The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-27 00:00:00

severity of whose task he was fully aware), prevented the
sentiments of Hon. Members from being beard.' .
Sir C. WETHERELL repeated his former arguments
against the clause.
The amendment was negatived without a division. •
Mr. H. lIUGHES then rose to move his amendment,
which, he said, in consequence of what had fallen from the
Hon. and Learned Member for Stafford, he should vary
from his notice. His object was to protect the poorer
classes of tenantry, who, having for several years paid
their rents regularly to their landlords, might nevertheless
receive notices to quit on the eve of an election, for the
purpose of depriving them of their franchises. His motion
now was to add to the clause a proviso, " That notice to
quit, given between the period of the dissolution of one
Parliament and the electio❑ of a Member or Members to
serve in the succeeding Parliament, for any city, town, or
borough, to a weekly tenant, or a tenant liable to quit at a
week's notice, shall not have the effect of depriving such
tenant of his right of voting." He had thus altered his
motion, because he had understood from the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, that to take from the landlord the
right of giving notice to his tenant would be an improper
interference between the landlord and tenant. _ _

Lord ALTHORP objected to the proposition, the effect
of which would be to give persons a right of voting after
they had lost possession of the tenement in virtue of which
they were to vote. He admitted that there might be some
inconvenience as the matter stood ; but, upon the whole,
he thought that the inconveniences that would attend the
adoption of the Hon. Gentleman's suggestion would greatly
preponderate.
Mr. H. HUGHES did not see any difficulty which by
an alteration of the terms of the oath, or by other means,
might not be obviated.
Mr. CAMPBELL thought that on such points they must
trust to the public opinion for the prevention of oppression.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. HUNT then rose to propose his amendment, and
said he would trouble the Committee very shortly. His
motion was, " That all persons who shall be excluded from
voting for Members of Parliament shall be exempt from
the payment of taxes and rates, and from serving in the
militia, and be protected from being compelled to serve in
the navy under the Impressment Law." He made this
motion on die principle that taxation and representation
should go hand in hand. Such a principle was in general
conformity to the principles of our Constitution. If in a
Court of Justice a person were tried for a crime, and he
should plead ignorance of the law, he would be answered
that he was bound to know it; it being presumed that he
was instrumental in making the law, by his represents-
t:ve. Being quite aware of the :nanner i❑ which his mo-
tion would be received, he would nut press his motion to a
division.

Lord ALTHORP opposed the motion. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Preston did not push his motion far enough. It
would go to exempt any naan who had not a rote for a
Member of Parliament from obeying the law.
The amendment was negatived without a division
On the motion of Mr. PRAM), the following proviso
was added to the clause ;—" That no person shall, by rea-
son of anything herein contained, acquire a vote in the
election for any city or borough, who shall, within twelve
calendar months next previous to the last day of November
in the present year, or next previous to the last day of
August in any succeeding year, have been in the receipt of
parochial relief."
Os the motion, " That the clause so amended stand
part of the Bill,"
Mr. FANE (amidst great noise and confusion) argued
that the clause was incompatible with our form of govern-
ment ; he doubted if the house had a right to establish
such a system, and if it were established, he doubted their
power to carry it into effect.
Mr. S. WORTLEY protested against the great change
which this clime was calculated to introduce into the re-
presentative system. The present clause embodied a more
important change in the Constitution than perhaps any
other in the Bill. It appeared to him very extraordinary,
that those who had undertaken to provide a new represen-
tative system, should go one step beyond what was actu-
ally necessary to effect that object. When a considerable
part of the representation had been abolished, and the
elective franchise had been transferred elsewhere, it un-
doubtedly became necessary to provide some rule for the
franchise. But to change the whole borough constituency,
to take away all existing rights, and to substitute others in
the manner in which they had been exhibited, was, in his
opinion, most unjustifiable. He had never witnessed so
striking an exhibition of rashness and recklessness. The
most astonishing part of the affair was, that what had
been done, had been done in the absence of all informa-
tion. What were the documents before the House? A
few meagre returns of the last session respecting ten-pound
qualifications, and some anonymous communications, were
all on which Parliament had been called upon to pass this
portentous measure.. The first description of papers de-
cidedly were placed on false foundations. For the
sake of argument, he would admit that the last papers
might be of high authority. But Government, at all
events, was in this dilemma—either that tiey had pro-
ceeded upon information which they did not lay before
the House, and thus insulted it in proposing the clause,
or else they proceeded upon the information they had
laid before the House, and which was not sufficient to
justify Ministers, and much less the House, in coining
to any conclusion upon the subject. The great object of
this part of the Bill was to prevent corruption; but he
contended that the 101. voters would be more liable to be
bribed than the constituency as it existed at present. He
would not detain the Committee by any idle declamation.
—(Hear, from the Ministerial Bench.) Notwithsta dng
the cheer of the Noble Lord, he would not, and he de-
clared he had not indulged in idle declamation. He had
stated his opinion upon the clause generally, and he had
not had an opportunity before. They had been engaged
for a long time on the clause, it was true, but it was
simply in correcting the language; and most necessary
was this, for before it was amended it was not intelligible
to the majority of the House, and he believed not to the
Noble Lords themselves.

Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that riots would not
be more frequent by increasing the constituency, as it
was generally the case that riots were occasioned by per-
sons who had not the elective franchise. He protested
against the declaration that a change in the constituency
of the country was not necessary; he maintained that it
was necessary, and that it would have been useless and
unwise to introduce any change less extensive than that
they had proposed, because no less change would have given
satisfaction to the people, though it wisuld be liable to all
the objections with respect to prescription and so forth,
which had beea urged by the Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite. The amount of the constituency prevented
corruption. The bribery of 12 or 13,000 had never
been known to exist to such an extent as to have
any effect on an election. That was the case
with respect to the larger towns. With respect to the
smaller, the present Bill, it was admitted, had the effect
of creating a higher constituency than before ; and in
both respects, therefore, the Government had endeavoured
to set up as good a barrier against corruption,
.in both
cases, as human nature would allow. The influence
which this Bill would give to masters in manufacturing
districts had been alluded to. He admitted it; but that
influence was of a kind to which he did not more object
than to the legitimate influence of landlords with their
tenants.

Colonel LINDSEY could not conceive how the Go-
vernment wou!d always be able to know when leases
were bona fide, nor what check they could have on land-
lords cresting voters by fictitious leases. With respect
to large constituencies never being corrupted, had not
those of Liverpool and Dublin been corrupted to the
extent of determining an election in a particular way ?

Mr. C. WYNN entered his protest against the clause.
lie observed that the Noble Lord ought rather to have
endeavoured to direct his attention to produce a measure
that would ensure a good constituency and representation.
than one which should merely have the effect of being
agreeable to the people. He denied that a large consti-
tuency was necessarily an independent constituency; for
was it not notorious that men congregated together in
large bodies were swayed by a particular cry—witness the
no Popery cry and the cheap bread cry in our times. As
to the assertion, that no election was ever determined in
a large constituency by the effect of bribery and corruption,
he referred the Noble Lord to the election for Westmins-
ter, in 1784, when, though there were 9 or 10,000
persons polled, the parties being pretty equal, the greatest
degree of corruption prevailed.
Lord LOUGHBOROUGH said that he should oppose
the clause. The people would look to this Bill as a step-
ping-stone to a measure even more destructive to the Con-
stitution. As an independent Member of that House he
owed it to his constituents, the electors of Great Grim-
stead, to oppose the clause especially, as iniquitous, revo-
lutionary, and republican.—(Cheers.)

The question having been put, the clans,: was agreed to
without a division.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Hall-past One o'clock.

The Scots Greys have received orders to
march on the ht of September to London, where they
will remain until after the Coronation, anti then, we be-
lieve, return to Brighton,--Brighton Gazette,