The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Irish Lord Lieutenant's Bill was read a thir
time on Saturday. Mr. O'Connell moved that it bt
read a third time that-day six months, but he did
not press his motiOn to a division. We observe
that the Bill is a favourite in the House, though
we cannot exactly understand why. The object of
the Bill is to assimilate the two countries. It is a
very common, though a very 'Vulgar mode of reason-
ing, because two things co-exist, to infer a necessary
connection between' them. Thus, because England
is .a rich and industrious country, and borough-
mongering has grown with its growth, it has been
inferred that boroughmongering is the cause of the
wealth and industry. On the same principle some
steak people have supposed that the unpaid magis-
tracy are the cause of the greatness of England, and
of this opinion the unpaid magistracy themselves
are, naturally enough. England has Lord Lieutenants
and Magistrates, and the-Lord Lieutenants recom-
mend the Magistrates; therefore, Lord Lieutenants
are beneficial. If the object be to stifle complaint, the
English Lord Lieutenants are, no doubt, an ad.
mirable institution, because the recommendation, by
one of the most powerful and influential individuals
in the country, of a Magistrate, binds him up in
some degree with the Magistrate, and disposes him
to cover him with his shield. Mr. O'Connell said,
" he had received information that the Lord
Lieutenant's system was far from working well in
England, and that Tory Lord Lieutenants had been
multiplied in a most undue degree 'under the, late
Tory Administrations. There was at present in
Ireland a rough kind of responsibility in the Loid
Chancellor, and public opinion bore upon him in
some degree; but no public opinion would bear on
a Lord Lieutenant, who would always get his own
partisans appointed, and partisanship was the crying
evil of Ireland." Mr. O'Connell touched Ministers
for their notable weakness of preferring their op-
ponents for the most valuable appointments. It is
but too true that they appear rather more anxious
to stand well with their opponents than their friends.
This is not undeserving of notice; but we have not
at present either time or space for it.—Morning
Chronicle.

Great indignation is, we believe, generally felt
throughout the country that the House of Commons
should have submitted to the desperate efforts at de-
lay of the Aristocratic party. We are not of the
number of those who feel much alarmed on account
of the majority for giving votes to the tenantry at
will, though there is no denying that this vote has
created considerable alarm. But the people are
most alarmed at the extraordinary want of energy
displayed by fte majority in allowing themselves to
be baffled by a desperate minority. No man of
sense, ss ho looks at the proceedings of the Commons,
con avoid a feeling of shame that the good cause is
so woefully betrayed by its supporters. The op-
ponents are chuckling at the imbecility of the advo-
cates. Never in the whole history of deliberative
assemblies was there such an instance of mockery of
deliberation. It is impossible to convince any dis-
passionate person that it can be necessary to con-
sume months in discussing the details of any mea-
sure whatever. An ending must be put to this
mockery. The country has been too long patieri.t.
No wonder that the Opposition should be indefa-
t;gahle, encouraged- as they are by the yieldingness
and disposition to concession so invariably displayed
by the supporters of Ministers. The Reform Mi-
nistry and their supporters must change their course,
if they wish to preserve the respect of the people
of England, who are becoming heartily sick of their
folly and imbecility.—Morning chronicle.
The Council of the University of London cut but
a sorry figure in the report of the meeting of Pro-
prietors on Saturday. The meeting was, indeed,
adjourned sine die, so that no decision respecting
Mr. Pattison was pronounced; but the speaketa,
with hardly an exception, considered him the inno-
cent victim of the imbecility and bad management
of the Council. After the subject had been intro-
duced to the meeting by the mover and seconder,
Lord Ebrington said, having been President of the
meeting of the fistula which dismissed Professor
Pattison, it would naturally be expected that he
should say a few words on the subject. His Lordship
might, however, have as well held his tongue, for he
said very little to the purpose. "In the University
(he said) there was no power over the students, and
therefore the Professors must be popular or else the
University could not flourish. It had been proved
to the Council that .Professor Pattison was not
popular, and therefore the • Council thought it was
not discharging its duty to the institution and the
public, in not dismissing Professor Pattison." This is
the sole defence of the Council. They dispute none of
the damning facts of Professor Pattison, showing,
that if they had dismissed themselves, the unpopu-
larity would not have existed; that they are the
authors of the ruin of a man whom, in . the same
breath, they pronounce deserving and without fault.
As Colonel Stanhope happily observed, " The
Pupils were in a state of mutiny, and the Council,
who were in a state of imbecility, instead of punish-
i„.,: the students, punished Professor Pattison. It
wee a cabal against him that caused his unpopu-
larity; for till that cabal he was popular. It was a
case of monstrous injustice." Mr, Fearon said that
" any Proprietor who would take the trouble to read
the paper which he held in his hand, would see that
the Council did receive from those pupils a doeu.
meet such as no body of gentlemen, in the situation
of the Council, ought to have received without ex-
pelling every man of them.--(Much applause.) He
was a friend to free government, but not to that
state of insubordination which leaves the exe-
cutive without authority, and deprives the law of
all force. He considered Professor Pattison the
victim of their bad management." Few people will
envy the Noble members of the Council the situas
tion in which they placed themselves. They
stand convicted before the public of notorious im-
becility, which, if it only affected themselves, would,
perhaps, be no great matter, but imb. cility having
had the effect of ruining a man whom they them-
selves pronounce meritorious and faultless, and in
the ruin of that individual levelling a blow at the
institution itself, from which it can with difficulty
recover—they have in his instance violated every
principle of justice, and no man can hereafter have
the smallest confidence in any arrangement with men,
who first by their misconduct deprive him of his
popularity, and then make the want of popularity
a ground of charge against him. We are unwilling
to say anything harsh of Lord Ebrington, who is
generally accounted a good well-meaning man ; but
really it were to be wished that Noble Lords should;
before placing themselves at the head of important
institutions, inquire whether they are really fit for
the trait; because the effects of their ine.csacity may
involve many worthy and meritorious individode in
ruin. This good will, at all events, have been done:
by the exposure. The silly and ridiculous figure
cut by these Noble Lords will have the effect of de-
terring thoughtless people like them from rs.shly ex-
posing themselves to similar consequences. If they
possess any feeling, the fate of Professor Pattison
will haunt them the longest day they hive to live.
•—Morning Chronicle.

Under the head of the
ofDutch Papers will be found
another proclamationthe Emperor of Russia,
addressed-to the Poles, chiding I • them, in his usual
gentle manner, for ha';inegliasdvoinldgong resisted his arms,
when they might have
killing them by a more speoe submission—accup'ng
bhim the trouble of
themvoliting
tbena of a fatal blindnes4B4re
sovereign pleasure--assuringhimttoProvbidenee
against his
had favoured his cause by enabling
provimineeisupte
their brothlr rebels in the insurgent
forming them that the Russian forceii, employed. in
keeping down the insurrection in those provinces,
were now free to crass the Vistula to attack War-
saw, and beseeching them once mere, in the name
of peace and of clemency, to kiLecgpt his tender of
the former, and -to rely on his promises of the latter.
The Poles will no doubt hear this invitation
,?ngagements, and these men
voice corning f aces, with the se feßt•
,rig as they have heard every same fet
as they have heari! every voice OflP from the

Government orSts-Petershurgh since the middle of
,ast December. The present document is even
nore 'vague in its declarations, arid more limited
•ti its promises, than . any of the rest. His Ma-
jesty, indeed, tells his Polish revolted subjects,.
hat if they throw away their - arms,. and
,übmit'to his justice, he will neither massacre,
nor enslave, nor banish 'the whole` nation. "This
Ss all the comfort which .is held out to them.—
The "Czar takes..especial ',case not to hint a word
about national existence, or a constitutional Govern-
nents--the repair of former wrongs, or the establish-
ment of fliturefreedorn. HedoesnoreVen make known
•o the Poles whether he intendsto incorporate their
conquered country with Russias or to leave them
the same shadow of nominal independence which
existed under his deceased brother. His procla-
mation, however, decides one point which must put
,he subjects of the National Government on, their
guard against all- his advances. He tells them that
Lithuania, Volhynia, and- the other Russo-Polish
provinces are again replaced under his iron sceptre ;
and though this is not altogether true, it is a suffi-
cient indication of what is intended with themselves.
Why the Emperor has published this revolting pro-
duction at the present moment we cannot under-
stand, unless it be for reasons at which humanity
shudders. Is his army prepared for assaulting
Warsaw, and repeating the horrors'of Suwarrow s
attack ? and is this hypocritical offer of clemency
an anticipated justification of all the atrocities which
may follow resistance ? We. are afraid that such is
the hope of the Emperor, and such is the design of
his manifesto. This is the more likely from the
Imperial appeal to Providence, which in the Russian
system is generally the prelude to a massacre. But
we must wait fur the commentary of events; leav-
ing in the hands of that Providence, so blasphemed,
the cause of that noble and afflicted people.—Tines.
There is no doubt that the supplementary amend-
ments moved by Lord Althotp on Friday and Sa-
turday last may, so far as they go, have a tendency
to restrain the evil consequences of the preceding
vote, whereby the electoral qualification was given
to agricultural tenants at will, a class of persons
from whom the Reform Bill, in its original construc-
tion, had carefully withheld it. His Lordship pro-
posed that tenants at will of houses and garden land
should enjoy the elective franchise as-well as tenants
of farms merely. He also recommended that both
the original devisees of lands or houses, for the
term of sixty years, to the value of 101. per annum,
and their (immediate) under-tenants,to the value of
.50/. per annum, if on the terms of not less than
twenty years, should be entitled to vote. Further,
that if any matt occupied a house in one part of a
county, and a farm or other premises in anotber
quarter of it,—neither separately, but both con-
jointly held at the rent of SW. a year,—such tenant
should he an elector. These additions, however, to
the constituency, go comparatively but a little way
towards indemnifying the people of England
for the serious mischiefs produced by the two
grand triumphs of the aristocracy—the divi-
sion of counties, and the enfranchisement of a
numerous body of dependent vtpsals. The tenants
at will of 50/. houses throughout the country are
not, it is obvious, as 1 to 40 in proportion to the
tenants of .50/. farms ; nor, if they were so, can we
consider them in any respect so desirable a-consti-
tuency as those who have fixed interests either in
house or land. They are nor, in short, so much
free agents. To meet the exigency a great deal more
ought to be done. We have already stated what an
enfeebling effect cannot fail to arise, as against the
popular interest of counties, from the large draughts
Made upon it for the sake of furnishing an adequate
number of votes for boroughs of the description of
those in schedule D, and even for many of the
towns to which it is designed to grant more than
one representative. So heavy is the defalcation
that must be created by this method of abstracting
the natural county votes, for the enlargement of
borough constituencies, that it seems a ques-
tion whether, in some counties, the whole ad-
dition from copyholds and long leaseholds will
be sufficient to supply the loss. Various re-
medies present themselves, or at least pallia-
lions of the evil-1. The whole body of erec-
tors, thus withdrawn from the county, might be re-
stored to it with advantage, adding variety of cha-
racter no less than force of property and number to
the county votes. A consequence of this diminu-
tion in the mass of town and borough voters, quali-
fied according to the actual conditions of the Bill,
must be a reduction in the qualification of house-
holders, from ten pounds (a standard which we find
by the Parliamentary returns will diminish the gross
amount of the town and borough electors, compared
with their present appregate, in places which are to
retain the right of representation) to a rent of five
pounds or six pounds, which it is known by well-
informed persons would not let in an unworthy class
of electors. By this means all non-resident voters
would be excluded from the poll for towns anti bo-
, roughs, and the choice of their respective Members
would be confined to the inhabitants themselves, un-
questionably the fittest judges of those who were to
act as guardians.of their political interests. If fasti-
diousness of taste must be indulged at the expense of
five-pound householders, as a class of citizens less
indisputably independent than agricultural tenants
at will, and therefore not so well entitled to the
favour of generous legislators like Lord Chandos,
let the device for affording an adequate con-tituency
to towns and boroughs continue in operation as at
present ; but, 2. Reinforce the county *lectors,
by admitting to vote for knights of the shire all
those residents of non-represented towns or villages,
who, if they had possessed dwellings within enfran-
chised boroughs of their respective counties, would
have been, by virtue of tire projected qualification,
entitled to vote for the town or borough represen-
tatives. The case of this large mass of intelligence
and property, as determined by the Bill, would
justify a reconsideration of it, on the soundest prin-
ciples. Midhurst, for instance,—or Callington, for
instance,—is no longer to enjoy the right of repre-
sentation ;—that is, neither of those places contains
a sufficient number of inhabitants, having property
enough, to entitle it to a representative for itself
alone. But that is a very different thing frOm as-
serting that every individual inhabitant of Callings
ton or Midhurst, thus deprived of his vote for the
pirticular borough, shall be excluded likewise from
all right of beingrepresented in his other quality of
lea-eholder for Cornwall or Sussex as the case
'may be. Now that- so much: has been given to
those who, in our judgment, and in that of. Ministers
also, ought never to have enjoyed the elective frau.
chive, it is surely not too much to ask, that all poli-
tical right of every sort should not be be taken away"
from large bodies of persons possessing the full qua-
lification es to property, or that they shall be re,
garded as outcasts from that order of their country-
men to which, in right a property and station 'and
community of interest, they confessedly belong, be-
cause of the mere accident of not fixing their resi-
dence within the streets of a particular tolvis Or bras
rough. If leaseholders of houses paying ten pounds
rent be a class of the King's subjects qualified to
choose a representative in Parliament for. Rye, in
Sussex, wily should the ten-pound householder of
any unrepresented tpwn in Sussex be precluded from
giving a vote for the county Members? The mere
hazard of location ought not to depide that M. has
stake enough is; !he country to be an Oarror, and
not stake enoitgh, Olen both are individuals of
precisely the same rank, prokerty, and education,
the circumstance ni place, which has.no reference
so any one of these banes of political Otness, being
the oaiy thing in whidi they differ. We repeat,
then, that hare are two sources of remedy for
the vices or iiacenvesniences . engrafted on the orie
nal Dill.. I. Give &melt ,to the- counties WPlnt hes
been taken from them in tire. ersons of fully quOfieCts
though
non-resident town and borough, vote's, ins
from damnifyingam ong the
their o boroughswn i
ambly,itaannt
sin;croeras2e. ofu erecters
the counties by a well-qualified class.Or electors from
the inhabitants of unrepresented towns. We have
. years vvaa
already said that, in one judgment, severs
ton a'term -v,henCe tes draW the qualifictition

.of a leasehold elector, and that tenancy at will is '
something a good deal worse. One pernicious con-
saquence Of these intrusions upon the Bill has, it
seems to us, been overlooked by all parties,—we
.mean its probable effect upon Br►tish agriculture.
There is 'noihing better understood „than the utility
.of giving farmers a certain, tutd:riokfcshort, interest
in the soil which they cultivate, beciuse,-without7a
legal, or at least a reasonable, assurance that he will
be repaid for his outisiY,'.noite but a fool will. think
of spending money upon another man's land,--,-that is
to say, he will never put it into a wholesome or pro-
luctive condition: • Landlords have heretofore been
influenced to 'grant leases of a compensating dura-
tion to their tenantry, or to make equivalent engage-
ments with them, for the sake of hiving their
estates improved, or not deteriorated in value. But
henceforth a'new interest arises, a political interest,
at direct variance with that which would induce them
to look to the advantage of their property, and
through it to the public good. Tenants of all kinds
are made voters, and it will become the object of the
English, as it was that of the Irish, landlords (of
glorious_memory), to make as few independent or
long-leased tenants as possible, or, in other words, as
few bold and systematic and productive cultivators
of the earth, and as many as possible of that descrip-
tion, whose tenures being absolutely dependent upon
the landlord's pleasure,- (in order that their votes
may be at his disposal), will shrink from any liberal
or useful outlay, and keep the land in a state of
penury and sterility, corresponding to the precarious•
ness of their own helpless position. There is no
doubt that such a change in the state of the
tenantry, and in the productiveness of the land,
must bring with it a reduction of rents exactly-or
very newly in the same proportion. In the same
ratio, indeed in which the landlord's ambition pre-
vails over his cupidity, or maintains a struggle with

it, to that same degree may we anticipate an
abridgment of leases, a degeneracy of the soil, a
decay of agricultural produce, and—what, as the re-
sult of such causes, must be deemed calamitous,—a
fall of rents in many parts of England. But there is
yet time to cure, or much alleviate, the evils me-
naced by these departures from the principles of the
Bill : the mere rescinding of the county-splitting
clause would go a great way towards a remedy.—
.Times.

A correspondent, who, if we may judge from the
spirit of his communication, has a " vested interest"
under the Beer 1111, is very indignant with the
Bishop of London for the part which he has taken,
in exposing to the House of Lords the mischievous
effect of that Bill upon the habits and morals of the
working population. He says, " I was really asto-
nished on reading-your Parliamentary report of yes-
terday, at the expressions of the Bishop of London
with regard to the new beer-traders, in which he
broadly charges them with havir°s increased the de-
pravity of the lower orders." If our correspondent
had read the Bishop of London's remarks aright, he
would have seen they were directed, not against the
beer-traders, but against the Beer-Bill; that it was
not the individuals but the system which he attacked
—a system which he considers must, by its natural
and inevitable consequences, lead to an increase of
immorality and licentiousness among the lower classes
of the community. If our correspondent had also
read the debate of Monday night, in the House of
Lords, relative to the Beer Bill, he would have seen
that the Bishop of London, did not confine himself
to general statements and unsupported assertions
of the injurious operation of this Bill. On that
night the Learned Pi elate presented a petition,
signed by ninety-five clergymen of the county
of Stafford, in which the petitioners stated, in
the strongest terms, the demoralizing, consequences
of the Bill. His Lordship, in confirmation of the
statements of the petitioners, referred to a letter re-
presenting that at a meeting held in a part of that
county, the persons present were unanimously of
opinion that the great increase of vice and profane-
ness lately observed was attributable to the number
of houses licensed for the retail of beer. The peti-
tioners recommended that the price of licenses should
be raised, and that no beer should be allowed to lie
drank on the premises. The Learned Prelate added
that he knew a ca,•e where the father of a young
man, who stayed out to a late hour on a Sunday
morning, went to search for him between twelve
t
slid one o'clock, and found no less than twenty beer
hops ope
hich gambling was going on. Who can wonder
bat,
open at that improper hour, in sixteen of
with such inducements to depravity and crime,
spread abroad in every direction by the Legislature
itself, under the advice of the Ministers of the
Crown, our sanguinary laws should never want an
abundant supply of victims? The restrictions of
the old law as to licensing alehouses, if rightly exe-
cuted, would have the effect, as far as the nature of
the thing would allow, of a principle of preventive
police. The Beer Bill, being totally independent
of those restrictions, seemed to be devised for the
special encouragement of disorder, gambling, immora-
lity, and crime. That such are its effects, at least all
who know its practical operation agree, however their
opinions may differ on political questions. In place
of restoring those restrictions—we mean those as
to proofs of character, and of the necessity of
licensing the house as a matter of public convenience
—Lord Melbourne proposes
.to arm the hands of
constables with new powers, and to enact new pe-
rialtie, ,to repress disorder—that is, he proposes to
substitute for a preventive. police a punishing police;
but every One- who understands any thing of the
right principles of legislation would infinitely prefer
the former. Our correspondent informs us of a hat
we were perfectly aware, that disorder and licen-
tiousness were not unknown to some of the old
public-houses. Is this an argument why the old
wholesome restrictions should have been removed,
arid houses for the sale of an intoxicating beverage,
be estabtished all over the kingdom, without restric-
tion or limit ? The trade hi intoxicating liquors,
whether distilled spirits or fermented drinks, 'must
always, even under the best system, have some
tendency to produce immorality, because the
stimulating nature of the beverage when not
very temperately used, strengthens the pas-
sions at the expence of the reason. Any Go-
vernment, therefore, that sets a value on the
moral .condition of the people will never think it
right there should be a perfect " free trade" in in-
toxicating liquor?, as there ought to be in bread and
cheese, in soap and candles. The restrictions of
, the old law could not prevent ail disorder and licen-
tiousness. Nay, some houses-in the heart of the
metropolis were
_and. are 'coodUcted in a way per-
fectly disgraceful to the authorities that have a con-
trout over them. Is this a reason why the system
of preventive police with regard to public-houses
should be abolished ? To,arguo in this way is the
same thing as to contend, that because no system of
moral controul can altogether prevent vice, there-
fore there should be no restraint upon immorality.
'There is one mode of procuring for the poor a cheap
and wholesome beverage; we recommended it be,
fore; and if the Government that passed the Beer
bill were sincere in their professions of wishing to
give relief in this respect to the labouring class, they
would have adopted itr•ave mean the repeal of the
malt-tax.—Morning Herald..

I remember, witi; great pleasure, the ten (lave
I spent at Munich. There is no city in Europe, thrOs
times the size of Munich, that contains so much that is
worthy of observation; and if it were for nothing else
tilan to see the dress of the women, I would advise the
traveller to include Munich in his way. Take the follow-
ing portrait of the washe,rwoman who came to receive my
commands at the Black Eagle. A aiivew 147.ad.dress, con-
fining nil the black hair and forming a tiara in front; 4
blue satiu brocaded 7.7aist and shiri of ilowei-ed misiin'; a
worked muslin apron; blue gloves; in one hand 'a blue
satin bag, depending lipra a silver chain, api a handsome
parasol in. the ether. I.need scarcely say,. after this, tkat
the women of paiaria Ave extravagantly fond of dress.
The girl wlio waited at,the t!thip d'hote, in the hotel, Wore
a gown the waist of which Ives entirely of silver.
Costumes like these give greet life and beauty to the picture
of a population : nor is it easy to fdrget the brilliant effect
of these tiaras and silver. waisted gowns when, on a Sunday
evening, at Munich holyday is held in the Royal
Gardens."—Monthly /lap:mine.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 20.
REFORM BILL.

( continued from our Second Edition of Saturday.)
Lord MILTON tai-T8 he would take the case of the borough of
Chippenham,' which- had undergone considerable discussion
already in the House. Ghippenham was a burgage tenure
!borough ; the owner of a house in that borough hitherto en-
joyed the• right of voting for two Members to represent
the borough, as well as two to represent the county.—
By being placed in schedule B it would lose one Member, and by
the present clause the owner of a house would be deprived
also of the privilege of voting for the county. This was a
monstrous act of injustice.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
It was- au. injustieewhiels the.voters did not deserve, not having
committed any offence which could justify so great a deprivation
of a franchise:. which they had hitherto enjoyed.—(Hear.) The
Noble Lori/ stated that his objections. to the clause were, how.
ever, of a:unich'niore fundamental nature. The clause proceeded
on the most false politiCal View that could be taken.— (Cheers from
the Opposition.) It proceeded on a principle of separation, instead
of a principle of tinion.—(Hear.)_ Theywere told that the towns
should not have too great an influence in county elections. He
begged the Hotisetolook* at the conduct. of the philosophers
who framed, the clauses L.-philosophers who were not only
found in theribinet; but in this House—(Laughter)—they took
a most erroneous view of the subject. They must surely have
had an idea that the population of England consisted not of one
community, but of two communities—one consisting of the
population of towns, and the other of the population of counties
—forgetting, no doubt,lhat a man who lived in town one day
was probably the' next day in the country—a population who
had concordant and not -discordant interests.—(Hear, hear.)
He objected to the clause, because it proceeded upon a principle
of separation, which was not a wise view to take of a political
community. He admired the Reform Bill as a whole—(Hear,
hear)—he admired its object—(Cheers)—he admired its principle
—(Renewed cheers)—and he admired the honesty and indepen-
dence that had heel shown by Noble and Right Hon. Gentle-
men who had introduced it—(Continued cheers)—but what he
found fault, with was, that - Ministers had not based some
of its details upon the. ancient institutions of the country.—
(Hear, hear, and loud cheers, from the Opposition.)—
The attempt to balance one interest against another was
not a wise or a practical plan, and his wish was
that every freeholder—every member of the ancient county
court—should retain his right to vote-at county elections. It
was must desirable that all the real property in the country
should be represented as it had been formerly, in whatever
-way it might be vested. It was not a wise thing to teach
the people that their institutions were of yesterday—
and it was necessary that every freeholder should know that he
derived his right from 600 years ago.—(Hear, hear.) He
would not vote for the disfranchisement of any freeholder in
England ; although he had upon principle voted for the disfran-
chisement of the rotten boroughs. The freeholders of England
inherited their rights and privileges from the lesser Barons
of .this country, who lived at the same time with those in
a higher station than themselves, who fought for the liberties of
their country, and who gave proof that whilst they were secur-
ing themselves against the arbitrary mandates of the tyrant,
they did not forget the interests of those who were
beneath . them. He would, however; not vote for the dis-
franchisement of any bona fide freeholder in England, and
therefore he would not vote for this clause, which was one
of injustice, devoid of political wisdom, which separated,
instead of uniting, the entire interests of the country ;
and which taught the different CUM'S of the community to be-
lieve that their's were discordant and conflicting, instead of con-
cordant interests. •
Mr.-F. LE WIS _then withdrew his amendment.
Mr. PEMBERTON said, that the only argument that had •
with him .the slightest force in favour of the measure
now before Parliament, was that it had received the
sanction of the public . approbation, that they were satisfied
with with its provisions, and were determined to have the Bill, the
whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill Now he would say, that
if the people of this country had any knowledge of the real prin-
ciple and practical operation of the measure, was it
possible that their approbation of it could continue, if
it was at all well founded, when the very principle on
which it proceeded was, as he contended, by the effect of this
clause to be essentially changed? That clause would be most
pernicious in its influence; it was in itself most inconsistent and
anomalous, and amounted to a breach of that tacit compact
which had been held out to the people, and on the faith of
which their approbation had, as tar as it went, been given to
the Bill. If the English Constitution was to be sacrificed as the
price for the satisfaction of the people, let them at least have that
for which they paid.—(Loud and continued cheers from the
Opposition.)
Lord ALTHORP had much diffiEulty in replying to the va-
rious objections that had been made to the present clause, as
amended. First, his Noble Friend objected that all persons
having freeholds in the borough should have a vote for the
county; next, there was the objection of the Hon. Member for
Oxford ; then came the Hon. Member for Bridport, who said
he would object to the clause, after what had been proposed by
the Noble Lord and the Hon Member for Radnor, who would
exclude all not possessing more than five acres. Now he confessed
he found some difficulty in attempting to answerthose several ob-
jections; for, when replying to one, he was in danger of saying
something that might seem to support some of the others. With
regard to the observations of his Noble Friend, they did appear to
him to amount to arguments against the BilL He could not un-
derstand the separation of interests which had been spoken of;
there ought, in this country, to be no separation of interests, and
he was sure, that in the view which his Noble Friend took of the
cmestion, he would not find many supporters in that House; nei-
ther did he anticipate that the argument of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman opposite, founded upo'l an assumption that the Bill
went to destroy vested rights, would have much weight ; for he
conceived it to be not possible for any man or body of men to
frame a measure, effecting such important changes as the Reform
Bill did, without affecting vested rights much more extensively,
It had been on the other side contended, that all rights existing
in counties should be extended to boroughs. That, he thought,
would be scarcely consistent with the simplicity which ought Ao
be preserved in all matters relating to boroughs. One of the most
prominent causes of complaint against the borough system was
the great expence which theronveyance of non-resident voters
entailed. Even in counties, were it practicable, it would be a
great advantage were the privileges of non-residents abolished.
Upon the whole, he thought, in the course of the present discus-
sion there had been more arguments founded upon extreme cases
than ought to enter into the consideration of an assembly legis-
lating upon such a question.
Sir R. PEEL understood the Noble Lord to say, that he ob-
jected to destroying the simplicity of the measure, and also to
letting in non-resident voters. In all cases he would give the
right of voting to freeholders resident in electoral districts, and
not give them the right of voting for the county. The effect of the
Noble Lord's amendment was, that a small freeholder, not resi-
dent, would have a vote tbr -the county ; whereas a freeholder,
however large his possessions might be, would lose his vote for
the county, if resident on his property. He had another objection
to the arrangement—namely, that it would greatly facilitate the
practice of frauds to a much greater-extent than if the scrutiny
were confined to one person. If the number of small voters in
towns were increased, it would save the necessity of going out into
the small districts to search for persons sufficient in number to
make up a good body of voters. The argument which applied to
non-resident_ freemen tdid by no means apply to non-resident
freeholders ; the former might have no property anywhere, and no
connection with the places for which they voted, but the latter
had at least the connection of property.
Mr. C. FERGUSON could- not support the amendment in
any point where it differed from the original clause ; and he
could not refrain from strongly urging his Majesty's Ministers to
leave the_ clause. as it stood, permitting freeholders in towns to
possess their votes for counties. He thought that no pains should
be spared to render the voters for counties independent and re-
spectable. He himself voted for the division of counties; but
after the.vote of last night, which gave the franchise to tenants
at will, he must say that he regretted having supported the divi.
sion ; and upon the bringing-up the report, if a question were
raised, and the House divided, he should retract his.vote, and de.
clare against the division of counties. He did wish to see the
great landownera lose somewhat of the controul they.had hither.
to exercised over the freeholders—a controul which constituted
one of the greatest vices of the system which the Reform Bill
was intended to-remedy.
Mr. WARREdid not think that the scheme of the Right Hon.
Baronet would work well. - -
Mr. VVASON was desirous of having a clause introdued,
which should give the freeholder, under the circumstances which
hadheen described, the option of voting for the town or for the
county.
Mr. WARBURTON repeated his former statement, that the
balance between the towns and the counties had been destroyed
by the proposition of the Noble Marquis, making landed tenants
at will of 501. a year qualified to vote for counties ; and he denied
that that proposition would be countervailed by the proposition
of the Noble Lord for making house tenants at will of 501. a
year qualified to vote for boroughs. The Hon. Gentleman moved
an amendment to give freeholders and copyholders, although the
same individuals, as occupiers, a double vote for town and county.
Colonel SIBTHORPE again warmly asserted his right to the
clause which, on Thursday evening, had been introduced into
the Bill, on the motion of the Noble Marquis. He might quote,
with reference to the subject, the line of Virgil, somewhat
modified—
"o.
leagung hY e
.) H rsicue was losfeeintoUtlgitetihteebuNreoblweblteltair,eqruiist a
hooengoirest:
( A loud
be
" foci" or " scripsi." He believed that it should be " scripsi ;"
for " feci" was short. [An Hon. Member observed that " foci"
was long.] Well then, he would so repeat the original line :
" Hos ego versiculos feci tulit alter honoree."
He wished to ask the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer why he
treated voters in cities of counties in the same manner as if they
were voters in other boroughs ?
Lord ALTHORP was a loss to know why voters in cities of
counties should be placed in a difthrent situation from voters in
any other borough.
Colonel SIBTHORPE said it appeared by the answer given
by the Noble Lord, that freeholders in counties corporate were
to vote for the counties, but the cities so situated as counties of
cities, were to be part and parcel of the counties in the exercise
of voting; as to freeholders, they were not to participate in the
same enjoyment as others in counties ; as to copyholders, and
leaseholders, or tenants at will at 5.3. rent, this he pronounced
unjust and partial. Why annex them to counties, unless you
gave them the same full right of voting in all the branches ; or
rather, why deprive them of the full exercise of the right of
voting 9 The Gallant Colonel advocated the cause of the hitherto
deprived _citizens as to the full exercise of the right of voting.
Lord ALTHO RP maintained that there was no inconsistency
in his propositions.
Colonel SIBTHORPE contended that his constituents had
been treated most unjustly.
Mr. PRAED would gladly, in consonance with the original
principle of the 13111, exclude persons who had votes for towns
from voting for counties. He begged to advert to the speech of
the Noble Lord (Althorp) at the commencement of the pro-
ceedings of the Reform Bill, wherein he stated that the
voting for boroughs should not interfere in the representation for
the counties; he (Mr. Praed) now asked whether or not the Bill, as
it was now framed, did not interfere in the representation for coun-
tiesy The only answer to that must be the affirmative. It was a bad
thing to say that the interests of a town should be distinct from
the county, although it might in some instances occur that the
interests of a town might Intp fere with those of the county gene-
rally. If thepresent Lord Chancellor was in the Homo, he would
voter av
have given an answer to a Noble Lord opposite (Milton)
similar to that which he gave on a former occasion, when speak-
ing of the influence of towns in counties. Lord Brougham then
uldtghbbreaVown
said that when he canvassed Yorkshire, he did not canvass the
squires, he canvassed the large towns, such as Leeds, &c., for he
depended more on the towns than on all the rest of the count
representation. It was said that tbe balance between the towns and counties wasy.
to lie dealreYedr point of representation. He would advert to a
few facts to sho the hultielsce poSsosed bythe agricultural interest
ii}.tbd represen anon.' Out of eeVentyjeur"Meriabers now about
to return 'Members? It appeared by the originalretnni that sixty-
ow, in which a naaiority of the
pild
only six boroughs of which there would
be in the
f:ossrtti
ytt
uo.
fie
vnbecePyrbnewoP doors
boroughs
two-thirds of the constituency would be agricultural;agricbtiewl toufbrr
of into
htichg
andboroun.
ghseo
consistinguwtleehrems
concluded by expressing his intention to vote
h The
ot
the
ei
atsh the putq and.usti question, the
cnlause form part of the'Bill',
claAutstee.r
afew
wordosf
fargormicuiltiu:arl.
without
amend-
menta
division. " • .
mr. Warburten's amendment was
To a question drum Sir THOMAS 'FREMANTLE
audible in tlfegallerYd), (which was not
ThetoC
theHA original lst:l7
Mr.'CARTER sal , that if a person purchased mope y
borough of a nature that did'not give him Elvote forth rt-
in a
he would be entitled to vote for the County. ' ,borough,
The CHAIRMAN then put the original amendment,
was carried Without a division. • . which
Mr. HUGHES moved that the words " or any other person,"
be left out of the clause, for assimilating the cases ofcopyholders
and )e4sehOlOers•with that of the freeholders in voting for towns

The Hon. Member stated his determination to divide the House
upon it.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the leaving out of the words 1
Against it lB7
Majority against the amendment —lB6
The other parts of clause 18, with a few verbal amendments,
were then, carried without a division.

The CHAIRMAN then put the question that clause 19, dis-
pensing with the payment of the land tax in the case of voters
for towns, stand part of the Bill which,
After a few observations from Mr. WYNNE and Lord ALTHORP,
was carried without a

On the CHAIRMAN putting the question that clause 20,
which enacted that no person was to be eligible to vote for
county Members unless he had been fora certain time registered,
stand part of the Bill,
Lord G. SOMERSET rose for the purpose of asking the Noble
Lord to postpone its consideration, as it was impossible at the
present time to enter jnto the question of registration.
Lord' ALTHORP thought the discussion on the subject of re-
gistration might take place upon another clause; but he did not
see why the other parts of the clause should not be proceeded with.
Mr. WYNNE wished it to be understood, if they allowed the
discussion on this clause to proceed, that they were not pledged
to support the registration as postponed.
Mr. ESTCOURT also wished the discussion of this clause to
be postponed. • •
Lord ALTHORP thought no convenience whatever could
arise from the discussion of this clause being postponed.
An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not hear, observed
that clause 21 contained the regulations for the registry of voters,
and therefore by agreeing to this clause the House was by no
means pledged to support the registration.
Lord G. SOMERSET, with thst understanding, would not
object to the present clause being adopted.
After a few words from Mr. O'CoNNELL and Lord AuruoitP,
The CHA I RMAN read the clause, with the blanks filled up,
z.nd some verbal alterations made that had been proposed, and on
the question that it form part of the Bill, it was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the House
resumed.