The technical details of the householder franchise after the Great Reform Bill of 1832 were so complicated that 'Revising Barristers' had to travel the country to sort out those property-owners who might vote and those who should be denied the franchise. One such barrister came to the Guildhall in Exeter in September 1864. The would-be freemen of Exeter, men only of course, so valued the vote that they queued up to have their claims heard. There were so many nice cases waiting to be heard that chaos ensued at the Guildhall and a police officer was summoned to keep the 'attendants' in order.
The case of Samuel White was seen to be problematic, Samuel was twenty-five and single and had lived with his ratepayer father and so had been deemed to have a vote. But now he was living and working in Bath and. the Liberals wanted to disenfranchise him as, in Exeter, a non-resident, The Conservatives held that his work in Bath was only of a temporary nature and therefore he should still be counted as a resident. Samuel's father had come to try to secure his son's vote. He was questioned by the revising barrister.
"The Barrister, with the view of solving the problem, asked the father if the son had got any furniture and if he had did he take it with him? Witness answered that the son had gone away without his clothes; which statement, as simply delivered, conveying the idea that he had gone away in a state of nudity, created, as may be supposed, roars of laughter and caused the question to be put "What clothes?" Mr. Floud facetiously inquired if the claimant took his nightcap with him? which added to the merriment. It appeared that the left off wardrobe consisted only of a coat and a pair of trousers. The vote was expunged."
Source: The Exeter Flying Post, 28th September, 1864
No comments:
Post a Comment