The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-27 00:00:00

Mr. "won; from Llanestys, Carmsrthenshire, and Leighton
Buzzard, by Mr. Trevor; num Newborough, Fiteshire, by Capt.
Wemys; and from Stratioed on Avon, by Mr. Lawler. —Ordered
to be printed. .
WESTMINSTER, B EWELL.
On the motion of M. 11 0 Ell I . the Westminster New
Bridewell Bill was reads third time an ed.
ELECTIVE FRAN SE.
mbe SYKFSS rate antlered, that he had 'ntroduee a motion for
leave to bring in a Bill, to declare the rl tof freeholders in se-
parate districts, or counties corporate,' to eat the elections of
Knighta of the Shire, of the several coo from which the said
districts have been separated g and he true that there would be
no oppoeition to the motion. With *Ape to that class of persons
who might object to the measure, those who were opposed to Par-
liamentary Reform, he could assure them that his motion proceeded
upon so simple a principle, that he meted even the most sensitive
person would not offer any opposition to it. Upon the other hand, he
hail the same hope that it would nor be °primed by Gentlemen who
were for a more popular exteneion of the franchise, because it might
not go so far as they were disposed to dn. It was well known that,
at different times in the earlier period of the history of England,
curtain towns had been formed into corporate counties:. and th
since they had been so formed, freeholder* had not the right of
ing for the parent county from which they had been so "Par s
sad in some instances that they had neither votes for, the courtly
nor for the loan to which they belonged. It was cwthis huthildo
to dispute the right of the Crown to divide the countiei, hut, esthe
same time, be was free to confess that he cid dispute the right of
the Crown to take away the elective frarchise. He had several
authorities loquote for that assertion, the principal one of which
was that of Lord Coke, who clearly laid down the principle in his
foorth Institute, and the same nsiociple hail been acknowledged in
a deeimon in the Court of. King's Bench. There were nineteen
town counties, which had been m separated front the parent
county, but of those nineteed morales, from various causes.
it was only hie intention to apply his Bill to nine ; and he thought
it necessary to state that he Ina induced to bring forward the
measure iii consequence of what had taken -place at the
last election for the County of York. The Bill would be merely
of a declaratory nature; to deem, that although the freeholders
In question had for a Wog pinied ceased to vine, still the right to
do so was yelled in them t anskiheit ids only to restore what had
been allowed to nmeisase, led slid not at all trends on Proles-
m
mental). reform, slid trust damn would not be any opposition to
his motion for leavg to bridg inahe Bill.
Sir N. W. RIDLEY said that the object was merely to rein.
state thou who were already entitled to the franchise, hut whose
claim might be questioned, from the exercise of the right having
lain dormant for such a lengtit of time. lie, therefore, felt great
pleasure in seconding the motion.
Mr. JONES could not conceive that there could be the slightest
objection to the motion.
Mr. LITTLETON also supported it.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be better to give those
persons the right of voting in the towns in which they resided,
rather than for the oarlike.
Mr. C. W. WYNNE thought that there was very little time
given to consider of the motion, and be put it to the lion. Member
(Mr. Sykes) whether he thought it possible to carry such a Bill
through the House in the present stage of the Session.
Mr. SYKES said that his intention was to get the Bill through
the House in the course of the prettent session. lie could see ro
reason forelelaying the right, if it existed. for another year. Of
course it would be for the House to oppose it, if it thought proper to
do so.

Mr. BENETT(of Wilt•liire) said that it could not be productive
of injury in any quarter. It was merely the restoration of a right;
a restoration, which a person the most ugsitive on matters of re-
form could not object to. (Hear, hese.)
A Mr. ELLICE thought it would be wro to press the Bill upon
the House this session, if by so doirg th lon. Member t Mr.
Sykes) might risk making enemies of th ho might otherwise
be disposed m assist in carrying it through c House at a future
period. lie saw no objection to the Bill i If. and he hoped the
ji Hon. Member would persevere in brinuin • before the House, it'
not this, at all events in some future sessio
Mr. BRIGHT said that the motion w °thing more than a
declaration of rights already in existen The Hon. Member,
however, had selected ten places out of twenty-three which were in
exis•once under the circumstances, and proposed applying his Bill
to the remainder having no franchise. He (Mr. Bright) however
could see no reason for not extending it to those who already had a
franchise, but who were nevertheless equally entitled as those to
whom he proposed to restore it; and the non-restoration to whom
would be tantamount to a total disqualification by that Bill, should
it pass into a law.
Mr. ROBERT SMITH thought, If such an object had been con-
templated by the Hon. Member (air. tykes), the question might
naturally arise, whether these who had acquired a franchise should
not be deprived of that upon the concession of another, when both
were founded upon the same rights, If the House felt convinced
that the right existed, he was of opinion that a general election
11113111(1 not he siiffered to pass without restoring them.
Mr. BRIGHT explained.
..... ___. ..... .. . . . . . . . .

Dr. PHILIAMORE said that he wished to be understood, in
concurring to the introduction of the Bill, that he did not pledge
himself to go farther. Ile conceded to the introduction of the mea-
sure, because he thought it ousashich trvont be tit and wise to take
into consideration.
Leave was then given to bring in the DiR.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE—RYE.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL tose for the purpose of presenting a
petition from the inhabitant householders of Rye, praying for the
extension of the elective franchise in that borough. Toe petitioners
stated, that in the course of time the elective franchise had become
excessively restrained in that borough, and that at present the
Members for the port of Rye were returned by twenty-six persons,
acting under the influence of the Rev. Dr. Lamb, who holds three
livings. By the rules which had been laid down by that gentle-
r man and his family, none but his friends and attendants had the
slightest chance of acquiring their freedom. They also stated that
there was so much corruption, and so many heart.burnings in
consequence thereof, that tt W 25 irksome to them to live in
the borough. They wished to ascertain whether such right in
the family of that Reverend Gentleman was founded in socient usage
or law. They were convinced that it had not existed above seventy
years, for a century ago there were four times the number of elec-
tors. According to the Charter, every resident was entitled to his
freedom upon the payment of a certain sum. In the reign of Eliza-
beth, that sum was two shillings, and at the same period all non.
residents ceased to have the right of voting at elections. They had
been deterred from trying the question before an Election Commit.
tee by the magnitude of the attendant expenses; but, as it was a
question affecting the elective franchise througout the country,
they prayed the House to appoiot a Committee to investigate the
circumstances, and to pass, if necessary, some general law which
might be calculated to remove the evil complained of.
The petition was ordered to be printed.