The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-14 00:00:00

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF FREEMEN.

Mr. HODSON presented a petition from the freemen
and inhabitants of the city of Coventry, praying that the
freemen of that city might not be disfranchised by the
present measure of Reform.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL was glad to find that
the people of Coventry were beginning to understand the
operation of the present Bill—beginning to understand
that it was to operate as a sys!em of disfranchisement.
It rcis highly gratifying to him to observe that at this
late, this posthumous period of the Bill, the eyes of the
people of Coventry were beginning to be opened.
It was a privilege which freemen undoubtedly highly
prized, the right of voting, and which undoubtedly they
ought not to be deprived of.
Mr. ELLICE believed that the petitioners had called
public meeting for the purpose of petitioning that the elec.
tie.? franchise should be reserved in the Bill to the fi eemen of
the city of Coventry. At that meeting an amendment
was proposed that the elective franchise should be
granted to the householders generally, and which was
carried by a considerable majority. As almost a necessary
result, petitions from both parties were sent to the
House, but neither the petition of the one nor of the
other had been entrusted to him by his constituents, well
knowing that he would bring forward nothing which
might he calculated to impede the progress of the present
Reform Bill.

Mr. GOULBURN said it appeared distinctly to him
' front what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman opposite,
that the inhabitants of Coventry were divided into two
parties and that ho h parties were opposed to the system
of Reform, brought in by his Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. ELLICE, in explanation, said the meeting he
alluded to bad been called, in consequence of the six
months' occupation clause b;:ing supposed to interfere
with their rights
Mr. ROBINSON said that neither of the parties were
opposed to the present Reform Bill ; while they were
grateful for what his Majesty's Ministers proposed
for them generally, they simply prayed that the ancient
rights which snme of them enjoyed might not be disturbed.
Sir E. SUGDEN was of a different opinion. The pe-
tition only complained of the Bill as it affected the peti-
tioners themselves, but they were utterly heedless of the
manner in which it might press on any others.
Mr. HODSON was ignorant of the facts attending the
getting up of the petition. It was signed by 2,430
highly respectable individuals, and consequently highly
deserving in his *pinion the attention of the Huse.
Sir CHARLES Vr'ETHERELL said, however de-
serving the Honourable Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice)
might be, it appeared clearly that be was not to be con-
fided in by either of the Coventry parties, because neither
of them would entrust the presenting of their petitions to
him. Having taken the liberty of avowing himself to he
decidedly hostile to the present measure of Reform, he (Sir
C. W.) had received letters from numerous places remon-
strating in strong terms against the course he had taken; but
certainly not one of those letters had come from Coventry.
He liad never known to great a delusion to exist on any
subject throughout the country as had prevailed on this
subject, but now undoubtedly their eyes were beginning to
be opened.
Mr. ELLICE said he could assure the Honourable
arid Learned Gentleman that he had presented him-
self to the citizens of Coventry with the Bill in his hand,
and they had placed him, by a very considerable majority,
at the head of the poll. He believed further, that if he were
to go back to Coventry at another election, he would cer-
tainly stand upon the poll at the same distance from
any opponent, notwithstanding the part be had taken
on the present occasion respecting these petitions.—
The petitioners, undoubtedly highly respectable, though
presented this petition for the extension of the
they load
osesi elective franchise, yet there was not one of them
who had not signed a petition in favour of this Bill.
Alderman THOMPSON rose to take this opportunity
a explaining what had fallen from him last night, and
also to correct a misinterpretation of the motives which
had induced him to vote on that occasion. Both last
session and this present Session he had invariably
suppin ted the Reform Bill, and it was his intention to go
hand in hand with Government. He supported schedules
/t and B, but haying some local knowledge of the borough
(Appleby) under consideration list night, and know-
ing that one parish in that borough had been
omitted in the population returns of 1821, and also as
many burgage tenures were situated in that parish, of which
no return was made ; knowing also that an application
had been made to Government, and no answer returned,
he felt it his duty to state that the omission could be
proved at the bar. He did not wish to embarrass Go-
vernment : the time had arrived when nomination bra.
roughs should be done away with ; the principle of the

B:ll was clear and coruptehensive, and no danger what-
ever could arise to the Constitution, by admitting such
class of persons to the elective franchise. It was a mea•
sore that would give a fair representation to all classes.
The Hon. Member's sentiments had undergone no Chang.
noon this subject, and he felt confident that if the Noblc
Lord opposite was aware of the omissiou in question, L.
would allow Appleby to return one Member.