The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-24 00:00:00

;,/f
.474

mleiggehsto4ftraekeemnenasinaersiaemtopnle-n
on NiNn.hiilf•ihlichhe thought
was Wyo.:2d disposedtr
y. of b
Iny Corporationsthat t
town
.
first s
in the differentpeeiesPor:tPt pro-
pertylewr-itirs
• throughlridutby hthtece coddor,
orndon was of that description which ho
admittei did not escape the attention of the Noble Lord—
he meant the right of common which was enjoyed by
the freemen of this town to the extent of rich being allowed
to place their cattle on the common. That was one of tiee
privileges of the freemen of Coventry.—( Hear, hear.) Thee
next was, that every freeman was entitled, on commencing
business, to the use of 501. out of Sir Thomas White's cha-
rity, to be repaid in nine years. Besides that, every freeman
decidedly in want had a right to demand out of the funds of
the same charity, the sum of 4/. Again, there was an en-
dowed graMmar school, supported by the rents of estates,
yielding 9001. a year, to which every freeman had the right
of sending his son, where he was educated free of expense.
There were, too, estates left for the purpose of .bindiug out
as apprentices the children of freemen. Now, let the House
consider what they were doing when they determined to
take away from the _inhabitants of such towns the inchoate
rights to which they were entitled.—( Hear, hear.) The ap-
prentices of Coventry had a right to every one of the privi-
leges which he had enumerated. Was it the intention of the
House to abolish these rights ?—(Cheers from the Oppeei-
tior.) Was the Government going to deprive these persons
of them ? He should not stop to inquire at any length into
that question, but he could not help asking the Noble
Lord, and his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General, what, under the provisions of the Bill, they meant to
do with this species of property : to what purposes did
they intend to apply the money derived from the sources
which he had mentioned? He could find no provision of
the Bill—no enacting clause in it—nothing in the answer
of the Noble Lord, which enabled him clearly! to ascertain
the views of the Government on this part of the question
involved in the Bill. - He must repeat the question—what
did they mean to do with the 1 r iperty of Co, peratior s?
Did they mean to abolish freemen altogether, and. destroy
the rights which belonged to them? If this was the in-
tention, in what way would they dispose of these cha-
ritable funds possessed by almost all the corporate towns
throughout the kingdom, which were directed by will to
be applied specifically for the benefit of freemen, and to be
reserved to ther wives, widows, and children ?:--e( Cheers from
the Opposition.) ' It was because he could finsi no clue
whatever to the determination of the Government in any
of the details of the Bill, or in any remarks of the Noble
Lotd, that he felt it his duty to assort that the Bill had
been introduced . without proper inquiry.—( Hear, hear.)
Was it proposed that the property which ho had already
alluded to should revert to the donor, or was it intended
to apply it to the general purposes of the corporation?
Had they a right to adopt such a course ?—(Cheers.) This
prop, •ty was not left on sonic occasions to the Corporations at
all. It was in some instances left in trust to individuals for the
benefit of freemen, their children, wives, or widows. He might
be told, however, that though it was resolved to abolish the
old corporations and the freemen, still that it was the wish
of Government that these charitable funds which had been
left in trust. should be taken from the freemen and placed
under the superintendence and control of the new burgesses.
If this was the resolution of his Majesty's Government there
was no clause in the Bill to that effect. Indeed, no such
disposition of this property seemed to have been contem-
plated by the framers cf the Bill ; for by the sixth clause all
persons were prevented from becoming burgesses who re-
ceived any relief from the charitable funds of the corpora-
tion. The difficulties which encompassed this question
appeared to have been totally overlooked by those who
drew up the Bill.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.)
But supposing that they had considered the point and pre-
vision were made for disposing- of these funds, he would
ask the House whether it was expedient, fair, or proper to de-
prive these persons, who were now entitled to it, of this pro-
perty ?—( Cheers.) Had they any right to do so—( Continued
cheers.) The property which the apprentices of Coventry
possessed in the inchoate rights and privileges of common, of
the power to get a certain sum from Sir Thomas White's
charity, to have their children sent to a free school, to bind
out their children without expense, was as valuable to them as
any estate which might belong to any Hon. Member of that
blouse. Now, let the Committee try the clause by that test.
If a Bill were introduced into that House to deprive any
Hon. Member of the vested interest which he had in any
estate, would they listen to such a proposition for a moment ?
—( Cheers.) Upon what principle, then, could they deprive
those persons of the existing generation, who had entered
on their apprenticeships with the well-founded hope of be-
coming freemen, and who had paid a premium for that pri-
vilege which they expected to enjoy, of that property to the
possession of which they had a right to look forward
( Hear, hear.) The next point which he would submit for the
consideration of the House was, why was a question of
property introduced, at all into the clauses -of the Bill—
what had it to do with , the municipal government of Cor-
porate towns ?--( Hear, hear.) The amendment which he
meant to propose did not go to throw out the proposed
clause : it was not framed for the purpose of at all
thwarting the Noble Lord in the formation of the consti-
tuent body under . the Municipal Bill, or changing the
qualification from that of payment cf rates ; what it was
his intention to submit to the Committee was,.that no person
should vote for any member of the governing body appointed
by this measure, or receive any privilege conferred by the
Bill, except those who were qualified under its provisions.
This amendment would not interfere with the due adminis-
tration of the municipal government of the towns, but
merely pledged the House to the preservation of the rights,
privileges, and property of the freemen.—( Continued cheers
from the Opposition.) There was another point to -which be
wished to advert—the right of the freemen to vote for repre-
sentatives in Parliament. There was a provision in the Reform
Bill introduced by the Noble Lord which expressly secured to
them that right. Why was that provision to be altered ; and if
altered at all, why was it not altered directly, not indirectly?
The Noble Lord might perhaps say, that at the time of the
passing of the Reform Bill lie was not acquainted with all the
facts which rendered it undesirable that freemen should retain
the elective franchise. If so, why, when the Noble Lord became
acquainted with those facts, did he not bring in a Bill to alter
the Reform Bill in that respect, founded , on an allegation of
the misconduct of the freemen? Having given a privilege to
any set of persons, was it justifiable to take that privilege
away, except upon proof of misconduct? The Noble Lord
said that freemen had been guilty of receiving bribes ; if so,
let tkostafreemen be disfranchised, but do not disfranchise free-
men who were innocent of any such practices. But were free-
men the only class of electors who had been guilty of bribery?
It was not fair on the part of the Noble Lord to confine the
charge of bribery to one class. The case of Shoreham was
a case of scot and lot voters; the cases of Warwick, and
of other places, were cases of scot and lot voters. The
Report on the Stafford case showed that the housekeepers
were bribed. Under such circumstances, it was unjust on
the part of the Noble Lord to come down, and, by a side
wind, deprive freemen of their elective franchise, when it
was found that other classes. of the constituency were quite
as open to bribery as they were. He (Sir William
Follett) was desirous that the Bill under the considera-
tion of the Committee should be strictly confined to the
object for which it was professed to be introduced, viz.,—for
the improvement of Municipal Corporations ; and that no
clause should be introduced into it not having any bearing on
that object. but the effect of which would $e to get rid of a
compact which was concluded at the time of the passing of the
Reform Act. At that time, freemen were not told, " Your
children shall not have the right to vote for Members of Par-
liament, nor shall they enjoy the property
.which you now pos-
sess." On the contirry, they had reason to believe that the
rights secured to them by the Reform Bill would be secured
to their posterity. This was the first time that any attempt
had been made to interfere with those rights. He hoped the
Noble Lord would. sec the propriety of not pressing the clause.
If he did, however, he (Sir NV. Follett) would feel it to be his
duty to press his amendment. The lion. and Learned Gen-
tleman concluded by moving an amendment to the effect dee
scribed in his speech.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declared that the exist-
ing state of the freemen was a usurpation, and that its conti-
nuance would be a curse to the country. It was most desir-
able that that state should be abolished as speedily as possible.
.-.(Hear, hear, bear.). If there were any peculiar cases at
Coventry or elsewhere,- where makes had been devised for
particular purposes connected with the existence of freemen,
it might be matter of future consideration in what way that
property ought to be &seeded of. But what was the object of
the amendment proposed by his Hen. and Learned Friend, if
it Were adopted by the Committee?—that freemen should be
perpetuated ; that they should exist in srcula seculorum ; that
that which was a curse to England should exist as long as Eng-
land herself existed.—( Hear, hear; hear.) The fact was that
the freemen were a new and anomalous race of beings. They
were now in the exercise of the functions of voting for mayors,
for aldermen, for recorders. But his Hon. and Learned Friend
was ready to agree to their disfranchisement in all those re-
spects, Ws Hon. and Learned Friend did not propose that
the freemen etdould become members of the -new Corporation
Councils. For what purpose, then, were they to be kept?
To speculate on the continuance of abuses which ought never
to have existed.—( Hear, hear, hear.) As a lawyer, and hav-
ing therefore paid some attention to the subject, and as an an-
tiquary—(A laugh)—Gentlemen might laugh, but he should
consider himself very ill qualified for the discussion of the sub-
ject if he had not looked into the old histories connected with
it—lie had no hesitation, in declaring that freemen uncon-
nected with the occupation of house:: existed as freemen by
usurpation. By the charters of Corpomitions, all inhabitant
householders bad a right to become members: of the Corpora-
tion. It was a gross usurpation to allow perso:ts who were
not inhabitant householders to become members of a Corpora-
tion, and to refuse that privilege to persons who actuelly were
inhabitant householders. The consequence was, that ia many
towns the great mass of property and intelligence was not found
to belong to the Corporation ; which was composed of poor,
wretched, degraded, and demoralized persons, who ought not
to have been placed in that situation. His Hon. and Learned
Friend proposed, that all who by birth or epprcidiceship, or
otherwise, were entitled to the privilege of freemen, should
continue to enjoy those privilege. Now, with regard to birth,
his Hon. and Learned Friend was well aware that those per-
sons who were born within the limits of a borough wore enti-
tled to share in the privileges belonging to that borough. But
the -House was about to change those limits. Were they to
keep up, for all the posterity of the existing freemen, the line
of demarcation already laid down, or that which was about to
be laid down? Who in future were to admit freemen? Cor-
porations were variously consdtuted: 'Sometimes a Corpo-
ration consisted of a mayor, sometimes of a mayor and alder-
men, sometimes of a mayor arid common council. It was
clear that the freeinen could not be admitted by aldermen, for
aldermen were abolished by the Bill. Who was to determine if
the rights of the claimants to freedom were properly stated or