The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-29 00:00:00

Friend he would most cordially support, with the excep-
tion of the latter part.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that there was nothing he
admired more in the conduct of the opponents of this great
measure than their versatility. After opposing one clause
on the ground of the Bill being obnoxious, they turned
round and opposed another upon a totally different ground.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite now
stood up for the freemen, and complained that the
Bill gave privileges to the higher classes, whist it destroyed
those of the mercantile man. The Hon. Member, when
he made that statement, must himself have forgot what be
had said a few night: ago, when he deprecated the flood
of democracy with which he said the Bill would deluge
the country. One or other of the grounds taken by the
Hon. Member must be indefensible, which, he should
leave to the Honourable Member to decide. The Ho•
nourable Member who proposed the present amendment
bad treated it as if it was altogether an Act of disfran-
chisement, and in consequence of that he (Lord John
Russell) begged to call the attention of the Committee
to the distincticns which had been made between
this part of the Reform Bill, and the former part of it ;
namely, the boroughs contained in schedule A. With
regard to nomination boroughs, his Majesty's Ministers
had thought in certain instances that there was no
medium here to be taken, and that if it were wished to
destroy nomination those boroughs must be destroyed alto-
gether ; but with regard to the persons having at present
the right of voting, it was to be observed that, according to
this clause, there was no person having at the present mo-
ment the right of voting, or any freeman now alive, whose
rights would be seriously injured by the present Bill.
The question therefore was whether, having established
by the 21st clause a new right of voting for all
cities and boroughs in England, we should extend that right
to persons who are not now in existence, combining with them
the present existing rights. The objection to that was,
that rights of this description were liable to the greatest
abuse, and that if they were permitted to exist, it would be
combining with the ten-pound householders a set of voters
who would be created for the purpose of influencing elec-
tions, and would take from the rights of the fair electors,
The Honourable Member had proposed that those rights
should be retained, if so the right of burgage tenures,
of splitting freeholds, and every kind of abuse would
be held out. He (Lord John Russell) was one who
looked with great regard to the scot and lot right of
voting. but that right was exercised very diffe-
rently in different places. In large towns, however, it was
exercised very usefully, but with respect to them the 10/.
right of voting was of a very similar nature to the scot
and lot. With regard to the smaller boroughs, however,
he could not look upon the scot and lot right of voting
in the same light, for it was notorious there were no places
where corruption existed more than in those small bo-
roughs. Ministers had been accused'of looking after the flies
and disregarding the vultures, he denied that statement, for
the object of their present measure was to destroy those
vultures who were anxious to feed on the rights of
the community.—(Hear.) He thought when the present
measure became law, there would not be found any of the
degrading practices to exist to which he referred. Ile could
not sit down without alluding to what the Hon. Member
had stated with respect to the box, which had been pre-
sented to him by the City of London with the words
Magna Charta and Reform upon it. What could
induce the - Hon. Member to introduce that topic,
at the present moment, or what it bad to do with
the present debate, he was at a loss to conceive. Part of
the privileges, however, of the city of London were pre-
served by Magna Charts, and he trusted those rights would
still be preserved for ages. Though one of the intentions
of Magna Ciliate was to preserve the privileges and
liberties of the city of London, yet there were greater
objects intended to be accomplished by it. It was
most undoubtedly intended to accomplish the freedom
of this country as regarded the King and the Nobles,
who saw the necessity of the times, and saw also what
Englishmen deserved, and what they ought to have, to esta-
blish their freedom, namely, a great written record,
which might be handed down to all future generations. He
did not mean to say that the measures which were now
introduced, would last as long as that great document,
but nobody could doubt that this measure effected a change,
a change greatly to the advantage of the freedom of the
country, namely, turning that which had been monopoly
and usurpation into common ight and common enjoyment.
In those respects, therefore, it resembled Alagna Charta.
He felt proud that the citizens of London had discovered
that resemblance, and he would always cherish the present
with which they had honoured him, for he must be allowed
to tell the Hon. Member opposite that all his reasoning
had not convinced him that it was totally valueless.
Sir J. MALCOLM would never consent, except on
the greatest emergency, to an alteration in a system by
which this country had been so long governed ; and he
contended that no such necessity bad been shown to
justify the present measure. He begged to remind
the House that all the benefits promised by this Bill were
but conjecture, while all those who objected to it, did so
on a comparison with great periods of history, and upon a
conviction of what benefits the country had hitherto de-
rived.—(Hear, hear.) He was confident that there was
nothing more inconsistent with the principle of the Bill
itself than the 101. clause.-.—(Hear.) Ile was confident
that this Bill would not be considered a fired measure.
Would not the children of freemen hereafter look for the
restoration of their privilege? If they did not, they
would not be Englishmen.—(Hear, hear.)—This House
might look with contempt on the bit of ermine that
trimmed a Mayor's gown, and also with contempt at small
corporations, but if the existence of all such institutions, and
the privileges attached to them, had been, they ought
still to continue as affording objects of honourable ambi-
tion. He should, therefore, support the motion of the
Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and he im-
plored Ministers to examine with attention every proposie
tion that might have the effect of securing the peace and
tranquillity of the country.—(Hear.)
Mr. BAYNTUN entirely concurred in that part of the
measure which went to disfranchise non-resident voters;
but lie could not understand, nor could his consti-
tuents, why Government proposed to disfranchise the
future freemen of the large towns, a body of persons who
were interested in the prosperity of those towns.—(Hear.)
The number of resident electors who were to be disfran-
chised was two hundred thousand. It was true that the
present voters were to retain the right of voting during
their lives, but he contended that there was no necessity
shown for disfranchising so large a number of future
freemen. He asked whether the freemen of large towns
were not as respectable as the low class of 101. house-
holders?--(Cheers ) Wishing, as he did, to see
the principles of the Bill carried into effect without delay,
Ile still felt it due to his constituents to call the atten-
tion of the Government to so large a portion of
respectable voters, whose rights ought to be held sacred,
and not be destroyed by any measure of this kind.
He declared himself opposed to the system of nomina-
tion, but he was equally opposed to a system of spoliation
—(Cheers. ) lie should, therefore, willingly oppose the
intoduction of that clause into the Bill.
Mr. TREVOR expressed hie intention of concurring in
the motion of the Hon. Member for the University
of Oxford. He conceived it unjust to deprive freemen
of a privilege they had obtained wholly by the sweat of
their brows—(Hear, hear)—a privilege which created an
honourable spirit of emulation, and by obtaining which
they not only secured a right of voting to themselves,
but handed it down to their posterity. A right so ob-
tained was as much the property of the freeman as was the
coronet of the Peer. He conceived, therefore, the clause
would afford a most dangerous and obnoxious precedent.
Mr. B CLIVE. felt such a debt of gratitude towards
the Ministers fur having brought fotward the Reform Bill,
that they might safely reckon upon his support, though he
begged to say that he was not pledged to any set of
Ministers. One of the great objects of the Bill was to
save expence at elections, and this would be beet effected
by excluding the outvotets ; and lie was only sorry that
they were to be admitted to vote at county elections. He
wished to know in what way the seven miles, within which
a man tvas to be deemed resident, were to be measured ?
Lord ALTHORP said, it had been decided in Courts of
Law, that the way to settle a distance was, to take the
nearest road by sr hich a man could ride from any one
place to any other.
Colonel SIBTHORPE fully concurred in what had
been said by the Hon. Members for Oxford and Durham.
Expence had been talked of : that was true—his pockets—
or rather his empty pockets, could tell that ; but still, lie
trusted that he had encountered no expence that was not
authorized by Acts of Parliament.
Mr. HODGSON denied that householders were, as a
body, less corrupt than freemen.
Mr. J. CAMPBELL said that no one could vote for
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Oxford, with-
out voting for the continuance of every absurd and fan-
tastic mode of obtaining freedom.
Mr. CRESSET PELHAM rose amidst loud cries o
" Question." lie said the native freemen of towns re-
tained an affection for the place of their birth, and ought
not to be deprived of their franchise.
The Committee divided...
For the amendment s 17
Against the amendment
Majority
The CHAIRMAN then obtained leave to report progress,
and sit again on Tuesday.
The House adjourned at a Quarter to Seven o'clock.