The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-19 00:00:00

".y farmers in the country held large tracts of lam/
without any lease, and if the franchise were limited to the
easeholder of seven years, it. would exclude not only men
Iwho held lands at a rent of 501., but in many instancis of
500/. a year. On these grounds be would give his cordial
support to the amendment of the Noble Lord.
Lord ALTHORP said, he would briefly state the
ner e these,—first,
which,
grounds on which he should object to the Noble Lord's
amendment. The arguments on which it was founded
the
m
fir s t
a that e thend m landed
amendment
in
tpl
implied ; a
interest
oi
required
next,
that
influence that
it would be hard OH the occupiers of land that you should
sive the franchise to the ten•pound householder, and ex-
elude it from that class of men who paid 501. rent for load.
This he believed was a fair statement of the argument,
The lloble Lord, however, in the wording of his amend-
ment, had, he believed gone to an extent which he himself
did not intend ; for, as the clause would stand, if that
amendment were adopted, all leaseholders would be ex-
cluded svho were not farmers or occupiers of land ; and
he presumed that the Noble Loffl did not intend by it to
exclude leaseholders of other property. Having said thus
much as to the wording of t'”t, amendment, he would now
state his grounds of objection to it. No man understood
Letter than he did, the respectability of the farmers. Few
men knew' more about them, or had a higher opinion of

their intelligence and integrity. But the question was,
were they in such a situation as would ensure the same in—
dependence as to their votes as might be expected from
freeholders. The Committee were not now called upon to
decide upon their respectability, but whether they were in
that situation which would make them independent
county electors. The argument was, that you gave the
ten pound householder in the borough a right to
vote, and you ought on the same principle to give
to farmers p tying a certain rent a right to vote for the
county; but then it should be recollected that there was
always a great distinction between the right of voting in
boroughs and counties. There was also this distinction,
that it was in power of the landlord of the farmer to
do his tenant a greater injury than the landlord of the
householder could do to his. The circumstances in which

they mre placed with respect to their landlords were
wholly different. It was urged on the part of the occu-
pier of land, that be was a man of some capital, that it
often happened that the occupier of land paying a rent of
501 a year, had embarked a capital of 5001_ or 6001. on
that land, though without any lease, and only a tenant at
will. That might be, and he bad no doubt it was so in
_ _

a great many instances, but see how this operated as be-
tween him and his landlord. If a man thus circumstanced

should vote contrary to the wish of his landlord, and be
was tinned out for it, he would lose all the capital he had
embarked in the land. He would not of course lose his
. .

stock or his crops, but he would lose all that he had ex-
pended in its improvement ; and all who were acquainted
with the nature of land, and the employment of capital
upon it, must be aware of the inconvenience and loss •
which a tenant must be put to if obliged to quit at a
short notice, when he had calculated upon a longer
possession. Now all these circumstances were so
many motives which must make such a tenant de•
pendent on the will of his landlord, and which must, in
the same degree, detract from his independence as an
elector. It was said that the leaseholder of seven
years must. be neatly in the same situation, for, to-
wards the expiration of his term he must be nearly as much
in the power of his landlord as the tenant at will. Ile
(Lord Althorp) did not think so. The leaseholder of seven
years so employed his capital as to get out of the land the
value of the capital he had embarked in it, within the
time for which this lease was given, and for this time be
was independent of the landlord. He would admit, at
the same time, that seven years was the lowest term under
which the holder of land could be looked to as independent
of Isis landlord ; but if that were so, then the independence
of the tenant. at-will could not be counted on. Look, how-
ever, to the householder who carried on business in a shop
in a town. It, would, no doubt, be an inconvenience to
such a man to be removed from a place where he had car-
ried on his busine*s; but in removing be could early all,
or nearly all, his business with him, and could remove the
whole of his stock ; and in that respect be was much
more independent of his landlord than the fanner. These
was another distinction between the two classes, which
was, that the country votes represented property, and
those in towns represented interests. Now if the fran-
chise should not be given to farmers to the extent
propos d by the Noble Lord, it could not be said that
they were not placed in a better situation than they
were before, as compared with the scot and lot voters
in towns ; for fvbile the franchise was taken from many
of the latter class who hitherto held it, it was given to
a large body of the former by whom it had heretofore
~
not been enjoyed. He thought that the tenantry stichzas •
were proposed to be included in the extension of the fran-
chise by this Bill, were fully entitled to have a vote for
the county ; but he could not concur with those who
thought that the same right ought to be extended to tenants
at will. There was another ground on which be objected
to this proposition, which probably would have less weight '
with others than it had with him. It was this,—that if
you put the tenants at will in a situation where they might
vote against their landlords, you would go one step towards
the introduction of the vote by ballot, and he owned that
he was surprised at his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Essex, whom he knew to have so strong an objection to
that system, in supporting a proposition which led so
directly to it. On these grounds he felt it his duty to oppose
the proposition of the Noble Lord, though he owned he
did so with regret. He knew that his own constituents
were very anxious for the introduction of such a clause,
but with every good feeling towards them, he must say
that in wishing for it they did not understand their own
interests. He felt it his duty to oppose this wish of many
of his constituents, but such was the respect and affection
he felt for the farmers, that he did oppose it with much
personal regret.
Colonel SIBTHORPEI expressed the gratitude he felt
to the lion. Member for Essex, for the cautious manner in
which he had expressed his di-position to vote for his pro-
position if it had any precedence. He also declared the
strong feeling of respect which he entertained for the
Noble Marquis (Chandos), in whose ranks he bad fought
on more than one occasion ; but while he expressed this
feeling, he could not but regret the want of courtesy
shown towards him by the Noble Marquis, in having taken
out of his hands a proposition of which he had given
notice so long back as last Session, and brought it forward
in nearly the same words as his (the Noble Marquis's) own..
The Noble Marquis had taken from him, almost by
force, that which he must have known was his adopted
child. Such was the poignancy of his feelings in having
been anticipated by the Noble Lord in a motion which he
bud long cherished as his own, that he was about to quit
the House, but a sense of what be owed to his conscience,
to the merits of that class to which the amendment bad
reference, and to the interests of the country, that he
could not leave those ranks in which he bad been engaged,
and therefore be would cordially give his support to the
motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir C. BURRELL supportesl the amendment, and con-
tended that the franchise could not be trusted to a more
independent body than the yeomen whom that body would
introduce.
The Marquis of CHANDOS disclaimed any intention
of anticipating the Gallant Officer's (Colonel Sabtborpc's)
motion. He was aware that that motion stood on the
orders; but his own being in some respects different, he
took the first opportunity that presented itself of bringing
it forward.
Mr. MILDMAY thotight that the 501. landed tenant
had quite as good a right to the elective franchise as the
101. householder. He was sure that the former would be
at least as independent as the latter, and he should there.
fore vote for the amendment, though it was with the greatest
regret that he opposed the Ministers.
Mr. BENETT said the objections of the Noble Chan.
cellor of the Exchequer applied almost wholly to the in-
fluence which it was supposed that the landlord might ex-
ercise over his tenant. In the present state, however, of
the relation between landlord and tenant, the landlord was
quite as much dependent upon the tenant as the tenant
upon the landlord. The Noble Lord had drawn a parallel
between the householder and the renter of a farm, and had
said that if the householder were turned out of hi' tenancy,
he would only have to take away his shop goods with him
to another house, whereas the farmer would entirely lose
the capital he had expended upon the farm. Let him,
however, ask the Noble Lord dutch a man could take away
the custom of his shop with him as well as his goods. He
kianveowu
favour
tha t
of
Rtehfoe
rr
me
,waun
damong
kn
et
wh e
aful
omtehr
asta
tgheenye feeling
were
almostiu
all in favour of this amendment.
Mr. HODGES had a few nights ago given notice that
he should support this amendment. He understood the
object of the clause to be the increase of the constituency
of counties, which increase had become the more necessary
in consequence of the creation of large boroughs in the
counties. He approved of this object, and he was there-
fore very anxious for the success of the amendment, for
he thought that the amendment earned the principle of
the Bill into more effective operation than the clause slid
as originally framed. He soy nothing in the objection
founded
Aver uponthe tenant, h the influence
a ri
(be
c
i whicheredlanidtlaonrdametigohftitutit;
exer-
cise
to confer the elective, franchise upon toe renting tenancy
and poor rates.
An hIEISIBER (w— h
Ote PAMe we could not learn)
osid the
of counties, who bore so large a proportion of the county