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

of applying the same principle to the non-resident and
the resident freemen. And then the monstrous inconsis-

open to male such a sacrifice. The Hon. Member for
Colchester had said that all his constituents were good and
honourable men ; and yet all the reward they were to get
was a forfeiture of their corporate rights. The Hon.
Members for Gloucester and Newcastle had said that so
disinterested were their constituents as advocates of the
Bill, that they would forfeit all their corporate rights ra-
ther than risk the loss of the Bill. Now he would tell
these disinterested advocates that they were reduced to no
such alternative, for it was not inconsistent with the Bill
that the corporate right should he preserved inviolate;
and, moreover, Ministers would not feel themselves justi-
fied in withdrawing the Bill if they were defeated upon
this clause. The amendment proposed steered clear of the
objection, that out-voters of boroughs were opposed to
bribery ; for it gave no freedom, but only confirmed it to
those who by the existing law were entitled to it by birth,
marriage, or service, and who resided within seven miles
of the town. The time would come when all who had
held corporate privileges would not be satisfied with their
being utterly excluded from their rights, and that, too, in
a Constitution where all other hereditary rights are main-
tained. The ten-pound a year householders in small
towns from the value of property would be more educated
and respectable than the same class of persons in large
towns, and this inequality might be corrected by continuing
the corporate rights. The existing race would not be con-
tent with retaining their privileges for themselves, for they
held them to be valuable only as they were descendible to
their children. He should support the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that it was
necessary that some limits should be placed to numbers,
and Ministers had taken their stand upon giving privileges
wherever they could be safely given, and in withholding
them only where the balance of public convenience re-
quired it. Because independence was secured by num-
ber., it did not follow that all numbers were to be ad-.
mined ; and the question was, whether Ministers had
drawn a judicious line. Ministers well knew that if their
Bill had not received the sanction it had met with, their
proposition respecting out-voters would have lost them
their elections, at least such of them as were returned for
large towns, and therefore it ought not to be said that
they had sacrificed any thing to popularity. The Right
Hon. Baronet had declared that taking away the elective
franchise from corporate voters was but a bad requital for
the public spirit which those privileged persons had exhi-
bited ; but he could tell the Right Hon. Baronet that
those people would justly have treated Ministers with
scorn, had they violated the principles of the Bill out of
any regard to their interests and feelings, or under a plea
of rewarding their conduct. A triumphant appeal had
been made to the people, and all classes bad accepted this
clause among the rest of the Bill. Every man knew that
the practice of non-resident freemen voting for borough
towns did lead to great corruption, and that that corrup-
tion bad its most baneful influence upon every public mea-
sure. The people had not petitioned against the Bill, nor
against the present clause, though his Learned Friend op-
posite (Sir Charles Wetherell) had sounded the tocsin of
alarm, and had called upon them to rise and resist the
spoliation of corporate rights. He (the Attorney-Gene-
ral) had never heard a single murmur of complaint against
this clause in the town of Nottingham, and the whole
country was aware that the Bill deprived no freeman of
his participation in the charitable funds and other benefits
of the corporation to which he might belong.
Sir C. WETHERELL was anxious to know on what
grounds, moral, political, or legal, Ministers could take it
upon them to defend the 22d clause. That clause was
contrary to the principle of the preceding one, for the 2lst
clause went to extend the franchise to those who at present
did not possess it, while the 22d actually disfranchised
those who, as freemen, now enjoyed the right of suffrage.
This disfranchisement of the rights of freemen of corpo-
rate towns was a violation of one of the most important
articles of Magna Charta,—that which secured boroughs
and towns all their " privileges and free customs"--and
it involved a principle which went equal y to subvert every
other species of privilege enjoyed under the Constitution.
He might perhaps be told by some constitutional antiqua-
rian, that when Magna Cbarta was granted boroughs and
towns did not possess the right of suffrage ; for besides
that the House of Commons, as at present constituted,
was not then in being, the first corporation which received
the right of returning Members of Parliament was that of
Wenlock, in the reign of Edward IV., and that therefore
there was no violation of Magna Charta in the present
clause, as it attacked none of the " privileges and free cus-
toms" then possessed by boroughs. The answer was plain :
it was the law of the land,—at least as he interpreted it,
—and as expounded at our legal tribunals that the article
in Magna Charts not only secured boroughs and corpora-
tions the privileges then enjoyed by them, but also every
other acquired right which they might receive in their cor-
porate capacity—(Hear)—of which newly-acquired rights
he need not say the franchise was the most important. To
deprive the freemen of England of their long-established
right of franchise, was to subvert the institutions of the
country, as confirmed by Magna Charts ; and in this
light the country was beginning to regard the disfranchise-
ment portions of the present Bill. Indeed lie had reason
to know that the circle of dissatisfaction with the Bill
was daily becoming wider and wider, and would
ere long include every man in the empire who
valued the rights of Englishmen. He might with
ease quote cases in point of this important
fact ; but could not take it upon his memory to
cite all the towns and boroughs which had already ex-
pressed their dissent from the Bill by returning Anti-Re-
formers, or approving of the conduct of its opponents.
or this purpose lie should have to construct a schedule A
of the towns against the Bill, in which would be found
Great Grimsby, Durham, Beverley, and Dublin, and se-
veral other large and populous towns and cities. He be-
lieved also he might include Colchester, the Hon. Repre-
sentative of which would find it to be his interest to sup-
port the present amendment. Unless, too, he had been
very much misinformed, be might, he believed, include
the liverymen of the city of London as dissatisfied with a
Bill by which they would lose more than they possibly
could gain. The country knew that the rights of freemen
to vote for the representatives of towns and boroughs was,
as his Right lion. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had observed, all
hereditary right, and that the principle once adopted of
attacking and spoliating hereditary rights, no man could
take it upon him to say where it would end.--(Hear.)
There were two modes of destroying hereditary rights—
either to begin at the top and go down to the bottom, or
to begin at the bottom and go up to the top. If they
looked to the proceedings of a neighbouring state,—that
is, to the Reformers of that country,--they would see a
striking illustration of the former mode of attacking here-
ditary rights and privileges : the present clause, by which
the hereditary rights of the freemen of England were to
he at one fell swoop destroyed for ever, was an instance of
the attack from the bottom to the top, preferred by the
popular Reformers of this country.—(Hear, hear.) The
French Chambers, in abolishing the hereditary privileges
of the Peers, began in the reverse mode—that is, they
commenced with the drawing-room, while Ministers com-
menced their spoliation of hereditary rights at the ground-
floor, by and by to mount up to the higher portion of our
constitutional edifice.—(hear, hear.) tie should like to
know on what ground Ministers, having once admitted and
acted upon the monstrous principle of robbing the freemen
of England of the elective rights which they had enjoyed
and inherited for centuries, they could refuse their
" movement " reform allies, to join in the spoliation of the
other hereditary rights and privileges which were at pre-
sent part and parcel of the Constitution? The Paymaster
of the Forces and the Chancellor of the Exchequer be-
longed to the hereditary Peerage of England, and if they,
by the twenty-second clause of the Bill, remorselessly
wrested from the boroughs and corporate towns their most
cherished hereditary rights, on what ground could they re-
fuse their assent to a proposition which would reduce
them to Citizen Russell and Citizen Spencer ?—([Tear.)
If they, he repeated, thus decimated the corporations of the
country, and robbed the freemen of England of their
long-inherited rights—if they thus laid down standard
of 'social outrage, hereafter to be appealed to by their
more eager and more consistent allies, how could they
attempt to withhold their aid from some more ex-
tensive scheme of spoliation which by and by will be
proposed, and which most probably will embrace not only
the hereditary principles of the Euglish aristocracy, but
may attack the very basis on which our monarchical in-
stitutioce at present rest ?--(Hear, hear.)—Are they so
blind as not to see the fatal consequences of the principle
they are now acting upon ?—or so conceited, so isfatuatad
in their feeble self-complacency, as to imagine they can
prevent their occurrence? No doubt Lords Althorp and
Russell wish to remain so, and not sink to the level of their
domestic allies ; but do they imagine that their wishes will
be the goal to which all the efforts of the " movement"
The next relay of Reformersl
Reformers will be directed ?
spoltiiiatnprinci.p e
will take up the hereditary privilege
it down, andthanking
when they shall lay for having
so skilfully pioneered the way—for having opened a new
road to the hereditary rights of the Constitution—will of
t:hemeelves in
course stop at their ullima Thule. S.
tion t.ay
is monstrous.
their course at their bidding ! the supposi
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman repeated
m that t
ralhe 22d
clause was not, in his mind, justifiable on !y the
, po-
litical, or legal grounds. Ministers disfranchised the. smaller
boroughs fur no reason but because they weresma ,
now most inconsistently proposed to disfranchise the cor-
porations of the large towns merely because they were
large. Then let them look to the monstrous inconsistency

tency of a Ministry vaunting itself upon its attention to
popular rights, beginning the system of spoliation of the
hereditary rights of the democratic portion of the commu-
nity ; but let them beware, the principle of spoliation once
acted upon, those corporate privileges which were expressly
secured by Magna Charta being thus trampled upon, they
might soon be called upon to join the present opponents
of the Bill, in defending not only the hereditary rights anti
privileges of the Peerage of England, but of the Monarch
himself.—(Hear.) Yes, in this clause was planted the
seed of the destruction of the monarchical institutions of
this country ;—(Loud cries of " hear, bear")—for the
right on which the hereditary succession to the throne was
founded, and by which the Peers enjoyed their titles and
property, was the same in kind and degree as that which the
freemen of England enjoyed the right of franchise in cor-
porations.—(Hear, hear.) This important fact did not
escape the sagacity of the levellers who figured in the early
periods of the French revolution, for their first act was the
destruction of all corporate and municipal privileges, as
the surest means of successfully attacking the throne and
the altar, and thence those institutions which were their
main stay. He would not then pursue a parallel between
the progress of the Reform Bill and of the French revolu-
tion ; but lie would call upon the House to bear in mind,
that amid the vicissitudes, and feuds, and intestine commo-
tions, which made the reign of Charles I. and of Crom-
well so remarkable to the annals of this country, the most
sedulous care was invariably bestowed upon the preservation
of all corporate privileges. In conclusion, he called on
Ministers to pause in their ruinous course. If they did
not, God grant that the majority out of doors would have
more prudence than to follow the example set them
from within—of acting upon a principle of spoliation,
without crime, or any moral, political, or legal ground of
forfeiture.—(Cheers.)
Mr. STANLEY could not but congratulate the lion.
and Learned Gentleman, after his six weeks' respite, on
refreshing their memories with the almost-forgotten tales
of corporation robbery—Cromwell--the French Revolu-
tion, and the hereditary privileges of the Peerage and the
Monarch.—(Cheers, echoed by the Opposition.) He
could not but remark on the discrepancy in the argument
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman and the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel); one of whom contended that the
amendment would not affect the principle of the Bill,
while the other supported it on the ground that it would
affect the principle. What was that principle ? Simply
the extension of the franchise to the wealth and
intelli-
gence of the people of England ; and so far from Ministers
departing from it in the present clause, the fact was, the
departure from the principle consisted in their anxiety to
preserve the life-interest of all resident freemen. His
Hon. and Learned Friend had clearly shown that the for-
feiture which the clause would effect applied to the class,
and not to the individual, and that it was justifiable on
the principle that it was essential to the promotion of the
great object of the Bill—a sound and bona fide system of
representation. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was
greatly in error in stating that the circle of dissatisfac-
tion on the part of the people as to the Bill was on the
increase. The fact was, the only dissatisfaction against
the Bill arose from the very slow progress which,
thanks to the Honourable Gentlemen opposite, the Bill
had made.—(Cheers.) The feelings of the people as
to the Bill had been too clearly evinced on the late elec-
tion. Witness the large majority which had been returned
pledged to the Bill—witness the fact, that in all the large
towns the enemies of the measure were obliged to with-
draw.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed, if he had not been greatly
misinformed, the Hon. Mover of the amendment (Mr.
E. Peel) was indebted for his return for Newcastle solely
to his assurance that he would support the Bill.—(Loud
cries of " Hear.") It would be for the Hon. Gentleman
to reconcile to his constituents his professions and his
practice, and if there was any faith in figures, the large
majority of the freemen of large towns were friendly to
the 13i11.—(" No, no," from Colonel Sibthorpe.) Lin-
coln might perhaps be the exception, but only an excep-
tion. The present clause, he begged Hon. Members to
bear in mind, left untouched the rights at present enjoyed
by resident freemen, anti only put an end to the system of
non-residentship, the fruitful source of bribery, expense,
and corruption.
Mr. GOULBURN was convinced of the necessity of
supporting this amendment by the speeches which had
been made against it.
Mr. PROTHEROE could not support the amendment.
Mr. GREENE complained that without this amend-
ment the constituency of the country would be much di-
minished.
Mr. ROBINSON considered this amendment an im-
provement on the Bill.
Mr. T. DUNDAS opposed the amendment. At the
last election be was asked by his constituents, whether he
intended to support the rights of freemen, and was told by
them not to do it if it interfered with the principle of the
Bill. He thought that this amendment did interfere with
that principle. Whether his vote on this question would
be gratifying to his constituents or not, he could not tell ;
lie could only say, that it was given according to the dic-
tates of his conscience. His Hon. Colleague had stated
on a former night that there was a strong feeling among
his constituents on this point; but he had not heard of
their wishes regarding it being expressed either by any
public meeting or petition, or even private letter. So
anxious were they for the success of the Bill, that be was
certain that they would not consider themselves injured
by this clause, which supported their existing rights, and
provided for a future uniform right of voting in all cities
and boroughs in the kingdom.
Sir F. BLAKE thought that the issue of all freemen
whose marriages should be solemnized before the passing
of this Bill, should retain their franchise.
Mr. WRANGHASI and Mr. CHICHESTER both sup-
ported the amendment.
An HON. MEMBER asked whether persons in the army,
navy, and militia, who were freemen, would retain their
votes. As they were engaged in the service of their
country, their non-residence ought not to act against them.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the militia would retain
their votes, even though they were called out, if they
possesed a sufficient residence. Those freemen who were
in the army and navy would certainly lose their votes with
other non-resident freemen.
Mr. PHILIP HOWARD opposed the amendment.
The present clause deprived no one of his rights ; the 21st
clause, which bad received the sanction of the Committee,
conferred political power on modest independence ; it
would act as the incentive to and reward of industry,
stimulated by honourable ambition, the sons of freemen
raised to the rank of ten-pounders, would still continue to
discharge volleys against the strong holds of corruption.
He had always to his constituents explained without dis-
guise the bearings of this Bill; they felt convinced that by
the destruction of the nomination boroughs, they would
be amply compensated for any sacrifice they had made,
and were like Regulus prepared to devote themselves for
the salvation of their country. He (Mr. Howard) con-
curred with the Hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed,
that granting the elective franchise to the issue of all
marriages aelemnized previously to the passing of the Act,
would remove many invidious distinctions in the families
of freemen which would otherwise exist.
Mr. TREVOR should certainly support the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Newcastle, as lie consi.
dered the freemen a most injured body of men.
Mr. C. PERGUSSON should oppose the amendment,
which he conceived no Member who had voted fbr the
second reading of the Bill could support consistently with
that recognition of the principle on which Government
were acting. Ministers had gone a great way iu con-
sideration of what was due to existing rights, and he
thought that they would not be justified in going a single
step further.
Colonel SIBTHORPE supported the amendment.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN denied that there was any
change of opinion in the country generally, and more
especially amoogs the Livery of London, on the subject of
the Reform Bill. The Livery, he could assure the lion.
and Learned Member for Boroughbridge might have got
up a meeting had it been deemed eligible to do so. The
delay occasioned by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
73 speeches was the great grievance that the public com-
plained of.
Mr. CRESSET PELHAM expressed his abhorrence
of the Bill on account of its being an infraction of the
Constitution as settled by Magna Charta.
After a few words from Mr. PEARSS, which were in-
audible owing to the noise which pervaded all parts of the
House, the Committee divided.
For the original motion 2lO
For the amendment l3l
Majority —79
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to read " Provided
also that every person now having a right to vote in any
election for any city or borough in virtue of any corporate
right, and every child of a freeman, such child being born
previously to the passing of this Act, and every apprentice
bound to any freeman previously to the passing
of this act, which child or apprentice would
have ehad beennat
beenent passed,itledto vote in spell election if this
and enjoy such right of votsibngaldl
urreis.pgectthive-ierlyresrepetacinti,veaclqui
iyesr.e,,,
Mr. WILKS owed that in some boroughs a custom
prevailed, whereby a female had power of g
confortit the
franchise on her husband. Such rights, accordingl to
analogy of principle, ought to be equally respected, and