The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-19 00:00:00

IMO

perfectly independent. In his opinion the electioneering
and the aOcultural interest would not agree well together.
Those who knew any thing of Ireland must he aware of
the manner in which the system recognized by this clause
had worked in that country. Circumstances might
just-fy its introduction there; but there was no necessity
for its adoption here, where there was a very large con-
feituency of freeholders. If the claws were agreed to, it
would be adding 25 or 30 per cent. to a constituency al-
r.!ttly ve• y numerous. The Noble Lord concluded by
m wing his amendment.
Sir E. B. SUGDEN said, that every one of the objec-
tions of the Noble Lord both on this and the preceding
n;ght, was founded on the necessity of respecting derivative
rihts, which rights, it should be observed, were those
which individuals connected with boroughs and towns that
would be affected by this Bill complained of as being in-
vaded by the measure. Now he could not conceiVe how
the Noble Lord, who was willing to give the right of voting
!o persons holding houses from year to year, could refuse
.t to the substantial renter of land. Was it to be sup-
posed, that the tenant from year to year, nay from week to
week. paying 3s. 6d. a week, could not be corrupted,
white the reverse would be the case with the extensive
farmer? He was certain that where this sort of weekly
tenancy existed, there would also be a covenant for a weekly
n >Lice to quit. Why, then, could it be asserted, that
the 101. householders, if they were subject to his
i licence, deserved to exercise the elective franchise
more than the leaseholders and copyhol lets ? But what
did all those alterations come to? The late elections
proved that the English Constitution, as it now stood,
without any of these new-fangled changes, enabled the
people to return whomsoever they pleased.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord wished to exclude a certain class of lease-

h elders. Now he would suppose a farmer taking land, on
which there was a reserved rent of 50/. a year, the indi-
vidual so taking that land would be subject to an outlay of
400/. or 500/. ; and would any individual p'ace in com-
petition with him a householder of 10/. a-year, paying,
perhaps, his 3s. 6d. weekly ? In agreeing to the clause
Ls it stood, nothing more was done thin placing a certain
&ass of the landed interest on a footing with the house-
holder.

Lord ALTHORP objected to the amendment of his
Noble Friend, as well as to the proposition which the
Noble Marquis opposite had given notice of his intention
to introduce. With respect to the latter, be would, when
the proper time arrived, state his reasons fur dissenting
from it. He could not conclude, from any thing which
h ►d fallen from his Noble Friend, that individuals holding
leases for a term of sixty years or of ninety-nine years,
were not as likely to be independent as he who held for a
term of lives.

Mr. A. BARING did not approve of the amendment of
his Noble Friend. He would suppose the case of a res-
pectable farmer, renting land to the extent of 1,0001. a
year, which had been occupied by his family for perhaps
two centuries ; bow would that individual feel if he
were not allowed the right of voting, when the cot-
tigers around him, and employed by himself, holding
their tenements for lives, had that privilege granted to
them ? The framers of this Bill, he must say, had
devised the most complicated sys'em of voting that the
human mind could imagine. Votes were to be given on
account of leasehold tenure and on account of copyhold
tenure. The consequence was, that it would give em-
ployment to the lawyers throughout the country, to
settle disputed rights and claims. This had been called
a landlord's Bill, but he believed that it would turn out
to be an attorney's Bill.—(A laugh.) The best course
would be to sweep the whole of the rubbish away, and to
adopt some clear and simp'e principle of qualification. In
his opinion, no set of men were more fit to enjoy the elec-
tive franchise than the respectable farmers.
Lord MILTON briefly explained.
Mr. HUNT said the Hon. Gentleman opposite had oh-
served, that this would be an attorney's Bill Now who,
in the case of county elections wou!d be the attorney?
Why, ss it was at present, the steward of the Hon. Mem-
ber, or of any other man who had extensive influence in
any given county. The steward was always sent round to
direct the voters to whom they should give their suffrage;
and he believed there were no men in the country more
subject to this kind of influence than the poor forty-shil-
ling freeholders. As to the motion before the House, he
would vote for the extension of the franchise to farmers,
for his principle was, that every man should have a vote,
and of course he would not exclude that respectable and
useful body ; but if he were asked why he gave a vote that
would throw the influence into the hands of the landlord,
he would answer, it was because be was sure they would
never have another election after this without being obliged
to resort to the ballot.
Strangers were now excluded ; but we understand that
the amendment was negatived without a division_
On our return to the gallery we fotind the House still
in the Committee, and the CHAIRMAN putting the ques-
tion, that the blank in cruse 16, page 4, last line, be
filled up with the words" sixty years."—This was agreed to.
The next question was, that in the passage in the same
clause " of the yearly value of not less than above
reprizes," the blank be filled up with the words " ten
pounds."—This was agreed to.
The next question was, that these words stand part of
the clause, " or demised for any term not less than seven
years, (whether determinable on a life or lives or not,)
whereon a yearly rent of not less than 501. shall have been
reserved, or for which a fine or premium of not less than
pounds shall have been paid, shall have a right to
vote in the election of a knight or knights of the shire to
serve in any future Parliament, or fur the part, riding, or
division of the county as hereinbcfore mentioned, in
which such lands or tenements shall be respectively
situate."
The Marquis of CHANDOS said that be was glad they
had now come to that part -of the clause in which he
might move his clause without any irregularity. So much
had been already said upon the subject, that he would not
then detain the Committee by any remarks en its support.
He was glad that as they extended the franchise to the 10/.
householder, they had also given it to the 10/. leaseholder;
but he thought they should also give it to the farmer occu-
pying, though without lease, land for which he paid 501. a
year; for these he considered as independent a class of
men as any that could be found in counties. He did not
think the Noble Lord (Milton), the Member for North-
amptonshire, was right in doubting the independence of the
farmers ; for he thought that in other places they would
be found as independent as lie (the Marquis of Chandol)
had found them in Buckingham. He would now, without
further observation, move his amendment, and leave it
altogether in the hands of the Committee. The Noble
Lord then moved that all the words in the above•men-
. tioned part of the clause, from the word " or" to the word
" paid," be omitted, and the following be substituted,—
" any person occupying or farming on his own account,
land at a rent not less than 50/. by the year, although
without any specific tenure of his land, and not being less
than one year in the bona fide occupation of such land."
Mr. WESTERN expressed his decided approbation of
the amendment of the Noble Lord ; and if the amendment
of the Gallant Colonel (Sibthorpe), which went to the
same effect, had precedence of that of the Noble Lord, be
would give it the same support. In giving his approbation
to this amendment, he was nut supporting any thing which
was hostile to the principle of the Bill. On the contrary,
he thought he was acting in accordance with, and in
furtherance of that principle, in advocating the proposi-
.tion now before the Committee, and he owned that he
was at a loss for the reason on which his Noble Friend
(Lord Milton) near him should doubt that the farmers and
occupiers of land were not as likely to be independent as
any other class to whom the franchise was extended. His
own opinion, and it was founded on an extensive acquaint-
ance with that class of men, was, that a more intelligent
or more independent body of men did not exist in the scale
of society. He would not say that the great body of the
tenantry of the country had always been of that descrip-
tion, but the times were now changed ; the middle classes
of society were more enlightened; their feelings and habits
were in every respect improved. It-was said that the
tendency of such a proposition as that of the Noble Lord
(Chandos) would. be to throw the representation of the
counties into the hands of the oligarchy ; but let it be res.
collected that the lands of this country were not now in the
bands of a few grandees. The landed proprietors now con-
sisted of men of all classes ; and one effect was, that the
occupiers of land were in general a more intelligent, more
independent, and more important class. Indeed, he knew
of no class of men to whom the elective franchise could
with mote propriety be intrusted than the occupiers of the
soil. The question was, whether the exercise of the elec-
tive
franchise would make them less independent than they
now were. In his opinion it would dioainish their inde-
tsooidneenyHtohna.t they Were
Memberssaete
to
dpeenpednednecne, fo
dependent
body
chink. In the present state of the country a good tenant
was as nece,sary to the landlord as the landlord was to
him. There was a reciprocity of feeling between them,
and every man possesied of laud must feel the value of
dhye which begged
an honest and respectable tenant.—(Hear, hear.) He
would repeat that a more intelligent class of man,—men
more devotedly loyal and attached to the Constitution—
did not exist. They understood the interests of the
country well, and were sincerely attached to its Constitn-
He would not detain the Committee further, or go
now into an inquiry 'as to the comparative importance of
the class of men included in the Noble Lord's amendment,
and the 40s. freeholders. All he would say was, that

tion.