The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1835

descendants of freemen ' • the second to those absolut e rights
reserved to them by the Reform Act, as it wereby speciA con-
tract. These two subjects were so distinct in their nature, that
he ( Lord S.) did not for a moment wish them to be mixed up
with each other. Both were important, and the prejudices
which might attach to the House in favour of one should not be
made to serve in aid of the other. That was the reason he con-
sidered the mode taken by the Hon. and Learned Member in
bringing them forward together as unfair. His ( Lord S.'s) Noble
Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had
said that the Bill before the House was not intended to affect
the Reform Act. He (Lord Stanley) gave his Noble Friend
the fullest credit for his good intentions; but it was not to be
concealed from the House for a moment that such would be the
result if the Bill, as it stood, should pass into a law. However,
as that would form a distinct subject for discussion at a future
stage of the measure, he should not observe further on it. He
wished the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member to bo dis-
cussed in Committee.
The SPEAKER said the Noble Lord was under a mistake
as to the nature of the Hon. and Learned Member for Yar-
mouth's motion. It was not moved as an instruction to the
Committee, but as a specific motion.
Mr. PRAED—After the expression of feeling, on the
part of the House, which he had just witnessed—and after
what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for South
Lancashire, should not press his motion. The Hon. and
Learned Member then withdrew his motion, giving, at the
same time, notice of an amendment to a similar effect on the
9th clause.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
—Clause 1.
Sir R. PEEL inquired of the Noble Lord opposite what
he intended to do with the schedule to the clause—(as we un-
derstood) ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that it would be
placed at the end of the Bill.
Mr. SHAW wished to know whether by this clause any
right of voting for Members of Parliament at present possessed
by freemen would be continued in them for life ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to reply that the Bill
would not prejudice the rights at present possessed by freemen
of voting for Members of Parliament.
Sir R. PEEL wished to know, as the Bill went to repeal
certain charters granted by the Crown to corporate bodies, and
as by these charters the Crown possessed aright of nominating
nfficers to these Corporations--mayors in some instances,
baii;.4.s and town clerks in others—whether it was not neces-
sary to the Royal consent to this effect before the measure
proceeded fur:./.'er"
Sir J. c Amphf LL said that it was not necessary to have
the Royal consent as a
r;:eliminary, as the King's rights in no
instance would be affected by he Bill.
Sir R. PEEL thought that the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man would find in the course of the dis;ussion on the measure
that the Crown had certain rights in some C9rporations. He
trusted that if it were so the Noble Lord would at some future
state of the Bill take such steps as the exigency required.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that it would be time enough to
entertain the subject mooted by the Right Hon. Baronet when
a specific case was pointed out to the Committee. To prove
any invasion of the personal rights of the Crown it would be
necessary first to prove that they existed.
Mr. J. JERVIS knew several Corporations to which the
Crown had a right of nominating the chief officers.
Mr. BLACKBURNE believed it would be found that the

Crown had no such right in any great number of places. He only
recollected one place in North Wales in which it was so. In
one or two places the Crown had a right of appointing the town
clerks, and also the recorders. But the continuance of the
nomination to the latter office was provided for by the Bill,
and the former were too few to make even an exception.

..... _ .
Mr. JERVIS said that in the boroughs of Carnarvon and
Conway, as well as three or four other places (which he named,
but so indistinctly that we could not catch them), were cases
in point. In these the Crown had the right of nomination.
In fact he believed that through the entire of North Wales
the privilege of nomination to the chief offices of Corporations
and boroughs was in the Crown.
Lord J. RUSSELL would institute immediate inquiry
into the subject.
Captain ELPHINSTONE wished to know whether the
change of Corporations would affect the patronage of chari-
ties vested in them ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the patronage of charities
would be continued in the Mayor and Common Council.
. _ . _

Sir R. PEEL perceived, On looking over schedules A and
B, that some Parliamentary boroughs and some Corporations
were not included in them. He wished to know of the Noble
Lord whether it was his intention to leave them in the pre-
sent state, and on what grounds they were excluded from the
schedules? Was it that they were too small to be worthy of
notice? Or was it from any particular cause?
Lord J. RUSSLLL said that some of them were ex-
cluded, because they were too small; others for especial
reasons.

Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether the Noble Lord
meant that the population was too few in number?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the affirmative.
Mr SC ARLETT wished to believe the Bill was one not
intended to destroy, but amend Corporations—not as a party,
but as a political measure—and therefore he could not help
deprecating the unseemly haste with which it was about
to be urged through the House. It comprised the essence
of one hundred Bills, each of which should receive more con-
sideration than the Bill before the House appeared destined
to receive.

The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 was also ordered to stand part of the Bill, with
some verbal alterations, after a brief conversation, in which
Messrs. C. Buller, H. Twiss, C. W. Wynn, and Lord J.
Russell took part.
Clause 3.

Mr. SCARLETT wished to know the reason why the
style of the Corporations was changed? And why, if it were
so changed, it was not the mayor, common council, and citi-
zens, rather than the mayor and common council ? The
paucity of the title was a proof of the poverty of the imagina-
tion of those who gave it a name.—( Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said the title of mayor and council in-
cluded that of citizen.

Mr. WYNN said that where there were wards there should
be aldermen to preside over them. He wished to know how,
as there was no mention made of aldermen in the Bill, that
difficulty was provided for?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Bill would change the
name of aldermen to common councillors ; but (as we under-
stood) not their functions in that respect.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
aldermen were not a necessary part of a corporation. There
were many corporations which had no aldermen. He thought
the adoption of an invariable style in respect to corporations
would be of infinite advantage to the community at large.
Mr. H. HUGHES wished to be informed what was to be
done in those places which bad no mayor, but were governed
by a bailiff?
Mr. O'CONNELL deprecated the time consumed in these
nemi;f'ss questions.
Mr. sC.kRL ETT proposed an amendment on the clause.
It was to the effect that the corporations should be styled the
mayor, aldermen, ed burgesses of —. He thought it
would be a great injury to the community at large, as well as
an act of gross injustice to the individuals, if the body of al-
dermen were to be abolished. It would be extremely hard
upon these gentlemen, all of whom were of a certain age, and
almost all of whom were respectable—( Hear, and laughter)—
to be degraded from the condition in which they had " lived
so loved so long," and be placed in that of overseers of the
poor and surveyors of the parish roads. The reasons for re-
taining the aldermen in the government of cities and boroughs
were very convincing. They represented a second estate as
it were, and no measure could pass without their sanction.
That the aldermen were fully worthy to be made partakers in
the civic administration, he should only call in proof the report
of the Commission.

Mr. B. CARTER supported the clause.
Mr. PO LLO C K said that the effect of the clause was not
only that Corporations should be called by another name, but
that they should do and suffer all the acts that hitherto had
been done or suffered by the old Corporations. He admitted
that opportunities might occur hereafter to discuss this point,
but still he would maintain that the point was of considerable
importance now. In his opinion the House was at that mo-
ment passing one of the most material clauses of the whole Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause con-
tinued the identity of the old Corporations, and the amount of
the identity of the new Corporations was to be determined by
the Act. The privileges of the old Corporations would be
conveyed to the new. The Court of Aldermen might have all
its functions preserved to it, although it might not be men-
tioned by name in the Corporation., There were numerous
instances of this now existing.
Sir S. WHALLEY said a few words that were inaudible
in the gallery.
After a few words from Mr. D. Maclean, Mr. H. Hughes,
Lord J. Russell, Mr. Goulburn, and Mr. Scarlett,
The clause was carried without any opposition.
The 4th clause was then put from the Chair.
Sir J. GRAHAM wished to know the reason why the
boundaries of certain boroughs were left by the Bill to be
fixed by the King in Council. He would mention in particu-
lar the boroughs of Plymouth and Coventry.
Lord J. RUSSELL very briefly explained, but in so low a
tone, that it was impossible to catch the import of what he said.
Sir J. GRAHAM contended that it was highly objection-
able that the boundaries of Plymouth and Coventry should be
fixed by any other power than an Act of Parliament.—(Hear,
hear.) The present clause gave by far too great a power to
the King and Council. In the Reform Bill, after the prin-
ciple had been fully discussed, the power of fixing boundaries
had not been confided to the King in Council, but had been
exercised by the Houses of Parliament.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished only to remind
the House that the King had possessed this power from time
immemorial. It bad always been a part of the prerogative of
the Crown. The House would, of course, be always open
to any complaint against an undue exercise of the power.
Sir R. PEEL was never more surprised in his life than he
was to hear the argument of the Right Hon. and Learned
Member.—( Hear, hear.) Here was a Bill which superseded
all the prerogatives of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) Here was
a Bill which set aside all the charters granted by the Crown ;
here was a Bill which assumed for Parliament a right to super-
sede all those charters ; and when the question occurred whe-
ther there should be entrusted to Parliament the opportunity
of fully discussing and finally determining the boundaries of
boroughs, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman turned
round upon the House, and said, " Pray respect the prero-
gatives of the Crown."—( Cheers.) He (Sir Robert Peel)
,-,?uld contend that, in conformity with the nature of the Bill,
the mete'!" and boundaries of boroughs should be determined by
Parliament. 13:7 the. resent Act many person; yvbp would
have to bear all the i,::z•ge of the borough would not havo
the privileges of exercising the e:C:tjve MIRO*: The owner

of land, for instance, not occupying a house within the borough,
v,ould have to pay his taxes, but would not have a vote, and
'was it fit, therefore, that the Crown should have to determine
.the boundaries upon which such important differences would
«depend? In strict conformity with the Reform Act, the fixing
'of boundaries ought to be reserved to Parliament. In the
:saw: manner ought to be reserved to Parliament the right of
ExinnA; the wards of boroughs. The only argument against
this view of the subject was that if the House were to post-
pone the operation of the measure until the metes and boun-
daries should be determined, and the wards fixed upon and con-
stitute d, the existing Corporations might have the opportunity
of alienating the whole of their property. He could not con-
ceive any other principle 'upon which Parliament should act
than that of its fixing the number of wards arid councillors,
and the boundaries of the boroughs. He should therefore
move, when the clause came to the words schedule B, line

42, to insert words to the effect of reserving these rights to
Parliament, and that a Bill should be passed fixing the metes
and boundaries of the boroughs, and which Bill, when it was
passed, should be deemed as fully a part of the present Act as
if it had been incorporated in it.—( Hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL contended that the power should be
left to the Crown, and that, with reference to the proposition
before the House, all that the House had to consider was the
expediency of the two courses. Had the Reform Bill been
passed as had been first proposed, it would have been incon-
venient to have had the boundaries discussed, but the delay
had given to Ministers the opportunity of bringing in the
Bill. With respect to the Bill now before the House, it was
most desirable that when the Bill was once passed there should
be a certain day, and not a distant day—( Hear, hear, hear)—
when it should come into operation. The Right Hon. Bart.
might provide against the alienation of property ; but the
question was not only that of alienation, but the time at which
the Bill should come into operation. The greatest animosi-
ties might be excited if the old Corporations were to be al-
lowed to exercise their rights, whilst a popular body existed in
the borough. The House might certainly adopt the limits of
the present boroughs, but then this would be extremely incon-
venient with respect to several of the towns in the Bill. He
did not think that there would be felt any want of confidence
in the King and Council. If the question were to be put to
the towns, whether the boundaries should be fixed by the
King and Council, or that the Bill should be postponed a
year and a half, he had no doubt what the reply would
be.—( Hear. )
Lord D. STUART did not wish to throw impediments in
the way of the Bill, but he thought the clause most objec-
tionable, and fraught with great danger and inconvenience.
If the Right Hon. Baronet (the Member for Tamworth) did
not press his motion he should certainly divide the Committee.
Sir R. PEEL'S object was not to postpone the operation
of the Act, and he would, therefore, propose that the boun-
daries of boroughs as they now existed should in all cases be
(Nerved, until Parliament should make further alterations.
Would the Noble Lord accede to this proposition ?—( Hear.)
Lord D. STUART said all he wished was that Parlia-
ment, and not the King in Council, should have the power of
determining the boundaries.
Lord HO WICK said that if the boundaries were suffered
to remain as they were at present until Parliament should
otherwise determine, the consequence would be that a small
district of a borough would, by its council, have the power
to tax remote districts for local purposes, in which those re-
mote districts possessed no interest whatever. This he knew
would be the case in Morpeth, and, no doubt, in many other
places. As to any abuse of this power given to the King in
Council, no Minister could make a bad use of it, because the
power would be exercised in the face of day, and any decision
come to would be always open to the revisal of that House.
No Government would venture to make an improper use of
a power so exercised. The Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel)
seemed to think that there was something new and unusual in
granting this power to the Crown ; but it was only similar to
the power of tracing out the wards which the Right
Honourable Baronet admitted the Crown ought to pos-
sess, and did possess, under the Scotch Reform Bill,
and against which not a single complaint had been made.—
( Hear.) If his Noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) could
make out a case for the borough which he represented, or for
any other particular borough, it would be a matter for se-
parate, and no doubt favourable, consideration ; but he hoped
his Noble Friend would not attempt to impair the Bill by
pressing his present amendment.
Lord D. STUART said that his objection to the clause
was not at all removed by what had fallen from the Noble Lord.
Mr. PO ULTER said that there were several places where
it was impossible that the people would consent to pay rates
to a borough in which they possessed no sort of interest. He
would much rather give this power to the King in Council,
than that the Bill, or any of its efficiency, should be impaired
or postponed.
Sir J. GRAHAM fully concurred in the amendment, and
should give it his support.
Sir R. INGLIS, although he by no means concurred in
the general principle of the Bill, still thought that the clause
as it stood was less objectionable than the amendment.
Sir F. POLL OCK said that to him it was clear that the
ancient municipal boundary, and not the Parliamentary boun-
dary, was the limit intended by the Bill itself, as it most cer-
tainly was the proper limit. It was much better to take what
was already settled than to adopt a new principle at variance
with the Constitution.—( Hear, hear.) By the 79th clause of
this Bill the borough council had the power to tax, and by
the present clause the Crown was to have the power of saying
who were to pay the tax.—( Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Parliamentary boundary
was too large, and the municipal boundary too small. He
had no objection, however, that Commissioners should be ap-
pointed to fix proper boundaries, who should make their report
in the next session, and that in the meantime the boundaries
should remain as they were.
Sir R. PE EL said that the whole argument of the Noble

Lord opposite (Lord Howick) assumed that the Parliamen-
tary boundary was to be the boundary fixed by the Bill. The
reference that had been made by the Noble Lord to the
Scotch Reform Bill was not at. all analogous to the present
measure. In the case of the Scotch boroughs the Commis-
sioners had no power whatever to alter the boundaries beyond
the old municipal limits. On the whole he hoped the House
would assent to the amendment of the Noble Lord.
Lord HOWICK was much amused by the manner in which

the Right Hon. Baronet had accused him of inconsistency in
alluding to the Scotch Reform Bill, when in fact it was the
Right Hon. Baronet himself who had laid such stress upon
that Bill, and had put a notice on the books to assimilate the
present clause to the power given by that Bill.
Sir R. PEEL was sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord, but
he begged to assure the Noble Lord that he had given no no-
tice on the subject.—(Hear and laughter.)
Lord HO WICK would give the Right Hon. Baronet the

full benefit of the mistake: It appeared the Right Hon.
Baronet had given no notice, but it would be in the recollec-
tion of the House, that in his speech the Right Hon. Baro-
net stated that he would call the attention of the House in
Committee on the Bill to that point. He appealed to the
House if the Right Hon. Baronet had not treated the two
questions as alike, and argued that the power ought not to be
given to the Crown.
Mr. TWISS looked upon the power thus intended to be
given to the Crown, as extremely unconstitutional. When
the present Government came into office, they loudly asserted
their determination to carry out all the principles of the Reform
Bill ; but to-night they had shown in two instances, their dis-
position to depart altogether from those principles. He was
opposed to placing this power in the hands decidedly of the
executive, but not for the same reasons which influenced the
Noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord D. Stuart.) His
( Mr. Twiss's) reason for not wishing to give this power to the
present Government was, not that he had entire confidence in
them, but that he would not trust them at a 11...—( Hear, hear,
and laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was a great difference between the Reform Bill and the pre-
sent measure. The Reform Bill was designed to give an ex-
tended franchise, and it behoved the House to see that the
boundaries were co-extensive with that design. He should
he the last to trench upon any constitutional principle, but he
looked upon it as impossible that any unfair exercise of the
power proposed to be here given to the Crown could take
place. If it should be thought that the power given to the
Crown by the Bill as it now stood was too great, let a clause
be introduced which should provide that the boundaries would
be subject to the future revision of Parliament. Was it meant
that they were to adopt one principle during the first year that
the Bill was in operation, and alter it the year following ? The
proposition last submitted to the Committee by the Right Hon.
Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) was quite different to that he first pro-
posed. He understood him to have first proposed that the ope-
ration of the Bill should be entirely suspeuded till the boun-
daries were ascertained. The answer to that proposition was
the admission of the Right Hon. Baronet himself that Corpo-
tion abuses existed, and that they ought to be removed. Were
they, then, to continue such abuses for another year. His
Noble Friend (Lord Stuart) said he was proud of the able
and eloquent support of the Right Hon. Baronet ; but there
was another thing of which he ought to be still more proud,
and that was, that his Noble Friend made a convert of the
Right Hon. Baronet. The amendment, if agreed to, would
leave the Bill in an imperfect and molt unsatisfactory state.
They were perfectly ready to meet the objections made to that
course; but if the amendment were agreed to it would give
rise to the.greatest inconveniences.
Mr. G 0 ULB URN said they were told that the amendment
if carried, would involve the Corporations in dissension, and
that the greatest inconveniences would arise. The course pro-
posed in the Bill would more certainly lead to these conse-
quences. Nothing could tend so effectually to produce dis-
content and heartburnings. Was it to be supposed that sur-
rounding districts, proposed to be included in this Bill for
coemt?a Wt
aou power Would it prevent
was mu-
nicipalre-
served purposes, would not be discontented at having taxes im
posedup
on them without
heartburnings
and
served to them of future application to Parliament. But, said
discontent their
to o tell consent?
his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), we
have all the facts connected with the boundaries before us.
They are in a state of readiness for immediate application. If
such was the case, why not act upon them immediately Why
not appoint some one or more Gentlemen, competent to the
task, to look over and arrange these facts ? It could not be
difficult, and might be completed before the Bill passed. A
Commission, they were told, was to be appointed to ipttip
boundaries. As the Bill was to come into operation by the
Ist of October, a Commission would scarcely be able to close
their labours by that time. Looking at the principle of taxa-
ation involved in this part of the Dill; the unconstitutional
power it gave to tite Government, the confusion and inconve-
nience it must necessarily give rise to, he thought it was the
duty of the Committee to support the proposition of the No-
ble Lord.

Mr. O'CONNELL said he congratulated the Right Hon.
Qeptlernan who spoke last on his new constitutional anxiety
on the subject of taTation. The Right Hon, Gentleman ob-

jetted to the Bill because it extended taxation. But, if it
extended taxation, it also extended representation, and for
what were people to be taxed by this measure? Not for ex-
travagant expenditure at home or abroad, but for their own
local conveniences, and by Representatives over whom they
would have an efficient control. The Noble Lord who pro-
posed the amendment said the King in Council meant the
Ministers. It might be so ; but the Noble Lord professed
his confidence in Ministers. Let him, then, show his confi-
dence by not pressing the amendment. If agreed to, the effect
would be that Corporate Reform would go to some parts of a
town and not to others, to No. 16 in one street and exclude
No.' 17. The Noble Lord was not a bit-by-bit Reformer, and
he trusted he would not act upon the bit-by-bit principle here.
It would be better knock Corporate Reform on the head at
once than thus to leave it half dead and alive. It would be
better to pass this excellent measure at once, than to send
it out in such a mutilated state. He was apprehensive, from
the many dry nurses it had on the second reading, that it
would be smothered in the Committee, but he hoped the
Noble Lord would withdraw his motion, or, if he persisted in
it, that it would be defeated by a triumphant majority.
Sir G. CLERK could tell the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man who spoke last that the Scotch Corporate Reform Bill
proceeded on the very same principle as that involved in the
amendment of the Noble Lord. If Government, as they were
told, had the materials in a state of readiness, why not deter-
mine the boundaries at once ?
An Hon. MEMBER (Lord J. Russell, we believe) said the
materials were not all ready.
Sir G. CLERK proceeded. He did not think a Commis-
sion would be able to settle the boundaries in time enough.
For the purposes of the Bill it ought to be done by the last day
of August next. It would be better to adopt the amendment,
than leave boundaries in such a state of confusion.
Lord D. STUART said, if Government were in posses-
sion of the necessary information—as had been intimated—
they ought to act upon it. It was a great blot upon this ad-
mirable all, to Icavo the question of boundaries as it now
stood. The Noble Lord made some further obs,,rvati,us, but
they were quite inaudible from the great noise in the body of
the House.
The cries of " Question" were loud from all parts.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division.
For the amendment..
Against it

192
279

Majority
On our return to the Gallery we found Mr. Scarlett upon
his legs ; but in consequence of the noise and confusion we
were unable to catch ony one observation- of the Honourable
Member.
The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The sth clause, which enacts that every place and precinct
included within the boundaries of any borough as before pro-
vided shall be part of such borough, and within those bo-
roughs which are counties of themselves, shall be part of such
county, was then read.
Mr. G 0 ULB URN asked whether the effect of this clause
would be to include within the limits of the borough the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, and to subject it to the municipal
regulations ?
Sir R. INGLIS made the same inquiry in reference to the
University of Oxford.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the two
Universities would not be affected.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed that in such a case it would
be necessary to have a clause to prevent the members of the
University being burgesses.—(A laugh.)
Sir M. W. RIDLEY asked whether the consequence of
taking certain districts out of counties, and including them
within the boroughs, would be to render the inhabitants liable
both to the county and the borough rates ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to reply in the affirma-
tive.

After a few words from Mr. C. Buller, Lord Howick, and
Sir F. Pollock,

The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the 6th clause being read, which enacts that every per-
son who should have been an inhabitant householder on the
last day of August in any year, and during that year and each
of the two preceding years, and who shall have been rated to
the poor rates, and who shall have paid all rates due from him
at the time of the revision of the burgess roll, except such as
shall have been made or become due within six calendar months
next before such revision, shall be entitled to be a burgess of
the borough, and a member of the body corporate, &c.
Lord J. RUSSELL had an amendment which was of some
importance, though it in no degree interfered with the princi-
ple of the clause. As the provision stood, there was no certain
day named for the householder paying up his rates. It merely
stated that a person to be entitled to vote must have paid up
all his rates except those due six months before, and his amend-
ment was, that he should have the right to vote if he should
have paid up all his rates except those due six months previous
to August. He proposed to amend the clause further by pro-
viding that a person to be entitled to vote must have been in
the occupancy of his house for two years and ten months, du-
ring which all the rates must have been duly discharged. The
amendment was as follows :—" That every person of full age
who, on the last day of August in any year, shall have occu-
pied any house, warehouse, countinghouse, or shop, within any
borough during that year, and the whole of the preceding
year, and also during the time of such occupation, shall have
been an inhabitant householder within the same borough, or
within seven miles thereof, shall, if duly enrolled, be a burgess
of such borough, and member of the body corporate of the
mayor and burgesses, provided that no such person shall be so
enrolled unless he shall have been rated for two years and ten
months to all the rates of the parish where his premises are
situate, or unless he shall have paid all such rates as shall have
been made or become due within six calendar months next be-
fore the last day of August, and provided that no such person
shall be so enrolled who, within the said six calendar months,
shall have received parochial relief or other alms."
Mr. JE VIS moved an amendment, to the effect that any
person who shall have resided within a borough or within
seven miles thereof should be entitled to vote in municipal
elections.
Lord STANLEY moved an amendment, for the purpose
of ensuring a continuous occupancy for the three years pre-
ceding.
Sir R. PEEL thought that a wharf or a solicitor's office
ought to give the occupier a right to vote, but he doubted
whether those buildings could be said to be comprehended
within the words " any house, warehouse, countinghouse, or
shop."

Mr. B. CARTER A suggested that the proprietors of land
within the boundaries of any borough should also be entitled
to a vote.
Sir R. PEEL said that the proposition of the Hon. Gen-
tleman would tend too much to facilitate the qualification for
the municipal franchise. Householders residing in- villages
within five miles of the borough might by the Hon. Gen-
tleman's proposition be all qualified, by dividing the land
into small parcels, and giving them an interest in it. Great
difficulties would arise from the proposition, and the land
qualification ought to be resisted, since it would give all
persons residing in villages within a certain distance of the
borough a right of voting. He very much doubted the pro-
priety of persons possessing land in the way described voting
for borough purposes.
An Hon. MEMBER and Sir R. PEEL made a few observa-
tions across the table, the purport of which was not heard in
the Gallery.

Lord J. RUSSELL believed that the introduction of the
word "lands" would be liable to much abuse, and that such
occupiers ought not to have a right of voting. With respect
to the introduction of the words mentioned by the Right Hon.
Gentleman ( Sir Robert Peel), namely, " wharf and office,"
he saw no objection to them. At the same time other words
might be proposed, such as " mill," &c., and he was of opinion
that time should be given for the consideration of the intro-
duction of words of that kind. Time ought to be given for
the introduction of other words, properly describing buildings,
&c., and making the meaning sufficiently extensive.
Mr. HARDY said that many persons might occupy land
for the purpose of carrying on certain business, and that they
ought to have a right to vote. If land was introduced as a
qualification, the objection that it might be subdivided could
be obviated by taking the amount at which the land was rated.

With respect to the period of occupancy proposed by the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he thought that the words pro-
posed by the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire would be
clearer, and would clearly point out the time to be three whole
years. Simply stating once that the occupancy should be for
three years preceding would be far more intelligible.

Lord STANLEY said that his amendment would not inter-
fere with that of the Hon. Member for Exeter. If his (Lord
Stanley's) amendment should be carried the Hon. Member for
Exeter might still propose his. What he proposed was, that
the words relating to the period of occupancy as they now
stood in the amended clause should be struck out, for the pur-
pose of inserting " for the space of the entire three years next
preceding." --
Sir S. WH ALLEY said that if the Noble Lord's (Lord
Stanley's) amendment should be carried, the time, instead of
being three years, would in many cases extend to three years
and eleven months, that was to say, one month short of four
years. He should propose that the date of occupancy should
be the last day of September, instead of as it was now the first
day of August.
Sir J. CAMPBELL—If the first day of January was
adopted instead of the last day in August, in that way all con.
fusion would be obviated, and the time would become two years
and ten months, and the person could not vote unless his occu-
pancy extended to that period. That was what was intended
by his Noble Friend near him. That would be the shortest
period, though in some cases it might be much longer.
Sir R. PEEL—Supposing a person is on the burgess poll,
and he ceases to occupy whilst on it, is he entitled still to
vote ? It appeared to him from the Bill, that a person so
ceasing to occupy whilst on the poll was entitled to vote.—
(" No," from the Ministerial bench.)
Sir J. CAMPBELL made an observation, the nature of
which we could not understand.
Sir R. PEEL—The person, then, on the burgess poll is
entitled to vote, though he should cease to occupy ?
Mr. DIVETT—If three years' occupancy were necessary,
it would be impossible for persons to prove their qualification
at all, since they would he obliged to prove the payment of
their rates for that long period. It would be impn-,ible for
them to do so, and a great many persons would be disfran-
chised by the clause as it then stood. Under these circum-
stances he would talk the sense Qt. the House, and move the
omission of the words "three years," inserting in their stead,
" for one year."
The amendment of Lord Stanley having been read,
Mr. WATMURTON considered that the three years pro.
posed by the Noble Lord would extend to three years and ten
months. He agreed with the Hon. Member for Exeter that
one year would be better, and that extending the time to three
years and ten months would be too long, and that it could
never be carried properly into effect.
Mr. ROBINSON begged to suggest a medium period.

He would rather have two years substituted, in the room of
three. —( Hear.)
Mr. GROTE felt strongly disposed to support the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Exeter. He considered that
one year's rating was sufficient for the qualification of a
Burgess.
Sir R. PEEL said that all he wanted was a three years
occupancy and a bona fide payment of rates during that period.
That he supposed was the intention of the Noble Lord who
proposed it. He could not see how three years and ten months
would be required, if the Bill were so amended. He could
not see how the Noble Lord's amendment would extend the
time to three years and ten months, and for that reason he
would vote for it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the loss of some days was on
all hands unavoidable. He objected to the amendment of his
Noble Friend, as it would tend to extend the time to nearly
four years. The Noble Lord made another observation which
it was impossible to understand in the Gallery.
Lord STANLEY had no other wish than that three years'
occupancy should be the minimum period required for the en-
rolment of burgesses. More than that he did not require, nor
did he wish to obtain less. Taking as a date the last day of
September, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Maryle-
bone, and adopting his (Lord Stanley's) amendment, the time
would be only three years and a few days. If the suggestion
of the Hon. Member for Marylebone should be adopted he
would not divide the House.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS would support the proposition ofthe
Hon. Member for Exeter.
Sir J. CAMPBELL felt himself bound to oppose the
amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley.)
Sir R. INGLIS was in favour of extending the time of
occupancy, as by it the character of the voters and their re-
spectability would be raised and tested.
Mr. AG LIONB Y would vote against the amendment, and
then against the clause, as two years and seven months, pro-
posed by it, was too long a period for testing the respectability
of voters. After he had so voted, he should have an opportu-
nity of stipportimr the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Exeter.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought (as we understood) if the
payment of municipal rates, as well as poor's rates, were in-
sisted upon, it would very much diminish the number of voters.
Mr. WARD could not vote for any amendment that would
extend the time beyond three years. He would vote against
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Exeter ; but if the
Government did not confine the period to three years he
would vote against the proposition of the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell).
Mr. HUME considered the period of two years quite long
enough. Requiring three years' occupancy would disfranchise
too many persons. He was favourable to the medium period
proposed by the Hon. Member for Worcester.
Mr. HAWES said that cases might occur, even supposing
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Exeter to be carried,
in which the period would extend to two years.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE made a remark which did not
reach us, in consequence of the intervention of the Speaker's
chair.

Lord STANLEY wished, before he gave the Committee
the trouble of dividing, to be informed whether the Govern-
ment meant to resist any further diminution of time ?—( Oh I)
If that should be their intention he would not press his
amendment to a division.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in what he heard he saw no
reason to induce him to shorten the period of time.--( Hear.)
Lord STANLEY then said that he would not give the
Committee the trouble of dividing on his amendment.
After a few words from an HON. MEMBER the amendment
was withdrawn.
Mr. DIVETT rose to propose the amendment of which he
had given notice. The long period of time proposed by the
Bill would be productive of great inconvenience, and would
cause extensive disfranchisement. He would propose that the
two preceding years be struck out, and that the period be
limited to one year.
Dr. BOWRING rose to address the Committee, but re-
sumed his seat amid loud cries of " Divide."
The CHAIRMAN then put the amendment, to the effect that
the period of occupancy be limited to the twelve months pre-
ceding.
Mr. HUTT could not see on what principle of justice the
clause Has to be supported, and he must, therefore, vote in
favour of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Exeter.
Dr. BOWRING again rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide," and made a few observations which were inaudible in
the Gallery.
Lord HOWICK wished to recal the attention of Honour-
able Members to what the question before the House really
was. By some Hon. Gentlemen it seemed to be supposed
that the clause would have the effect of disfranchising the
inhabitants of corporate towns ; but this was a mistake in
language of considerable importance.--( Hear.) The fact
was, there was no question of disfranchisement before the
House at all, and the only question they had now to determine,
was whether the enfranchisement contemplated by the Bill
should go only a certain length or be carried to a still greater
extent. He must express it es his opinion that those who
voted for the election of the members of the town council

ought to be resident, that was permanent, inhabitants of the
town, so as to have its welfare at heart, and he thought a
recollection of the old corporation system, when the right of
voting was acquired only by birth or a servitude of seven years,
should, without any other argument, satisfy the House of the
reasonableness of the clause. It was neither fit nor proper
that the temporary inhabitants should have the power of sad-
dling- the town with permanent burdens, or altering the dispo-
sition of the landed property of the Corporation ; and, this be-
ing his opinion, he hoped the clause would be agreed to.
Mr. ENV-ART should vote for the amendment.
An HON. MEMBER said that this was the only clause in the
Bill which was generally complained of, and he hoped the ob-
jections to it would be removed.—(" Divide, divide.")
Mr. PEASE did not think that making residence a qualifi-
cation would give the least additional security to corporation
property.
The Committee then divided, and the numbers were—

For the Amendment
Against it

97
321

- Majority
On our re-admission to the Gallery we found Mr. Jervis
proposing an amendment, but neither the observations of the
Hon. Gentleman, nor those of Lord John Russell, Mr. C.
Buller, and one or two other Hon. Membeis could be heard,
owing to the noise occasioned by Hon. Gentlemen walking
about the floor, as if intending to leave the House. During
this state of confusion, however, we infer from what followed
that an adjournment was proposed.
Sir R. PEEL said that it was now the 22d of June, and,
unless they resolved to pay some little attention and devote
some degree of time to this Bill, the consequence would be,
that it must be protracted to a period of the year when it
would be utterly impossible to give it the sort of consideration
which its importance demanded. They should recollect that
in this one Act were embraced more than 150 private Acts,
and that, unless they went fully and fairly into the discussion,
not only of the whole subject, but of every one of its details,
they would not be doing justice either to the parties whose in-
terests it would affect, or to the public at large.—( Hear. )
Mr. DI VETT said he fully agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet that it would occupy until the end of September, if
not until Christmas, before this measure could be passed, if
they adjourned at so early an hour as half-past twelve o'clock.
He hoped the House would allow the Hon. and Learned
Member for Chester to go on.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTH ERT ON was understood to say that he would
not persist in the motion for adjournment if the feeling of the
House was against him.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and
" Mr. Jervis, Mr. Jervis.")

Mr. JERVIS then moved that they should leave out from
the clause the words " inhabitant householder," for the pur-
pose of inserting these words, " owner or occupier of any
house, counting-house, shop, or warehouse, even though re-
sident beyond seven miles from the borough."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment, and
expressed it as his opinion that the clause went quite far
enough as it stood.
Mr. PE ASE thought that the clause as it stood would ex-
clude many persons living near the town who ought to be en-
titled to vote under this Bill.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it would include all per-
sons residing within seven miles of the town.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that some provision would be
made by which the sons of persons who had retired from
business, but whose names still continued on the rate book,
should be allowed to vote. He knew many persons at Man-
chester and elsewhere, who were deprived of the franchise on
this account, although they possessed great wealth, and con-
tributed largely to the rates and taxes of the towns in which
they lived.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think there was
more hardship in the case alluded to by the Hon. Member
than in that of lodgers. He could not agree either that mere
residence was enough, and for the reason that he did not
think it would lead to either the independence or the purity of
election. He hoped the clause would not be altered.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said that this Bill would have the
effect of disfranchising him, and many other merchants like
himself, who lived beyond the prescribed limits, although pay-
ing many thousands a year in rates.

Mr. ROEBUCK said that he should support the clause,
because the rich and not the poor were to be the sufferers.
Mr. B A INE S wished to know whether it was intended
that a tenant whose rates were paid by his landlord should be
entitled to exercise the franchise ?—( Cries of " Yes.")
Mr. TOOKE said he should vote against the amendment.
Mr. FLEETWOOD supported the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Chester, on the ground that confining the
franchise to resident householders would shut out many re-
spectable persons, particularly in the town of Preston, which
he bad the honour to represent, who, though not resident house-
holders, paid taxes as proprietors of valuable premises in the
town.

Mr. WARBURTON opposed the amendment, because he
feared it would occasion considerable danger of frauds, by the
creation of a species of voters who might be used to swamp
the inhabitants of the borough.
Mr. C. FE RGUSSON said that, with respect to the ob-
jections raised by the Hon. Member for Preston, as to the ex-
istence or a 1.,.;60 :a.:-.:l;er of persons paying tzr:e7. ,Aliu were
not properly speaking householders, he believed the number of
such persons was very inconsiderable. He hoped therefore
that the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud would take
warning by the course adopted on the occasion of the Reform
Act, and not listen to amendments like the present, tending to
injure the wholesome provisions of his Bill.
Mr. P. THOMSON supported the clause as it stood, and
agreed in the opinion expressed against the amendment by the
Hon. Member for Bridport as to the danger of frauds, by the
introduction of the proposed constituency.
Mr. PRYME complained of the ambiguity ckf the words
" inhabitant householder," Uc took the vase 9f a father and

son in joint occupancy of the same house, and he questione
which, or whether both, could be qualified.
Sir IL PEEL opposed the amendment, but at the same
time admitted that it was difficult to come to any arrange-
ment on the subject which should not include some cases of
hardship.
Mr. JERVIS then withdrew his amendment.
On the question thee seven miles around be the extent of
each borough,

Mr. PRAED inquired from what points and upon what
plan it was proposed to calculate this distance?
Lord J. RUSSEL L said that he would rather not propose
any definite arrangement on that subject at present. It would
probably depend in a great measure upon the arrangement
adopted in the Bill with respect to the registration of voters,
now before the House.

After a few words from Mr. WARauaTtitt and Colonel

SIBTIIORP,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was desirable that
the admeasurement, both as to parliamentary and municipal
purposes, should proceed from the same point.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that certain local authorities
should be appointed to perambulate the neighbourhood of
each borough, and fix its limits.
Mr. WA RBURTON proposed that the seven miles should
be measured from the market-place in the town.
Mr. PR YME objected to this proposal, that in some places
there were no market-places at all, and that in many cases it
would be difficult to determine the distance of any particular
person's residence in a direct line from the market-place, with
out trespassing over the individual land of somebody else. He
thought the distance bad better be regulated by the milestones
on the nearest road.

Lord HOWICK said there were many places which bad
more than one market-place, and he would ask the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bridport what he proposed doing in that case ?
Sir R. PEEL said that he had given notice of an amend-
ment which he hoped the Noble Lord would feel inclined to
concur in, namely, that the payment of rates for borough pur-
poses should be equally necessary for the qualification of
burgess with the pa., uieut of rates for the reiiei of the poor.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought the payment of poor'?
rates was a sufficient test to entitle a householder to the privi-
lege of a burgess. Besides, there were many cases in which
the Right Hon. Baronet's amendment would be wholly ineffec-
tive, there being no borough rates for municipal purposes
whatever.

Sir R. PEEL said it would be better not to half discuss the
question, and he was willing to consult the opinion of the
House whether to discuss it now or postpone it.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say he was ready to
discuss the matter whenever the Right Hon. Baronet thought
proper. _ _

Sir R. PE EL then said that, supposing what was antici-
pated from the Poor Law Amendment Bill proved true, the
payment of poor rates would become an exceedingly small
charge in many places ; and he doubted, under such circum-
stances, whether the being rated to the support of the poor
was a sufficient test of the respectability of the parties. He
really thought that if the payment of municipal rates, where
they existed, were to be in conjunction with the poor rates, ne
innovation and no hardship would result. It was clearly
nothing more than the old principle of scot and lot, and be
hoped the Noble Lord would not oppose so very reasonable &
modification of his Bill.

Lord HO WICK suggested that the clause should be
adopted as it stood, and that on a future occasion the Right
Hon. Baronet should propose a separate clause, embodying
the views he entertained.

Sir R. PEEL said he was quite willing to consult the con-
vet ience of the House.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there were manY
places in which there would be no borough-rate ; whilst the
poor-rate he found would be everywhere of very long conti-
nuance.

Sir R. PEEL and Lord J. RUSSELL explained as to the pro-
priety of proceeding at once with the discussion.

Mr. BROTHERTON thought if the proposition were for
imposing two rates as a qualification for a vote, the time ;of
payment should have been less—in place of three years it
should have been one. The present proposition should have
been decided before the question of time. Now there was a
great deal of property within the boundary of large toffee
instance,
small was not assessed for borough rates—farms for
small cottages too, which were not worth mere than 61. a,„
year. If the borough rates were imposed on the holders of
these cottages, who could not pay them in addition to the
poor rates, that would limit the constituency.
Mr. WARBURTON said the proposition of the Right
Hon. Baronet went on two distinct principles, the payment 01
two distinct taxes. As those who had not paid three year?
poor rates would be disfranchised, it would be too severe to
lay on them the additional burthen of borough rates.
Mr. SC ARLETT said if the favourite principle of some
Gentlemen, that taxation and representation should go toge-
ther, were a good one, then they should allow that those who
did not pay the taxes required for all the purposes of the town
should have no vote. There could be no sound reason for
omitting the borough rate as a qualification.—( Hear. )
Mr. BAINES said there were many in large boroughs,
such as Manchester and Leeds, who paid only one rate, the
poors rate. To require the borough rate in addition would be
to disfranchise many, and would destroy the liberal spirit of
the Bill, which was looked on so favourably already, but
which would be looked on very unfavourably if this proposition
were adopted.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that it would be better to defer
the discussion on so important a point until to-morrow.--
(Cries of " Adjourn.") In Manchester and Leeds, which the
Hon. Gentleman called boroughs, but which he (Sir R. Peel)
would not, certain property was taxed for the payment of the
watch, and paving and lighting, and other local purposes. Now,
under the present Bill, the common council would have charge
of the watch, and should impose a tax for that and other pur-
poses, and the consequence would be that these taxes would
be imposed on many who were now exempt from them, for in-
stance, on the small householders alluded to in Leeds and
Manchester. So that part of the Hon. Gentleman's argument
went for nothing.
Mr. ROBINSON objected to the borough rate. The
House had decided that the principle of the three years' poor
rate should be adopted as the qualification, and it was not right
now to call on it to sanction the imposition of the other rate,
which would have the effect of limiting the franchise.
Mr. ROEBUCK said a few words Which were inaudible.
Sir R. PE EL would contend. in opposition to the assertion
of the Member for Bath, that no kind of property would be
exempt from the borough rate. The council who would have
to provide for the watch would be bound to rate all kinds of
property. He would ask his Majesty's Attorney-General
whether the Hon. Member for Bath's construction of the Act
was the correct one. In fact the requiring of the two rates
was not imposing any hardship on the inhabitants.
Mr. B. CARTER made some remarks, which were not
audible to us.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS thought it probable that the Common
Council would continue the exemptions from the borough
rates as at present. He would not object to the proposition
if it were, not found to limit the constituency.—( Question.)
Lord SANDON said if it were true that the Common
Council would exempt the poor, they would take care !()
continue the exemption by electing themselves as the Counca•
-Hear, and cries of " Question," and " Adjourn.")
Sir. BAINES said it appeared the object was to impose
new taxes on the people.
Sir R. PEEL—Undoubtedly.
Mr. BAINES—Then he would object; and he was sure
the proposition, if carried, would render the Bill very unpo-
pular.

Sir R. PEEL said he did not wish to enter into any un-
fair or partial discussion on so important a clause that night.
He hoped the Noble Lord would allow the discussion to be
postponed till to-morrow. He had not stated his reasons for
making his motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would have been better
pleased if the Right Hon. Baronet had said so earlier, before
any discussion took place. But if he saw the importance of
the clause, he would not prevent him from having another
discussion on it. He hoped he would allow the clause to be
read now, and discuss the matter afterwards, on bringing uP
the report.

Mr: SHEIL said the Hon. Baronet had given notice of
motion on this subject, and after they had an hour's debate be
wished the question to be postponed, on the ground that be
had not stated his reasons. He should have been prepared to
state them then. The Right Hon. Baronet need not delay
the progress of the clause now. Let him allow it now to pass;
and introduce his arguments on bringing up the report, and
then take the sense of a full House upon it.
Lord SANDON moved that the Chairman report progress,
amidst loud cries of " Divide."

Sir R. PEEL said that Hon. Gentlemen might themselves
move for a division if they pleased, but he would take his
own time to bring forward his motion. He did not wish to
throw any unnecessary obstacles in the way, and was willing
to enter into any fair arrangement, but no one should trench
on his privilege as a Member of that House. He should not
wait for the report, but would take any other fair opportunity
which might be afforded of pressing his amendment.
After a few words from Messrs. ROEBUCK and SHEIL the
question was put, and the Gallery cleared for a division ; but
during our absence the motion was agreed to without a
di-
vision.

The Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit
again to-morrow., The other Orders of the Day were they
disposed of, and the House adjourned at half-past Two o'clock-