The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-31 00:00:00

he should therefore move the insertion of a sentence ex-
tending the provisions of the clause to those who, previous
to the passing of this Act, had married the wife or daugh-
ter of a freeman, and thereby acquired a right of fran-
chise. The Hon. Member accordingly moved the inser-
tion of words to that effect.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no objection to
the introduction of the words proposed, bat he rather ima-
gined that the custom alluded to only applied to a widows'
first and second husband, and did not extend to her third
or fourth.—(Laughter.)
Mr. LENNARD was happy that Government intended
to sanction the amendment of the Hon. Member for Bos-
ton, as he knew many cases in which the Bill would
have otherwise operated as a hardship.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TREVOR rose to move that the right of voting
should be continued to non-resident freemen fort he term of
their lives. The Hon. Member said, that he had pledged
himself to his constituents, on the hustings at Durham, to
bring forward this motion. He was at a loss to conceive
bow ten-pound householders could be more free from the
influence of bribery than independent non-resident free-
men. He admitted that there was an expense attending
the conveyance of non-resident electors, who must be
brought to vote at the cost of the candidate ; but he
hoped that, from the measures adopted by his Majesty's
Ministers to obviate abuses from this source, a plea of this
kind was not possessed of any weight. If there was any
class more injuriously and cruelly treated than another in
this Bill, it was that class denominated freemen. The
people had not been fully alive to the Bill; when the ap-
peal was made to them, they were in an extraordinary
state of excitement and agitation, and gave their attention
only to the AB C part of Bill. If their attention had
been more carefully directed to it, they would have been
less eager for it in its present state. The persons for
whom he pleaded had strong claims on the justice of the
House, and he was determined to take the sense of the
Committee, for the purpose of doing an act of justice,
and of redeeming the pledge he gave to his constituents.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, it was sufficient for him to ob-
serve, that the Hon. Member had admitted that non-resi-
dent voters must be brought to the poll at the expense of
the candidates.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. CROKER, Colonel Bears-
FORD, and Sir G. WARRENDER, the Committee divided,
when the numbers were—
For the amendment . 38
Against it
Majority in favour of Ministers —ll3
A conversation then took place as to the mode in which
the seven statute miles from the place of election within
which space it should be necessary for the freeman to re-
side in order to give him the right of voting, should be
counted.
Mr. NORTH recommended that it should be measured
iu a straight line from the place of election, and not by
either pathways or turnpike-roads.
Mr. A. TREVOR then moved to leave out "seven
miles," for the purpose of introducing " residing within
the county in which such borough or city is situated."

The amendment was withdrawn, after a few words from
Sir C. WETHERELL and Colonel SIBTHORPE.

Mr. POYNTZ moved as an amendment, thxt the fol-
lowing words be introduced—" And any minor, in whom
any freehold tenement is now, or may be hereafter invested,
such minnr being born previous to this Act, and who, on
attaining the age of twenty-one years, would have been en-
titled to vote, if this Act had not passed, shall have the
right of voting in virtue of such freehold."

Lord J. RUSSELL had not had an opportunity of in-
quiring into the effect which this amendment would pro-
bably have, and therefore he requested that the Hon.
Member would withdraw it. The Hon. Member must,
however, be aware, that a ♦ery considerable difference ex-
isted between minors the sons of freemen, and freehold
minors.
The amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. RUMBOLD moved " That all non-resident free-
men at present exercising an elective franchise in places
not named in schedules A and B, shall be permitted to
vote, by virtue of their present corporate right, for Mem-
bers of Parliament, in such cities and boroughs where they
are resident."

Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the Hon. Member would not
persist in an amendment, the operation of which would be
so extremely inconvenient. It would hardly be fair, if he
lost his vote for Bedford, that therefore he should claim a
vote for Westminster, merely because he had once been free
of the former place.
Colonel ANSON recommended his Hon. Colleague
to withdraw his amendment, with which suggestion he
complied.
On the CHAIRMAN proposing the last part of the clause,
rendering it imperative on every person claiming to ♦ote
under it, that he shall have " owned, occupied, or inha-
bited," in the city or borough for which he sets up the
right of rating for six calendar months, in default of which
owning, occupying, or inhabiting, be shall not be entitled
to be registered,
Mr. FRESHFIELD said, the effect of these words
would be, that a man who had complied with all the ne-
cessary forms and customs to constitute him an elector for
a city or borough would forfeit his rights unless he had
" owned, occupied, or inhabited" for six calendar months.
Lord J. RUSSELL though it might be a hardship on
some particular boroughs, still thought, that as a general
arrangement, it would be desirable.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question " that the
clause, as then amended, stand part of the Bill," which
was agreed to without a division.
The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported pro-
gress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

110 USE OF LORDS, .Auousr SO.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY officiated in the absence of
the Lord Chancellor.
Several Bills on their Lordships' table were advanced a
stage.
On the motion of Earl SHAFTESBURY, the Tithes on
Barren Land Bill went through a Committee.
Ou the motion of Lord WYNFORD several clauses
were added.
Earl GREY moved that the Duchess of Kent's
Annuity Bill be committed. The Bill went through
the Committee without amendment.
The House then resumed, when the report was received,
and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow, the Judges
to be summoned to attend.
PLURALITIES' BILL.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY moved the second
reading of the Church Livings Pluralities' Bill. His Grace
stated that the holding of pluralities was struck at by the
Canon Law, under penalties of suspension and even of ex-
communication. But the practice was in time introduced
of granting dispensations to hold pluralities of livings, and
by this means abuses began to be introduced, which gra.
dually increased to so enormous an extent, that in 1283,
as many as seventeen livings in the Diocese of Winchester
were held by one person. To apply some remedy to this
abuse a statute of the Ist Henry VIII. was introduced, by
which dispensations were confined to the holding of two
livings, with exceptions in favour of his Majesty's chap-
lains and ecclesiastical men holding offices under the
Crown. But still abuses continued to exist ; and to re-
medy this evil was the object of this Bill, which went to
repeal certain portions of the statute of Henry the Eighth,
as to dispensations, with an exception in favour of Arch-
deacons. It was provided that no two livings should be
held at the distance of more than thirty miles from each
other, which would put an end, perhaps, to two-thirds of
the pluralities. The power of granting dispensations was
to be placed under the controul of the Archbishop of Can-
terbury, with some qualification of his discretion. His
Grace stated the nature of the various clauses of this Bill
more particularly, but could not be distinctly heard at the bar.
Lord WYNFORD observed, that the Bill ought to be
well considered before it passed into a law, as they were
legislating not for the day, but for futurity. As he under-
stood the provisions of this Bill, he could not but suppose
that the law, as it stood at present, was sufficient to answer
all the purposes of it ; and if such was the case, it was
ennecessary and would be improper to pass this Bill. The
Archbishop of Canterbury had already a large discretion,
and by the exertion of the powers already existing, the
whole object of the Bill, as he conceived, would be attained.
It was possible, however, that he might be wrong in that
opinion, as, although lie had considered the subject a good
deal, he had not had any communication with any one
upon it. However, it was necessary that time should be
allowed for consideration. In the meantime he must ob-
serve, that the thirty miles' distance which the most Rev.
Prelate had mentioned, had in practice, been considered as
forty-five, and he was of opinion, that if the matter of dis-
tance was to be taken into account, the forty-five miles
ought to be considered as the limit. According to the
present law, it was necessary that an incumbent should
reside during a certain part of the year on his livings, and
that was a better provision than the distance. He should
not have objected to a distance of five miles, or thereabouts,
because then the Clergyman could do duty every Sunday
at each of his livings, but as to any efficiency in this re-
spect, 30 miles was as objectionable as 45 ; and for the
security of existing property, he thought the distance of
45 miles ought still to be retained.
The Bishop of LONDON was of opinion, that the
existing iaw was not sufficient to remedy the evil, as it