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

PROMOTIONS.

Mr. HUNIE moved for a continuation up to the present
time of the returns relative to naval and military promo-
tions, which were laid upon the table last year.—Ordered.
REFORM BILL.

The House having gone into a Committee on the Re-
form Bill,

Mr. BERNAL slid, that the Committee had proceeded
'as far as the words " be it enacted," and that it was now
proposed to insert, after those words, the following words,
" that no person shall have a right to vote at elections of
member or members for any city or borough, except by
reason of occupation a such premises as are hereintwfore,
mentioned." _

A.;r. 'ci'EYLAND said that these words required expla-
nation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would in a few words
explain the object of the clause. Under clause twenty-one
th? right of voting was given in cities and boroughs to
10/, householders. The present clause reserved the right
of voting already possessed by rosi.lent freemen and the
suns of freemen in such cities and boroughs previously to
the passing of this Bill, to such freemen and tag Sons of
freemen during their byes. The object of the words,
tlievefire, which had been introduced into the clause with
regard to which the Hon. Member required an explanation
was to disfranchise all such kind of voters in future, so
that freemen in cities and boroughs should not posses!. :Ile
right of voting in perpetuity.
The insertion of the words in 1.4 e. crease as already read
by the Chairman was tlte.;,. pa and agreed to.
The CIo:F.LiAN having read the next paragraph c.l
the clause,

Mr. E. PEEL rose to move the amendment of wl,ich
lie had given notice, for the purpose of permanently pre-
serving to freemen in c;ties and boroughs the rights which
they at present possessed with regard to the eleQtion of
Members of Parliament. lie was anxious, he said, to
continue to resident freemen, and to their descendants,
those rights of which it would be unjust to deprive them,
and be was desirous to preserve them from the destructive
and disfranchising principles of this Bill. He would
.ask
what grounds existed for the annihilation of their just

L esee bige -I T.rtfr
rights, and for- the transfer of those rights to a consti-
tuency who bad less natural claims to the possession of
such privileges ? He regretted that the Noble Lord, the
Chime...l4,r of the Exchequer, was not in his place, and he
Noblemore, Lord as li
e had understoodsaidthatit arose
very
from regrettedindisposition. d
slight degree of disfranchisement with regard to freemen
would be effected by this Bill ; for that a great majority of
the freemen in cities and boroughs would squire the right
isabsence
Thatti
of voting under the 101. clause. Now he (Mr. Peel) would
deny that such would be the case, particularly in the
instances of the smaller boroughs, for the freemen there,
though equally well entitled on the grounds of intelligence
and character to the franchisesslol. householders, would not
possess it, as the houses in such boroughs were seldom of
such value. The fact was, that owing to that circum-
stance, the Bill would have the effect of diminishing the
number of electors in the smaller boroughs, though the
Learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney-General) had
s rid that one of the great merits of the Bill would be. to in-
crease the independence of the constituency by inereising
the number of voters. The Hon.lMembe.r concluded, by
moving, that after the words " provided also," all the
words, down to the words " hereinafter contained,"
should be omitted for the purpose of inserting words to
the effect, that every present right or privilege, in respect
to the election of :Members of Parliament in such cities
or boroughs as shall be entitled to return Members to Par-
liament under this Bill, which have been possessed by re-
sident freemen in such cities or boroughs in virtue of bird),
servitude, or marriage, shall be preserved to them, and
that they alien be entitled to vote at the election f Mem-
bers for such cities and boroughs, provided they have re-
gistered their votes according to the provisions of this Bill.
An Hoer. MEMBLIt, whose name we could not leant,
seconded the amendment, in support of whirl, he spoke.
and concluded by expressing a hope that such au amend-
merit would not be rejected upon slight grounds.
Captain BERKELEY rept.' sented a large body of free-
men in the city of Gloucester, •and begged the indulgence of
the Committee whist lie isiede a few remarks on the
clause before them. And first, he begged to assure the
Committee, notwithstanding all that had been said to the
contrary, the freemen of that place did and do understand
the manner by which this clause affected them ; and al-
though they might hope such clause would be amended in
their favour, they would sooner give up that hope than the
hope that the. Bill should pass into a law. But be was
bound to admit that amongst the free women there was a
very strong feeling against this clause of the Bill. The
wives of freemen and the mothers of families were very
naturally opposed to it on account of the valuable charities
founded by bequest in that city, for the maintenance of a
certain number of widows of freemen, and for the main-
tenance and education of a certain number of their sons and
daughters. To enable them to share in the benefit of
such charities, the husband or the fether, as the case might
he, must have taken up the freedom, for which there was
a trifling fee, amounting to a few shillings. Now, the
ladies feared, and he thought those fears were well grounded,
that if the right of voting were taken assay, the freemen
would frequently neglect to take up such freedom, and
that even those who might save a pittance from their weekly
earnings to enable them to do so, would be tempted, from
various causes, as they could net make all men alike
provident, to spend the money so saved for other pin--
poses ; and before a second 'efficient saving could be
made, the wife might ben widow, and the children or-
phans, cut off h r ever from the benefit of such charities.
The frequency and excitement of elections brought the right
frequently to their minds,—nay, the necessity of taking up
the freedotn before a vote could be given secured to the
families their eligibility to partake of the charities. Be-
sides, he could not but think that it would tend to deprive
the poorer and hard.woiking girders of freemen of the
ibe-
nefits of the charity, whilst those of better prospects would
be able to command the necessary fee, and the object of the
charity thus be defeated. As the elective franchise was
secured to them for the nest b 0 years, as had already hem
remarked by the Hon. Member who brought forward the
iong it
Yh
e departure
right ht o f
afrmomerutTeieri.at,inlnieipeleouolfd
trhmetßfoirlle,seebyacnoynetsinilu,
r a
voting in perpetuity.
Mr. BUCK supported the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that it wee quite ituposslle
to admit such an amendment as this. The question was,
whether the present clause, which went to preserve the
right of voting to existing freemen in cities and boroughs,
should be so altered as to preserve to all future freemen in
such cities sod borough's that right in perpetuity. The
principle of thie atnendment hail been already rejected by
the decision of the House on Saturday last, and he did
not see that there were any grounds for making this
class of voters a peculiar exception from the operation of
this clause, If the rights of freemen were to be ex-
cepted, and if they were to be preserved to them for ever,
they would be then asked to preserve the right of voting
to the scot-and-lot voters ; arid if they did so, the free-
holders would then have a right to complain that their
rights had not been preserved to them. So that one by
one, each of theme classes of voters would claim the main--
tainance of their rights, and one by one they would claim
to be excepted from the operation of the disfranch4ing
clause of this Bill. He did not deny that the resident
freeholders were a respectable class of voters in such bo-
roughs as Newcastle and Gloucester, and places of that
descriptiee, but he would contend that while their rights
were preserved to all existing freemen under this clause
during their lives, there would, in all those places, be
soon produced, under the operation of the 21st clause, a
sufficient constituency, and a better regulated and more
extended franchise than hitherto existed there. The
question was, whether the ten-pouud franchise did net
give a sufficient share in the representation, and a suffi-
cient power to the industrious classes of the country. Ile
thought that it did, and he should therefore oppose this
amendment.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, if this amendment should
go to the vote, he should, on the principles of justice, feel
it his duty to vote for it.

Colonel BERESFORD contended that the operation of
this clause would be extremely hard and unjust as re-
garded the freemen in Berwick-on-Tweed ; and he begged
to assure the Commiltee that his constituents there were
not at all disposed to surrender their rights in the generous
manner that other freemen announced their willingness to
sacrifice them.
Mr. BURTON opposed the amendment.

Mr. MILLER had throughout all the provisions
of this most iniquitous Bill ; but he thought the present
clause might be objected to more strongly than any other.
Captain FITZROY declared, that in the borough of
Great Grimsby the number of voters would be reduced by
the Bill from 400 to about 100, for that was the extent
of the 101. a-year houses in the town. There were be-
tween 300 and 350 houses at a rent of 5/. a-year, and be
thought they ought to be included in the franchise.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY observed, that the Bill not only
preserved all existing rights of freemen, but it even re-
spected whatever rights might be acquired by individuals
up to the Bill being passed into a law. If the House
legislated for existing interests, it exercised that sound
spirit of legislation which ought to limit the anxieties of
legislators. The argument against the suppression of these
rights had been effectually destroyed by the appeal to the
people. The enemies of the Bill had argued that without
an appeal to the people the measure was a corrupt dealing
with the corporate rights of the whole kingdom. Well,
the appeal to the people had heen made ; the Bill had been
read and canvassed in every club and in every asseciation
throughout the kingdom, and the people bad approved of
the Bill, and had consented to sacrifice their individual
and personal interests upon the altar of their country.
No set of men in England could be more jealous
of their corporate rights than the constituents of
that borough which he had the honour to repre-
sent, ataa yet in their full cogniaance of the effects and
operation of this clause, they bad not withheld their sane-
. tion from it. It would, indeed, have been idle for the
people to have clamoured against nomination boroughs,
Anil the rights of their proprietors, and yet keep up a cla-
mour for their own corporate interests. When noble pro-
prietors and privileged persons were called upon to concede
their private interests, the people who made the demand
felt they were equally bound to give up their personal pri-
vilege 4. Ile would press upon Ministers to give up the
tax upon admissions to the franchises of towns, for the
-people were in many instances too poor to pay it, and the
effect would be that on the eve of an election the candi-
dates for their own ends would pay it for them. He had
known many men who had passed days and weeks of suf-
fering, and abataised from parochial relief, rather than
forego the privilege of voting for Members of that House ;
hut :,,t was not the nature or object of this Bill to extin-
guish such heroic virtu: Even in its remote construction
it would not havo the effect its enemies pretended they
anticipated.. ha the borough of Colchester, of 400 resi-
dent t.aurgesses, 150 wool be disfranchised, but these per-
sons would be soon in a condition to become voters by
eoc-
cupying houses of 101. a year value. It would boetazisout
man
i
of pride to the people to reflect that there raj
in the kingdom, who might not, by honestwas not
ac-
quire the tight of voting
that House.
tended, that the only question
Sir ROBERT PEEL con
ii whether any case had
for the Committee to decide %V. i _
utlicient to justify a total forfeiture of the
been made out s .
of the people. For his part, he
ancient corporate rights
cleat it would be difficult to conceive a more
,liouhl say,
miserable case than that upon which the House was called
at the election of Members of