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

Tacut:of a plot of ground, valued at 101. a year. He saw no
resson why this privilege to the sons of freemen, aged twenty,
sh..uld be taken away, thus robbing them of a reversionary
int -rest. In Newcastle-under-Lyre the freemen were en-
tit'. <1 to freedom of stalls from toll, and of this their sons
svculd be deprived. In Daventry there was a privilege of
pas swage to no less than 4,217 acres of land, which was of
the :slue of 251. a year to each burgess. Another class of
co I.nrate rights was proposed to be abolished by the Bill of
tbs Noble Lord. He alluded to the deprivation of the rights
app:staining in the regular course of time to children of free-
nacs. and to those who had nearly served their apprenticeship,
the right of voting for Members of Parliament—a right pro-
p° ed to be continued to the present possessors by the Noble
L rii himself, and the principle of which was lately discussed
an ; approved of, not under the press of any embarrassing op-
-ition, but in a House friendly to him and his measures.—
ir, and ci ies of " No.") These privileges were intro-
duced by the Noble Lord into the amended Reform Bill sub-
set 'ently to the Bill being thrown out by the House of Lords,
int;s,deced as an improvement, and the Noble Lord thereby
pl pledged himself that the corporate right of voting
should be maintained in perpetuity.—( Hear, hear.) That was
the time when the principle of this part of the subject should
shave been fairly discussed, and these corporate rights openly
,'averted, if the Noble Lord had thought such encroachments
esss ntial to the principle of reform.—(Hear.) Now, how-
ever, when the principle under discussion had no relation to
right of voting for Members of Parliament, but to the
better government of Corporations, the Noble Lord proposed
to unsettle and civerthrow what he had established by his pre-
vi.)ll3 Bill. He thooght that this was an inconsistency of pro-
ceeding which the Noble Lord would not easily be able to re-
concile to the satisfaction ,'f the House. But, independent
f the inconsistens,' displaysd is: the introduction of this clause
11.- the Noble Lord, he must confer that he decidedly dis-
liised the spirit of the Proposition in itgf4f- Its object obvi-
ously was to deprive ti:'t poor of all repsssentation, of all
shadow or participation of pOwer, within the wa.!_is of Parlia-
rr cot. He thought that the manifestations of this engrossing
spirit was peculiarly ill-timed and u.'".lwise at this critical period,
when the injudicious working of the I:0 or Law Bill had giverl
rise to such re-action throughout the couery.
Sir M. W. RIDLE Y rose to second the motion, and ex-
pressed his suprise that several Hon. Memllers should take
the liberty of indulging in a sneer whenever the word freem:n
As mentioned. It was hereby proposed to deprive freemen
of the right of voting for Common Councilmen in their own
corporations. This was a decided injustice, which no excuse
-whatever could suffice to establish the expediency of. Then
the chartered rights of apprentices, both in expectancy and in
existence, were wholly disregarded. The apprentice had pro-
b .bly paid his master a large sum of money to learn his trade,
asd thereby step into the possession of corporate privileges,
which were now to be annulled as far as his claims were con-
cerned. Thus they would cancel the contract between mas-
t( s and apprentice. All the ties of civil society which hitherto
held these classes together for their mutual benefit, were torn
asunder. All was confusion and disorder.
The motion was then read from the Chair as an amend-
ment.
Mr. PR AED was not aware that his instruction to the
Committee would be put in that shape. It placed him under
a disadvantage that he did not expect.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not quite understand the Hon.
Member for Yarmouth's views for the improvement of Corpo-
rations (recapitulating the terms in which Mr. Praed had
drawn up his instructions to the Committee), but perfectly
agreed in the concluding desire therein expressed, " to pre-
serve the rights and privileges of freemen, as far as may be
consistent with the future good government of Corporations."
A laugh.) It would appear, however, that the Hon.
Member's feeling on the matter was to leave the Corporations
untouched. In this he could not agree with him. It was the
great object of the Reform Bill to extend the right of voting
s for Members of Parliament. That Bill, however, must only
be considered a step in the consideration of the subject of
Corporate Reform.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that
Llght that he had therein extended that right of voting to the
freemen in Corporations ; but that was not his wish, nor did
it form part of his original plan in the first Bill.—(Hear.)
The clauses recognising various corporate privileges had sub-
sequently been adopted as amendments, which were felt to be
Lecessary to carry the Bill through the Lords. The fact
14-13 that several bad and noxious alterations had been made
in the first Bill in the Upper House, and "we (said the
Noble Lord) found it advisable to adopt the least bad in the
shape of amendments, such as those that preserved the right of
voting to freemen in Corporations, as necessary evils, to enable
us to pass the Bill in its present shape—( Hear)—but I should
have much preferred the first Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The
question of Corporate Reform now for the first time comes
fairly before us, and it is asserted that the freemen should
still be allowed to retain in perpetuity their corporate proper-
ties and right of voting. This, however, would be quite in-
consistent with the contemplated municipal reform which pro-
poses to extend the right of voters to the ratepayers and
respectable inhabitants in general ; and I decidedly object to
the continuance of the power of voting in the hands of the
freemen, whose existence, as a separate class, it is well known,
leads to the greatest bribery and corruption." He would re-
ccmmend those who were inclined to leave things as they were
ia corporations to read attentively the report of the Ipswich
Committee, which would be laid before the House on Wed-
nesday next. where the most striking instances would be found
•)1 the venality which characterised the ordinary routine of
the admission of freemen, and by which it plainly appeared
that the impelling motive was to gain the power of voting for
the candidate who paid their expenses--( Hear.) Thus, for
even years previous to, and ending with, the election of 1826,
there were 1,873 freemen admitted, and 1,000 of these were
registered just before the election.—( Hear.) At Mahon a
similar state of things was obvious from the examination of the
registry. In 1811 there were 341 freemen admitted; in 1812,
the year of the election, 5,997 ; in 1817 were admitted 1,715 ;
rud in 1818, for election purposes, 8,889. What would the
lion. Member for Newcastle say to this ? In 1825 only 2,655
were admitted, while next year there were 10,797.---( Hear.)
Now, instead of leaving the power of voting in the hands of
such individuals, who only paid anything, or were paid for, in
one year, it was proposed to throw the privilege open to the
rste-payers who should have paid up their rate for three years.
lfe had been accused of harshness as well as inconsistency, but
Le felt that this was the least harsh remedy that could be adop-
ted to meet the enormous evil. Any palliative of less efficacy
would only tend to postpone the period of real Reform. As to
the injury inflicted on those who had not yet attained the age
of twenty-one, by shutting them out from the rights of free-
men, he believed it could n'tbe helped. Some line of demar-
cation should be drawn, and it it were overstepped in favour of
the individual twenty years and elev,'n months old, there would
be no just defence against the claims fir those younger and
younger still, down to the child of five years old. Nay, the
wives of freemen would have as good a right to ~aim similar
rights for their children yet to be born, on the same principle,
if we wish to avoid being censured as harsh in granting tlOll
to those already born.—(" Hear," and laughter.) He thought
tu it if the proposed measure was good, the sooner it could be
i-,troduced in corporations, the better. He must therefore up-
nose the amendment of the Hon. Member for Yarmouth,
which could only have the effect of invalidating the effects of
he Bill, and postponing to a longer period the eradication of
that bribery and corruption whose existence was so notorious
Corporations.
Colonel SI BTH ORP made some observations, the import
of which we could not precisely catch, on Lord John Russell's
management of the Reform Bill.
Mr. ROBINSON said the Noble Lord had travelled quite
,Nicie of the question. He had not touched on the points
cc hich the Hon. Member for Yarmouth had pressed on his
attention. He had not ventured to defend the contemplated
scizure of individual property, and did not appear to under-
! rand his Hon. Friend's appeal in behalf of the freeman's
franchise, touching his right to vote for Members of Par-
liament, not members of the Common Council.
Mr. O'CONNELL—That right is not touched by this Bill.
Mr. ROBINSON, in continuation, contended that great
allowance should be made for the class of freemen, many of
!torn were in extreme poverty, and of whom it might be
:aid that their poverty corrupted them. He had himself great
experience on this subject.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Hear, hear. (A laugh.)
Mr. ROBINSON declared that the corporation of Wor-
cester had not supported him, and that he did not feel himself
ound to support the principle of corporate monopoly, but he
would not consent to disfranchise the freemen by a side wind.
Mr. HUME impressed upon the House the necessity of
proceeding clause by clause through the Bill, otherwise they
,could never get on. He proposed that they should now con.
hoe their attention to the 9th clause. They were all agreed,
is ith the Hon. Member for Tamworth, that some Reforms
must take place, and they only remained to be separately con-
sidered and determined. For his own part he felt convinced
`hat as long as the freemen were allowed to enjoy their here-
i.,:ary rights and privileges, they could have no good govern-
ment in Corporations.
Lord SANDON agreed with Mr. Hume, that it would be
best to consider the Bill by its consecutive clauses. He was
somewhat surprised at the very extraordinary intimation af-
Forded them by the Noble Lord, that the object of the present
Bill was not to reform the Corporations, but to repeal the
Reform Bill. He was happy, however, that he had at last
t'iought proper to throw off the mask, and avow his dislike to
the Reform Bill, into which, it seems, he consented to insert
bad and noxious matter," favourable to the Corporate rights,
to enable him to push it through the Lords. " What a pity,"
exclaimed Lord Sandon, " that his Lordship did not tell us
s' at the time..—( Hear, hear ) It appears now, however, that
I,e thinks he can accomplish the task of bringing back the
Reform sill to the state in which he first presented it to the
public, and thus virtually destroy the rights then secured to
freemen."—( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that he had said the intention
of the Bill before the House was to affect any provision of the
Reform Act. His Noble Friend the Member for Liverpool
;tad said he (Lord J. Russell) had thrown off the mask. Now
Le de.nied having in any one respect changed his opinions ;
they had always been the same.
Lord SANDON reminded the Noble Lord that his inten-
tions, as expresd by himself, were to bring back the Reform
Act to the standard of the original Bill.
Lord STANLEY tri:Ated that the House would adopt the
course pointed out to it by Hon. Member for Middlesex
and his Noble Friend the Membe for Liverpool, in respect
to the motion of the Hon. and Lea,7.
Tied Member for Yar-
mouth.—( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member had most
unfairly brought forward his motion at the moni:"nt. when the
Bill was about to
_committed ; although the prinCiule
in-
volved in it could be hs well discussed in the Committee a.; P 2
the House. 'The Committee was the fittest place for it ; and
he (Lord Stanley) was, in common with the whole House,
most anxious that it should go thither without delay.—( Hear.)
The motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman involved
two questions,,the first related to the inchoate right of the

-!;:b. •