The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-21 00:00:00

vatives in the country, and Government finding that a great
number of Conservatives had got into Parliament at the last
general election, thought it necessary that a good popular cry
should be got up, and knowing that the corporations were
mostly Conservative, they had endeavoured to get up a cry
against them, in hopes of thereby being able to venture on a
speedy dissolution. This was the reason why this measure
was brought forward.
Sir JOHN R. REID had never known a more distinct,
unequivocal, and direct attack upon the rights of honest men
than this was. The time would soon arrive when the Govern-
ment would find the baneful effects of what they were now
doing.
Mr. CHARLTON said that the evident intention of this
Bill was to raise persons to power in the Corporations for
party purposes. He opposed the Bill, not so much on account
of its details as because it was founded upon principles wholly
unknown to the Constitution. _ _

Mr. GROVE PRICE observed that, if the Noble Lord
had at once proposed the abolition of freemen he should have
opposed him, but still he should have respected the Noble
Lord's boldness ; but instead of doing this, he had endeavoured
to attain his object by a side wind. It would have been much
fairer, on the part of the Noble Lord, if he had proposed di-
rectly the end he had in view. The Government had been
induced, from fear of the opposition they would otherwise
encounter, to continue the rights of freemen under the Re-
form Bill, but now, by an indirect course, they endeavoured to
attain the same end. They bad repeatedly been told that the
Reform Bill was a final measure, but the Noble Lord was
anxious to make a most material alteration in it with respect
to freemen. After nursing it as a favourite child, the
Noble Lord now came down, proh pudor ! to destroy his final
measure.—( Hear, hear.) Where, then, was his consistency ?
They endeavoured to do that covertly, which they would not
dare to do openly. If the Noble Lord would consult ancient
history, he would find that many constitutions had been de-
stroyed by repeated elections. That which was true in the
political history of Athens, might also be true in that of Paris
or London.—( Hear, bear.) If great care was not taken to
prevent perpetual contested elections in all the boroughs, the
Government would, in point of fact, be handed over to politi-
cal agitators and pot-house brawlers, while the quiet, sober,
and industrious part of the population, who did not like to
take part in matters of political excitement, would be excluded
from having any share or influence in the towns. He feared,
if this Bill came into operation, that agitation would prevail to
such an extent, that capitalists would be induced to abandon
the large towns, from a feeling that property was insecure.
He could not conceive a greater mischief to the country than
to keep it in a state of constant excitement. He knew a
borough in this country that had suffered greatly from this
cause. —( Name.)
Colonel SIBTHORP spoke his own sentiments as an
independent Member of Parliament, and as such he could not
help expressing his deep regret at the absence of the Right
Honourable Member for Tamworth on that important occasion.
—(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord had not forgotten his duty
to the country as a Minister of the Crown, he would never
have consented to have brought forward a measure for the
total disfranchisement of the freemen. He sincerely hoped
that was the last measure the Noble Lord would be able to
introduce into that House.—( Oh, oh, oh I) The Gallant
Colonel concluded with making an observation about noxious
vermin on the other side, which excited some laughter, but
which was inaudible in the gallery.
The Bill was then read a third time.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had a proviso to propose to a
clause in the Bill, to the effect that—under certain circum-
stances, the King in Council might be enabled to appoint dif-
ferent days from those named in the Bill for the election of
the Members of the Council of a Borough for the present
year, but the qualification must still be perfected by the last
day of August.
The proviso was put, and agreed to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then proposed a proviso in con-
sequence of a suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth, to the effect that nothing in the Bill
should affect the right of any person to vote for a Member to
serve in Parliament for any borough before the passing of the
Act.—Agreed to.
Dr. LUSHINGTON proposed a clause to entitle the sons
of freemen and those who would hereafter be entitled to the
freedom of a borough by servitude—the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman made some observations which were inaudible in the
Gallery.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that The principle of
the clause had been discussed the other night, and therefore
he should not then do more than observe that he should op-
pose it.
It was then put, and negatived without a division.
Dr. NIC HOLL proposed a clause nearly similar in effect,
which he observed he was anxious to have put on record.
This clause was also negatived.
Mr. BAINES then proposed three clauses imposing penal-
ties for bribery at the election of Members of Council.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had looked over the
clauses, and saw no objection to their adoption.
The first clause was then read a first and second time,
committed, read a third time, and ordered to be added to the
Bill by way of a rider.
The second clause was then read a first and second time,
and committed.—On the question that it be read a third time,
Sir E. KNATCHBULL conceived it was not sufficient
that the Noble Lord agreed to these amendments ; the House
ought to know what they were, in order that it might come
to a decision upon them.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL did not know that there ought to be
any objections made to the course he had taken with respect
to these clauses.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On a former evening,
when they were brought forward, he had proposed that they
should be postponed, in order that he might have time to take
them into consideration : since then be had looked at them,
and what he now stated was, that they appeared to him to be
unobjectionable.—( Hear, hear.)
The clause was then read a third time. The third clause
was also passed through its several stages, and added to
the Bill.

Mr. Alderman WOOD moved a clause by way of rider, the
effect of which was to exclude the Corporation of the city of
London from the operation of the Bill.
After a few words from Lord JOHN RUSSELL and the AT-
TORNEY. GENERAL, who said that such a clause was unnecessary,
Mr. Alderman WOOD would not press the clause in op-
position to the feelings of the House, therefore he begged
leave to withdraw was withdrawn accordingly.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then proposed several verbal
amendments, which gave rise to no discussion, and were
agreed to.

-Mr. C A YLE Y said that there was an omission in Clause
91, which wanted supplying ; and he rose to move an amend-
ment to that effect. That clause was introduced for the pur-
pose of providing a remedy against collusive purchases, sales,
and demises of corporate property, since the sth of June of
this year, for undue consideration. But there were other
modes of collusion ; and it was in reference to one of these
that his amendment went. The object of the Bill was to get
rid of self-elections in municipal government. Now, in some
boroughs, the practice had been to let the corporate lands
and other property only from year to year ; but since the in-
troduction of this Bill, it was understood that a new practice
had arisen, of letting leases for seven years, or a longer
term. The intent of this was obvious--viz., to continue, in
certain lands and tenements, the partisans of the present Cor-
porations, so as to prolong their influence in corporate and
Parliamentary elections.—( Hear.) He (Mr. Cayley) con-
tended that was against the principle of the Bill, and the re-
medy for it came within the spirit of this clause. The at-
tempt was one to frustrate, so far as the power of the parties
went, the intentions of the Bill. His amendment would frus-
trate that attempt, and would be totally inoperative and harm-
less where no such attempt had been made. It would serve
the ends of justice, and could commit no injustice. The
principle of his amendment was similar, also, to one proposed
on a late evening, by the late Solicitor-General, which went
to protect the practice of certain boronghs with respect to
long leases, which, by some oversight or other, had not been
actually secured by covenant. He was in favour of that
amendment, because it was just. His object now was to pro-
tect the principle of short leases, which had been the practice
in other boroughs. It might be retrospective in point of let-
ter, but not in point of spirit : and, at all events, was no
more retrospective than the clause as it now stood. His
amendment was to the effect, that if the jury, by their oaths,
should find that any demise had been made for a longer term
than was usual before the sth of June, 1835, every such de-
mise and conveyance should enure as against the said body
corporate and their successors for such term only as the jury
should find to be according to the said practice of the said
borough.—( Hear, hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL said that according to this clause,
whenever there was a case brought before a Jury with respect
to premises which were usually let for twenty years being let
for sixty or one hundred years, the question to be decided
would be, whether an adequate consideration had been paid or
not for the longer lease ; if it had not been, then it would come
within the meaning of the clause to afford the party the option
of either giving up the lease or paying full consideration for
it, according to the value of the premises. But in the case
of a longer term than usual having been granted, and the
parties having given for it an adequate consideration, be
thought it would be too strong a measure for Parliament to
interfere. Fearing, then, that in the endeavour of Parliament
to enforce a remedy for one injustice, it might commit an.
other, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the clause.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the amendment, because,
without some such provisions, Corporations might grant leases
for a period of 999 years.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed it, thinking that
the provisions of the Bill as they now stood were sufficient
to guard against any collusion on the part of Corpora-
tions. The granting of a lease for 999 years would be a
complete alienation of the fee. He hoped that the Hon.
Member for Yorkshire would (not divide the House upon his
proposition.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the amendment.
Mr. WARBURTON supported it, and was very sorry that
the Government did not assent to it. It would supply a great
omission in the Bill, and went entirely upon the principle of
the Ecclesiastical Corporations, which could only grant leases
of a customary length.—(Hear.)
Mr. CA YL E Y did not forego his opinion as to the neces-
sity of the amendment ; but seeing the Government and the
opposite side of the House against him, be felt that it would
be useless to divide.

Mr. B A INE S presented three clauses, to the effect that all
laws relating to bribery and corruption at elections for Mem-
bers of Parliament, shall be applicable to cases of bribery at
elections under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations
Act, with the exception that the penalty for giving or receiv-
ing bribes at municipal elections shall be limited to 50/. in-
stead of 500/., which is the penalty fixed by the 2d Geo. 11.,
for bribery at elections of Members of Parliament.
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his acquiescence in all those