The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-17 00:00:00

DIVISION LISTS.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY wished to take that opportunity of
asking the Hon. Member for St. Albans what progress had
been made towards the completion of any plan by which the
divisions of that House might be taken by authority ? When
he said that Members had reason to complain of the imper-
fect manner in which the lists were now made out, he al-
luded particularly to the motion brought forward by the
Hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason) the other night
for referring the Great Yarmouth petition to a Select Com-
mittee. Those Gentlemen who entered the House only at
the sound of a bell, and who took no part in the debate,
perhaps had no great reason to complain of any inaccu-
racy that might occur. But to those Gentlemen who attend-
ed a debate of four or five hours duration, the greater part of
which, in all probability, had no bearing whatever upon the
subject in hand—an attendance which imposed no slight tax
upon their time and patience—he thought it was too much, on
such occasions, to find that their names were wholly omitted
from the list of the division. He (Mr. Harvey) had attended
the debate Tuesday from the beginning to the end ; he had
been in the House from the commencement of its sitting until
the debate on the Great Yarmouth petition was concluded,
and yet he had aftewards the mortification to find that, by some
accident or other, his name was wholly omitted from the list of
the division. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the
Hon. Member for St. Albans, who had brought forward a mo-
tion upon the subject, would not relax in his exertions to bring
forward some specific plan by which an inconvenience of which
all had reason► to complain, might speedily be removed.
Mr. WARD begged to remind the Hon. Gentleman that
he (Mr. Ward) had for some time past left the matter entirely
in the hands of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. He bad applied to that Right Hon. Gentleman upon
the subject the other day, and was informed that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had prepared an estimate which it would
shortly be in his power to lay upon the table of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made an
observation, but in too low a tone to be heard in the gallery.
ENGLISH TITHE BILL.

Mr. HODGES gave notice that on the motion for going
into Committee of Supply to-morrow evening, he should take
the opportunity of asking what course his Majesty's Ministers
intended to take with respect to the English Tithe Bill.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

On the question that the Order of the day for the House re-
solving itself into Committee on this Bill be read,
Sir W. FOLLETT presented a petition against the Bill,
very numerously signed, from the City of Exeter.
On the question being again put,
Sir F. TRENCH rose to direct the attention of the House
to certain observations attributed to an Hon. Member whom he
saw opposite (Mr. Cayley), and which, if really uttered by that
Hon. Member, amounted, in his (Sir F. Trench's) estimation,
to an abuse of the privilege of speech allowed to all Members
of the House within the walls of the House. The observations
to which he alluded were made about a week since, and had re-
ference to the borough of Scarborough, of which he (Sir F.
Trench) had the honour to be the Representative. They were
couched in these terms : " Before going into Committee on
the Municipal Reform Bill, he (Mr. Cayley) begged to call the
attention of his Noble Friend below him to the circumstance
of the existing corporations having, since the introduction of
this Bill, entered upon the practice of letting out corporate
lands, and other property, on long leases ; of course on ad-
vantageous terms, and for which, one day or another, they
would have an equivalent, at the expense of the interests of
their trust. One instance of this kind he had heard of as
taking place in his own constituency, namely—the borough
of Scarborough, where he understood that they had never
been in the habit of leasing out the corporate property.
He had heard this on very good authority ; and if it were
true, it demanded the immediate interposition of the House,
in order to render null and void any bargains of this na-
ture. It appeared to him a gross contempt of the pro-
ceedings of this House, and he hoped his Noble Friend
would not fail to institute a remedy." Now he (Sir F.
Trench) ,was prepared to assert that the whole of that
statement was utterly and entirely unfounded ; and if the
Hon. Gentleman to whom it was attributed had taken the
trouble, which every man who ventured to make such a
statement was hound to do, of first ascertaining the accuracy
of the information upon which his observations were founded,
he would have seen—( Here the Speaker interposed, but it
was impossible to collect the purport of his observations.)
He ( Sir F. Trench) was always ready to bow with deference
to the suggestions or decisions of the Chair. He would not
say another word upon the point to which the Speaker had
referred ; but in justice to the body which he had the honour
of representing, he must beg to be allowed to make a short
quotation from the Report of the Corporation Commissioners.
Speaking of the Corporation of Scarborough, they said " upon
an examination of all the circumstances, it appears to us that
the transaction was not to be impeached ;" and yet, in the face
of that declaration on the part of the Commissioners, the Hon.
Gentleman opposite presumed to make use of language
stigmatising a body of honourable men who were as in-
capable of improperly applying public funds entrusted to their
charge as the Hon. Gentleman himself.--(Hear.) He (Sir
F. Trench) maintained that no Member of Parliament
ought to presume to abuse his privilege of speech in that
House in order to throw out utterly unfounded insinuations
ac'aiiist individuals. In the present instance, he contended
that the Hon. Gentleman opposite, before he brought the sub-
ject forward, ought, first of all, to have read the Report of the
Commissioners, and, in the next place, should have made in-
quiries of certain parties before he presumed to pronounce
what he ( Sir F. Trench) considered a libel in that House.
He had thus expressed boldly and freely, he hoped not dis-
courteously, the opinions which he entertained upon the sub-
ject, He left it to the Hon. Gentleman to refute them if he
could.
Mr. CA YLE Y immediately rose, but spoke in so low atone
of voice as to be scarcely audible in the gallery. We under-
stood him to state, that he certainly was under some misap-
prehension when he made the statement to which the Hon.
Gentleman had referred, for he had since understood, from the
best authority, that instead of one case of the kind he had de-
scribed having taken place, a great many instances of a similar
character had occurred.
Mr. WILLIAM DUNCOMBE thought that Hon. Gen-
tlemen should be very careful how they made statements upon
the representation of defeated, and, consequently, disappointed
parties. It appeared to him that his Hon. Colleague (Mr.
Cayley) ought in common fairness, before be read extracts
from a private letter, which, for aught the House knew, might
be anonymous, to explain the grounds on which he made his
statement. He thought that his Gallant Friend (Sir T.
Trench) had expressed only a natural warmth at the manner
in which his constituents had been attacked • and from all he
had heard upon the subject he very much doubted whether it
would be in the power of his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Cayley)
to prove the charges he bad brought forward. At all events,
the House ought to pause before it lent its attention to such
ex parte statements.
Mr. CA YLEY begged to state that the letter he had re-
ceived was from an association composed of part of the electors
of Scarborough.
Mr. WILLIAM DUNCOMBE—If that association had
any thing to lay before Parliament, it ought to have been in
the form of a petition.
After a few words from Sir F. TRENCH, the matter
dropped.
The Order of the day was then read,
Lord JO HN RUSSELL said that in moving that the Bill
be then recommitted, it was not his intention to go into any
of the details of it. All that he wished to state was, that he

thought the recommittal of the Bill would afford a more con-
venient opportunity of introducing the amendments of which
notice had been given, than could possibly occur in the bring-
ing up of the Report. He trusted, therefore, that those
Hon. Gentlemen who had given notice of motions on the
bringing up of the Report, would bring them forward in
Committee ; or, if not prepared to take that course, would
allow the Report to be received and bring them forward on
the third reading. Upon that understanding he would move
that the Bill be recommitted.
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS the House re-
solved itself into a Committee.

In the 6th clause, which enacts that occupiers of houses

and shops rated in three years to the relief of the poor shall
be entitled to be enrolled as burgesses, if resident house-
holders within seven miles ; but to which this proviso is at-
tached, " provided that no person shall be so enrolled in
any year who, within twelve calendar months next before
the said last day of August, shall have received parochial
relief or other alms, or other pension or charitable allowance
from any fund intrusted to the charitable trustees of such
borough,"
Mr. HUGHES proposed tti insert certain words to pre-
vent the extension of disqualification to persons who might
have received money from charitable funds by way of loan.
It was not just that persons who might receive assistance in
that way should be regarded as paupers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think the inser-
tion of the words proposed by the Honourable Member at all
necessary, because; as .the clause then-stood, a loan- of money

- -
would not be considered in the nature of a charitable al.-
lowance.
After some discussion, the amendment was negatived with-
out a division, and the other clause agreed to.
Mr. BORT H WIC K had been anticipated by the Honour-
able Member for Oxford ; for it had been his intention to
move an amendment on the 6th clause.—( Go on, go on.)
He begged to move then, from line 1 in clause 6 the word
" male" be omitted.
The Committee then immediately divided—
Ayes 69
Noes 135
Majority —66
Mr. BAINE S proposed that in the Bth clause, which enacts
that occupiers of premises may claim to be rated, and vote
accordingly, for the Borough Council, though the assessment
is paid by the landlord, that there should be introduced, after
the words "on payment of the full amount of all such rates
due in respect of such premises," to add the words ,4 or the
composition charged thereon in the Poor's Assessment books,"
as in many parishes landlords paid the assessments for their
tenants on receiving an allowance for taking upon themselves
the trouble and responsibility of paying these rates, and as some
of the Revising Barristers under the Reform Act had struck
off the names of persons so circumstanced from the list of
voters for Members of Parliament, he apprehended that the
same course might be taken under the Municipal Registration
Act, if words to the effect that he now proposed to the Com-
mittee were not introduced.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he was aware that decisions
of the nature described by the Hon. Member for Leeds had
been come to under the Reform Act, and that similar objec-
tions might be made under this Act, but as the remedy tos
always in the hands of the persons who paid the rates, and
as the alteration contended for would introduce a new and an
objectionable principle into the Bill, he must resist that
alteration.
Mr. WILKS, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. JOHN PARKER COHCUIIed
in the view of this subject taken by Lord John Russell.
Mr. BAINES said that as the right of voting had been
granted to the tenant on his name being inserted on the rate',
books, though the landlord paid the rates, and as the feeling 01
the House appeared to be against the proposed alteration, be
should withdraw his amendment, for nothing could be more
distant from his wish than to retard for a moment the progress
of a measure, which as a whole had his warm approbation.
Clause 10.
Mr. PR AE D rose to bring forward a proposition bearing
materially on the provisions of the Bill, as they were likely to
affect the constituency established by the Reform Act. HC
should propose to give to the Mayor. Town-Clerk, and Coup;
cil of the Corporations to be established, the power of doing all
that might legally be done by the Mayor, Town-Clerk, and
Council of the old Corporations, with a view to continuing, or
bestowing the rights of burgesses at elections ; and that all le;
dividuals who would under the old system have been entitled
to become burgesses, should be qualified on application to the
Mayor, Town- Clerk, and Council of such boroughs, to vote
for Members of Parliament; and he proposed also to give then'
the same remedies against any obstruction of that right as 00
before possessed. He begged to propose an amendment t°
the effect be had already stated.
The question having been put,
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the poor man being
robbed of the little right remaining to him by an Act vrhic"
was nothing more nor less than a gross violation of the
compact made by the Reform Bill. He would not troubl,
the House further, but by his vote on the Bill he shout
certainly seal his feelings.—(" Hear," and a laugh.)
Mr. ROBINSON wanted to know what the House, in the
discussion of that measure, had to do with the Parliamentary
franchise at Hear, hear.) When motions had been
made in that House for the establishment of the ballot, and tri-
ennial Parliaments, they had been always met by the Noble
Lord with the argument that tEe Reform Bill was a final nice'
sure. He asked the Noble Lord how he could reconcile tl
this often-repeated declaration with such an extensive altere.
tion in the franchise of the country as he now proposed.'
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had admitted that the rte,
tention of the rights of freemen by the Reform Bill was in t'
nature of a compromise, to induce the House of Lords ,"
sanction the Bill. He ( Mr. Robinson) would ask, theti,tl
it it was fair that the compromine should be broken throng
or that this indirect plan should be adopted to get rid of
enactment which had been solemnly guaranteed by the Re'
form Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said his reason for giving tile
franchise in Corporations to householders, instead of cont'll;
ing it to these small bodies, was because the-smaller and pore'
body of freemen were more accessible to bribery and eorrej
tion than the general body of householders.—( Hear, hear:'
If it was thought that the poor ought to have more influenv'e
and sway over the deliberations of the House of Commons, 11,
thought that it would be a better plan if all houseboldei
should be allowed to vote on the return of a Member Oti
Parliament than that the franchise should be continued
to the freemen, because the householders were not so liable
corruption as those small bodies. But he argued that the e
feet of this Bill was not to alter the Reform Bill. 'They ittlt°;,
duced this Bill for the purpose of effecting a reform of the Col
porate bodies of the country, and in regulating the corpoZ
rights a new and distinct right of 'voting was created. 4;1;0
consequence was, that those persons who now exercised
rights of freemen, would no longer exist, and there would therit
fore be no persons to exercise the rights which they at prese,n
enjoyed, and the rights consequently fell to the ground•jae
( Hear, hear.) There were three modes of exercising the
elective franchise, of which it was necessary that one should,
adopted. The first was that proposed by this Bill, by wh'cf
one qualification was required which should give the right;
voting at the election of corporate officers, and another quad{
cation which should give the right of voting at the election "0
a Member of Parliament. His (Lord John Russell's) opini°
was that by adopting this plan a good body of elector::
both for corporate officers and for Members of Parliareell t
would be created.--( Hear, hear.) Another mode was theoar
the new burgesses should have the privilege of voting 1,
11,
Members of Parliament, as well as the 10/. house-holde',
He acknowledged that this would be a logical proposing by
It was quite competent for any Hon. Member to ask 'o
should those rights not be given to the new burger it,
which had been exercised by the old burgesses?—He
ted this would be quite a logical proposition, and the u'd
way he had of meeting it was, that it was not a matter St
policy or expediency that this plan should be adopted, and
upon the whole, as they were electing a new body of buof
gesses, it would be better to exclude those small bodies.,,l
freemen from exercising the franchise. Then came the
mode—the plan proposed by the Hon. and Learned Mein,acl
for Yarmouth, and that plan he (Lord John Russell) 1411,`" )
say was at variance both with policy and simplicity.—(Chee";el
Nothing could be more anomalous than the body prop 1-0(
by the Hon. and Learned Member to be allowed the nigh et
franchise. The Hon. Member himself allowed that t-d
were not fit to be members of the Corporations to be fora'y
under the Bill, yet he would have them to be allowed e.„,
pressly to vote in the election of Members of Parliameotior
( Hear, hear.) He thought that there was nothing so peectiais
in the situation of those freemen as to induce them to re se,
them.---( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Worcester I,lto
said, that as he (Lord John Russell) had once consented of
continue the rights of freemen to them, those rights ouelt
now to be taken away. If the present was a mere questioad,
to whether the Reform Bill ought or ought not to be alto the
he would not feel inclined to meddle with tbe rights of co
freemen, although he thought that that class was more lot
to bribery and corruption than any other class of electors; the
as they were now about to create a new corporate right, ci,
case was altered, and he felt bound to vote against any anieo
ibos
ment which would have the effect of continuing the fratle
in the hands of this class of voters.—( Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said that when the Noble Lord stated tiri;
the effect of this Bill was not to alter the Reform Act, he 0
not adhere so duly to the facts of the case as he would has ;,d
believed. In fact the Noble Lord was guilty of a great, eob,
ingenious piece of sophistry.—( Cheers, and cries of not
oh I") Now what lie ( Sir R. Peel) complained of was, "ja
that the Reform Act was altered in this particular, but tbat
making the alteration the Noble Lord did not come foroto
distinctly and avowedly to do so.---( Cheers. ) If-the Nue,
Lord meant to take away from the freemen the right of eta
cising the elective franchise, why not come forward diteiel
and avowedly, and move an amendment upon the Refornl
to that effect ? If the Noble Lord thought that the freeTeif
were corrupt, and ought, therefore, to be deprived of t, et,
elective franchise, he ought to bring forward a motion to that iO,
feet manfully and avowedly but he ought not indirectly toolly,
terfere so materially with what they had been taught to Co
cider a final settlement of the elective franchise—a settle final
which no one was more anxious should be considered. )
than the Noble Lord himself.—( Hear, and loud cheerllfb's
The Noble Lord admitted that he had made use of the
expressions—that he would perpetuate the rights
freemen.—( Hear.) That expression escaped with the "-a if
tual candour and openness for which the Noble li'lrge•
remarkable.—( Cheers.) A fine specimen of candour.-ice
newed cheers.) Now this perpetuation of the rights of ed,
men was proposed in June, 1831, and was finally coil; riir
He knew that there was nothing in the decision of one Pa that
ment which could fetter a future Parliament. He knee tots
one Parliament could not tic up the deliberations of a
Parliament, or to say that what they did was final and Pander
tual ; but if at the period when the Reform Bill was' jest
consderation it was in the contemplation of the G0ver1,1401,50
to alter that clause upon which the consent of the other Poi(
was obtained, it was their duty to have said that it was nat,,
intention that the rights of freemen should be perpetuate ll'
that at the suitable season they would alter that part of thCrotoe
—(Hear, hear.) Acting as they had done, they left the Pude
of Lords, the country, and the freemen themselves, ,0
the impression that the rights of those persons were
of
perpetuated under this second charter of the freedStge
the country.—( Cheers.) What was posted up in every.% ;7/
in the Kingdom while the Bill was under considerat'uo ty!
Was it not that nothing would satisfy the country, but, )11
Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill."—(Cheer-nsposs
( Sir Robert Peel) had always prophesied that the Pt col
for a modification of the Reform Bill would probablY Gee,
from those who had been the authors of it.—(Bena tbej
cheers.) The first edition of the Reform Bill reserve,,,o_
right of freemen simply during their lives; but the na 17'
edition of the Bill had this provision—" Provided also, 'col;
it enacted, that notwithstanding anything hereinhefuletie,
tained, every person now having a right to veto in al u. ar
for any city or borough in virtue of any, corporate rig-10070
take up his freedom in virtue of any corporate right, tc,
child of a freeman, such child being .born pre.vlolls4 -ire"
passing of this Act, and every apprentice bound tO4lO-,. Pt{
man previously to the passing of this Act, which c
prentit:e would have been entitled to vote in such 070
this Act had not been passed, shall respectively ,r,.;octiii
quire, and enjoy such right of voting during their J.,efLeoll'
lives, and shill be entitled to' std; trdtlV regiiceicu) 9'l"