man of conscience could do other than reprobate—If they had not used threats of physical force—if they had not become like them the opposition exclusionists and opponents of the rights of the middle classes, the sober, steady voice of the people of England would, before this time, have been heard proclaiming that the present plan of representation should not be continued.

It excluded too many of the people; it excluded those who were as deserving of confidence, and as distinguished by integrity and intelligence, as any other in the constituent body or the legislature. For he Mr. O'Connell could not yield to the hon. Member for Maidstone's assumption of peculiar dignity for what he called the third estate of the realm. He saw nothing either in the hon. Member or his colleagues of that mens divinior which might give them a natural right to legislate for others.

There was no reason why an honest and intelligent workman, who gave his leisure moments to the improvement of his mind and the increase of his intelligence, should not enjoy political power.

Until that was the case, he would tell them that their Commons estate was not safe, and more even than they now refused must ultimately be yielded to pressure. When common sense and common honesty became the maxims of the masses, not only those who were now attempting to mislead them, but they the Opposition would be driven from the position which they had usurped and abused.

Member for Maidstone seemed to be above learning the meaning of the principle of representation. He would tell the hon. Member to look into a book which was familiar to him Mr.

O'Connell , he meant "Blackstone's Commentaries," where he would find it stated, that it was robbery to levy taxes in England, unless the people of England consented to these taxes by their representatives.

Blackstone talked of a virtual representation, but that was a phrase to account for the want of a real one. You struck continued the hon. When you tax now, you rob. When you create a capital felony, you are guilty of the blood you shed, because you are not the representatives, as the hon.

Member for Maidstone has candidly confessed, of the people of England. The mass of the people must have power, and their common sense and common honesty are the best securities against any robbery, either of the public creditor or of private individuals.

They have an interest in it. In the artificial society of England, the great interest in maintaining the social state as it exists in the millions who depend from week to week for the subsistence of their families on their wages, they have a more deep and immediate interest in the preservation of the order, peace, and security of society, than the haughtiest aristocrat in the land, or the proudest landowner among you. The people of England are entitled to representation.

Their day of delusion must shortly cease, and your day of delusion will end with it. He was sure that they were determined to accomplish a great change, and he would stand by them and support them in effecting that change; and it would be brought about, not by any illegal measures, but peacefully, before that House continued much longer. It was true that much mischief had been done, as his hon.

That language had alarmed the timid and offended the upright, the prudent, and the patriotic; but it had not discouraged the bold, the generous, and the brave. There was one thing, at all events, settled, that the Reform Bill was not a finality bill; it could not he a finality bill. He did not mean to say, that universal suffrage was absolutely certain; but he did say, that it was every year making a larger advance in the public mind.

But for the intemperance of some parties, he believed that the demand for universal suffrage would be now all but universal. He must say, that if he were to decide whether we should go on as we are now, or abolish the Reform Bill , as an honest man he should vote for abolishing the Reform Bill.

He thought they would be better under the borough mongers than under that blouse. He knew of no good which that House had done—no generous or humane feeling which they had ever entertained towards the masses of the people of England.

Perhaps that House was a representative of the aristocracy, or of the richer classes, in the sense of the hon. Member for Maidstone. He knew nothing of that; but it was no more the representative of the working classes—of the Commons of England, than it was a representative of the commons of China.

Noticed a typo? Hume said, that in rising to submit his present motion, he hoped that the House would consider it to be as it appeared to him one of great importance which it was necessary they should soon entertain. Population census of Electors Qualified to Vote in Males of 20 years and upwards, in England 13,, , 3,, 4.

Total Electors. Estimated Population in Estimated Population of Males above 20 in Electors in — Retuning Members. There were under 8 10 Above and under 61 89 Above and under 1, 76 Shewing that Members were returned by constituencies not exceeding 1, electors And in boroughs above 1,, and below 5, 66 above 5, 11 24 Totals Electors, —36, Qualified.

Boroughs, No. Electors in —6. Gross Populalation Boroughs. Gross Population Harwich 4, Westminster 15, , Thetford 3, Tower Hamlets 13, , Chippenham 5, Liverpool 12, , Totness 3, Finsbury 12, , Huntingdon 5, Marylebone 10, , Knaresborough 6, Manchester 10, , Marlborough 4, Bristol 10, , Tavistock 5, Lambeth 7, , Andover 4, Leeds 5, , Richmond 4, Nottingham 5, 50, 20 Members to 2, 47, 20 Members to , 1,, Males of 20 yrs.

Males of 20 years and above. Salford 1 2, 12, Harwich 2 1, Cheltenham 1 1, 5, Thetford 2 Monmouth 1 1, 1, Chippenham 2 1, Rochdale 1 4, Andover 2 1, Huddersfield 1 4, Huntingdom 2 1, Chatham 1 4, Knaresborough 2 1, Dudley 1 5, Marlborough 2 1, Total 7 7, 38, Total 14 1, 8, Comparison In Ireland of six small with three large boroughs, as number of Electors and Representatives.

Electors in —5. In England. Member Counties. Males of 20 years. Number of Electors in —6. Counties Males of 20 years and upwards in Males of 20 years and up wards in Freeholders 40 shilling freeholds for life or lives. Copyholders 10 l. Tenants in Ancient Demesne Holding by custom of Manor. Leaseholders 10 l. Occupying tenants at will without any reference to length of term. Mortgagee or trustee in possession of the rents and profits of sufficient qualification.

Old rights reserved in perpetuity 1. Freeholders and burgage tenants in cities, and cities of counties. In Bristol and Nottingham 40 s. In Lichfield 40 s. In London, continued in perpetuity 2. Burgesses and freemen, and freemen and liverymen. Rights reserved for a time 3.

Population in Number of Electors in Inhabited Houses in Number in of 10 l. Manchester , 8, 30, 12, Liverpool , 12, 27, 17, Finsbury , 10, 29, 23, London , 18, 17, 14, Marylebone , 7, 27, 21, Tower Hamlets , 9, 66, 23, Westmonster , 13, 21, 17, Lambeth , 4, 29, 16, Soutwark , 5, 22, 9, Birmingham , 3, 30, 7, Leeds , 4, 25, 6, Shefield 90, 3, 20, 4, Total 2,, , , , Abstract of the Parliamentary Boroughs of the United Kingdom, classified according to the number of Registered Electors in Each Total added to the proceeding.

Under Electors. From Parliamentary Papers, Session , Nos. Under Grote said, that in spite of the great want of interest and attention in the House to which the noble Lord had alluded, he hoped they would be good enough to listen to him while making a few remarks on what had fallen from the noble Lord.

D'Israeli said, that a fallacy ran through the whole of the ingenious speech of the hon. Ward said, that the hon. Howard considered that upon the whole, the Reform Act had been successful.

Russell was anxious to refer to two remarks which had fallen from the hon. O'Connell was sorry to observe the air of ridicule which had been attempted to be thrown on this important question by some of the speeches which he had heard. Attwood quite agreed with his hon. List of the AYES. Aglionby, H. Grote, G. Attwood, T. Hall, Sir B. Barnard, E. Harvey, D. Bodkin, J. Hawes, B. Brotherton, J. Hector, C. Butler, hon. Hollond, R. Chalmers, P. Humphrey, J. Codrington, Admiral Hutt, W.

Currie, R. James, W. Denistoun, J. Leader, J. Duke, Sir J. Lushington, C. Duncombe, T. Muskett, G. Dundas, hon. O'Connell, D. Easthope, J. O'Connell, M. Fielden, J. O'Connor, Don. Fenton, J. Pattison, J. Finch, F. Power, J. Ward, H. Rundle, J. White, A. Salwey, Col. Wilde, Sergeant Somers, J.

Williams, W. Style, Sir C. Wood, Sir M. Tancred, H. Yates, J. Turner, E. Villiers, hon. Wallace, R. Hume, J. Warburton, H. Abercromby, hn. Law, hon. Ainsworth, P. Lefroy, rt. Baillie, Colonel Lockhart, A. Baring, F. Lowther, J. Barrington Viscount Mackenzie, T. Barry, G. Maule, hon. Blair, J.

Maunsell, T. Blennerhassett, A. Mordaunt, Sir J. Broadley, H. Morpeth, Viscount Bruges, W. Murray, A. Campbell, Sir J. Norreys, Lord Canning, rt. Sir S. Packe, C. Cayley, E. Palmer, G. Copeland, Alderman Parker, R. Courtenay, P. Pease, J. Curry, W. Perceval, Colonel D'Israeli, B. Perceval, hon. Douglas, Sir C. Pinney, W. East, J. Rice, rt. Egerton, W. Richards, R.

Elliot, hon. Rolfe, Sir R. Ellis, J. Round, C. Forester, hon. Russell, Lord J. Fremantle, Sir T. Sandon Viscount Freshfield, J. Shaw, right hon. Gaskell, J. Smith, R. Gladstone, W. Stanley, E. Gordon, R. Stanley, Lord Goulburn, rt.

Stuart, Lord J. Grimsditch, T. Stuart, V. Guest, Sir J. Stock, Dr. Halford, H. Teignmouth, Lord Hastie, A. Tennent, J. Heneage, G. Thompson, Alderman Hodgson, R. Tollemache, F. Hope, hon. Troubridge, Sir E. Hope, G.