The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-14 00:00:00

TRE SUN, LONDON, PAIDAV, Atfdtligt 14, ism.

champ and other Noble Lords were appointed Managers for
the Coafererice between the Lords and the Commons en this
Bill.
0, , .

u.
On the retttrti 01‘ the Conference; tile Duke of RICH-
MOND stated that the Haase of Cetiiitens had agreed
to one amendment Made tick Lori, Wit tsot to the other.
The Noble miti6, t 111: glioald not
in4l4t amendment, trusted that their Lordships would
not enforce it, because, if they did, the Bill would certainly be
lost. •He thought the ?•metidrnent did not tend to the increase
of pu&shmelits. Agreed to.
f3,J4141.. ,„
LOA and Others irtnn the Lomrniins, Lro;igtil up
the Irish Church Bill, and the Sate of Bread Bill.
Mr. CAmpaaLL, from the East India House, presented
an account of the decaye,d pertitotg of.the Cprnpauy. •
The Duke ef httuniorio pfesenied A flelltliM (toffs•Paisley against the Irish Church Bill. The Noble Duke ob-
jected to the appropriation clause in that Bill.

gistrate of East Retford was seen rolling on the floor with a
prisoner, On this point evidence was taken by the Commis-
sick-lei'. A pih'Sdri 61 flid flartfl of East),stat etatnined, and
he stated the facts ; brit Mr, §laney, fife fflagistidie„ iihb was
present during the inquiry, most poiltitel emititenlicted him,
and that contradiction was communicated to the dornnliSsiOner,
who took no notice of it. It is said that there is some truth
in the fatf, no.
three witnesses have been called for the pur-
pose of contradicting if, aliff they all
,sad, that Slancy only
ordered the prisoner to be taken to prism:: fn the ,case of
cnstton Coldfield a charge of extravagance Ins been Oraglit
• • •
against the Corneration .b.."iidinn•-. some premises, but the
drily r,l7l(*.`.af fflZsist ire `that all hack been dope under the di-
rection of the Uourr of C:fl, eatrioned in the Master's
Office. But this is not the only cireq-Nl`fttsfsse eemnected
with the inquiry carried on at Sutton Coldfield. (in ar-
rival of the Commissioner the Corporation was summoned,
and, 'Oil 1.`g.!:.: 44.,,f#4itis.p 1P rioginikforward charges against it, the
deputy steward otter td 45.1,0'.# firmsitst the Commissioner
-- refused to hear him.( Hear, hear.) T 4 fttt one other
case to which I shall refer, and that is the quagthili Ali re-
spect to the amount of the number of the population of the
connfy of Cot-gistry; elehrsise of the city. The Commissioner
reported that it efinNisfa alritOtt ottireiy of rural and agricul-
tural inhabitants. Now the eVicient# ghotts that the report in
this respect is entirely erroneous, for ott et Z.kico itiltabitants
about 400 were only engaged in agriculture. My toitiss hav-
ing tie* stated these circumstances, I beg to say that perhaps,
we may to A Certain clogref.., conciliate the whole of the Noble
Lords opposite, for, as to the Motif Material previsions of the
Bill, it is not the intention of Noble Lofdl eff Ole side of the
House to propose any amendment which will offal fklf prin-
elple. I allude to the clauses which provide that tug ksr-
gesses of the nett &Monde towns shall be householders, rated
for a period of two yetifi, Other qualifications have un-
doubtedly suggested themselvea to hot after giving
them my best consideration, I am of opinion that they Me not
so decidedly preferable as to lead me to propose them as
amendments. It is not my intention, neither is it the inten-
tion of those Noble Lords who act with me, to propose any
alterations except such as We conceive to be absolutely and
imperatively necessary.--(1-lear, hear.) The first enacting
clause of the Bill repeals and annuls all charters est far as they
arc inconsistent with the provisions of the present Dill. It
has struck me that this is the proper place and time effectually
to protect the rights of property which are to be destroyed
by this Bill.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") If charters
are to be repealed and annulled, I will not stir one step in the
Bill, unless I find some clause Inserted protecting those rights
of property—( Hear, hear)—rights of property enjoyed from
father to son, transmissible to posterity whiten' limit—subject
only to the condition that those persons who are es/titled to
them -by descent have been admitted as freemen of the bo-
rough. These rights are of no inconsiderable value, and I
will call your Lordships' attention to a few of them. Ber-
wick-upon-Tweed possesses rights of this kind to the annual
value of 6,000/. ; Beverley, 4,000/. ; Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
3,200/. ; Coventry, 2,000/. • Sutton Coldfield, 1,000/. ; Aber-
avon, 6001. ; and the whole aggregate amount, according to
a paper taken from the Report of the Commissioners, amounts
to 26,7601. per annum, which, at twenty years' purchase, is
north 500,000/. (half a million stet-lilt). Now, I would not
deprive the many small proprietorspf this property upon mere
speculation—property held under the sanction of the law of
the land—under charters from the Crown—the best possible
title, and, in some instances, under Acts of Parliament. I
have stated before that the aggregate value of the whole Cor-
porate property may be estimated at half a million, and that
property is enjoyed by nearly two millions of individuals.
What does the Bill do with it ? It confirms the present
rights only to a certain extent, the rights of sons actually
born before the sth of June.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Any
son, grandson, or descendant, born immediately after
the passing of this Act, on the sth of June, is deprived
of any participation in this property.—( Hear, hear.) Will
your Lordships sanction this infringement of property—this
transfer of property from the purpose for which it was origi-
nally devoted, to increase borough funds ? The present pos-
sessors have an undoubted right to it, and should Parliament
deprive them of it, the same power may at any time seize the
estate of any Noble Lord, and give it. to some neighbouring
town for its benefit and improvement. I have now stated to
your Lordships as plainly as I can the grounds on which I sup-
port my amendment—an amendment which I hope will meet
with an unanimous vote on the part of your Lordships. In
framing the amendment, I have endeavoured to adhere as
closely as possible to the words of the 12th clause of the Bill,
which applies to this subject. ( The Noble and Learned Lord
read the clause, the insertion of which he moved immediately
after the first clause. It was in effect that as it would be un-
just to deprive the Corporations of their rights and property,
and to apply the same to other purposes, those rights ought to
be preserved to all persons now who arc admitted as freemen
or burgesses of a borough, to the wives or widows, sons, or
daughters of any freemen or any person who had espoused the
widow or daughter of a freeman, or any person bound appren-
tice to any freeman.)
Viscount MELBOURNE said that he was extremely un-
willing, to go back into the debate of last night, but as the Noble
and Learned Lord who had just sat down had charged him
with misrepresentation, he thought it necessary to say a few
words in his own defence. The Noble and Learned Lord said
that he had made no charge against the Commissioners, but
that he had made one against his Majesty's Government for the
partial manner in which they had filled up this Commission.
He (Viscount Melbourne) had not said that the Noble and
Learned Lord had brought charges against the Commissioners.
What he said was, that in making his charge against the Go-
vernment, the Noble and Learned Lord had acted unjustly
towards the Commissioners by referring to their political
character and to their political opinions—matters with which
it was impossible the Noble and Learned Lord could be ac-
quainted. The Noble and Learned Lord had said in his speech
that they were Whigs—more than Whigs. He (Viscount
Melbourne) knew very well what was the meaning of that ex-
pression. It meant that those gentlemen extertained extreme
opinions. If it had been stated of the Noble and Learned
Lord when he was at the Bar that he was more than Whig he
would have thought it extremely unjust; but, undoubtedly, if
any man had acted upon the general reputation of the Noble
and Learned Lord—upon the opinions of the Noble and
Learned Lord, as expressed, collected from the report of the
most intimate friends and companions of the Noble and Learned
Lord—( Immense cheering from the Ministerial benches)—the
Noble and Learned Lord would, undoubtedly, have been so
characterised. Why the Noble and Learned Lord admitted it
—he did not deny it.—( Cheers.)
Lord LYNDHURST—The Noble Viscount has stated
that which I never did admit, and which I must say has not
the slightest foundation in fact. I repel the attack--an attack
which has never been renewed of late.—(Loud cheers from
the Opposition.)

Viscount MELBOURNE—The Noble and Learned Lord
admits that he has often heard of this'before. I know it is
roneous, because I have the authority of the Noble and
Learned Lord that it is so. I know it to be a calumny, and a
base falsehood ; but at the same time I think the Noble and
Learned Lord ought to exercise that toleration which lie re-
quires for himself, for the same erroneous impressions may pre-
vail ‘sith respect to others which now prevail—undoubtedly
most erroneously—with respect to the Noble and Learned
Lord. He ( Viscount Melbourne) could not pass over without
observation, a remark that had fallen from the Noble Duke
daring last night's debate. The Noble Duke said that the
Commissioners had not produced their evidence, because they
were certain that the evidence would not bear out their re-
port. He must say that this was a most false imputation—
an imputation of the basest breach of trust—of the basest
treachery--an imputation which lie thought ought not to have
come from a person of the great weight, high character,
and authority of the Noble Duke. The Noble Duke ought
not merely to have founded so grave an imputation . upon
inference and suspicion.--4 Hear, hear.) It would undoubt.
edly have been much better if the Noble and Learned Lord
had brought forward this motion at a time when his Noble.
and Learned Friend had been in his place. He ( Viscount
Melbourne) did not intend to follow the Noble and Lea-ned
Lord into the evidence which he had gone into on the present
occasion,. and to which be had not paid such minute at
tension as to be able to follow it with anything of particularity.
But he would say that, whatever might be the mistakes com-
mitted, they did not in the slightest degree invalidate the real
strength and veracity of the Report. The Noble and Learned
Lord had moved an amendment to preserve entire the rights
of freemen as they existed at present. With respect to the
anticipation of the Noble Lord, that he should have an unani-
mous vote in favour of his motion, lie (Viscount Melbourne)
should not fail to give it his most decided opposition. The
rights of the present freemen were preserved by the Bill. The
period might be extended to which those rights would be
transmitted, but he never could agree to an aniendrnent which
preserved the rights of freemen in perpetuity—rights which
he considered prejudicial to the freemen themselves. All the
rights of property—of common, of Lammas land, of one man
having the hay and another the after-math—were exceedingly
prejudicial. The question now before the House was one of
law, and he would be glad to learn if those bodies possessed
any perpetuity in the property? The property was undoubt-
edly alienable. With respect to the occupation of the land,
it was well kitown that the rights were pr ejudicial to the free-
men themselves. A Noble Lord on the Opposition Benches
had even introduced a Bill to appropriate such lands, and in
future to prevent the acquiaition of such rights. This had
long been admitted by all lawyers, by all statesmen, and by all
political economists. The Bill provided a perfect security
for all rights now in existence, 'and it protected freemen here-
after from any compulsory extinction of those rights. He be-
lieved that this provision of the Bill was in the highest de-
gree advantageous to the people';' it committed no injustice,
and on these grounds he should give his decided negative to
the amendment.
The Earl. of H ADDINGTON said, his Noble and
Learned Friend had been reproached with having been a
popular Member of the other House, with having been a Whig
and a Liberal, who had abandoned his principles for the sake
of office. This was an attack which he had repelled with
such force that it had not been renewed. But what had.
been the charge against the Commissioners? His Noble and
Learned Friend had made no charge whatever against the
Commissioners ; on the contrary, his charge had been dis.
tinctly made against the Government. He had stated that
in the case of an inquiry, which, of all others, ought to have
been made in an impartial manner, his Majesty's Ministers
had selected persons; who with one or two vxceptions, were
all leagued with them in party politics. He had just heard,
with no small degree of pain, the speech of his Noble, Friend
the first Minister of the Crown. It contained doctrines so
thoroughly objectionable—notions .so exceedingly loose and
Vague, and yet so dangerous, on the subject of Corporations,
that ho could never be brought to give his assert to them.
With respect to corporate property, it was enottlgh for frith
(the Carl of naddington) that it was preperty:,. was the
property of individuals of the ',ewer classes of the community,
. The owner were pot Alto, o. c 4 iso writy belie Ted that to

very many of theft this eight ot property vows} of the bighes,
importance. He would ridt triter With his Noble Vries ed into
any nice distinctions between property beneficial and not be-
neficial in its nature to the community at large 3 he would en-
ter into' ti Nridg6) P!!?9rias about dealing forcibly with the
property irf Other people ;; Isgt be felt that it vas now neces-
sary fo rtldlaed tered,e/it Maine, against 4-1111 deetrines. He
entirely concurred wifli ei"e'rjo t'eett said on the
subject by his Noble and Learned Frierd,(Lord Lyndhurst.)
It had become the paramount duty of their iserdsh.ips to stand
in ihe breach, in defence of property ; and if tied Muse failed
in iniidetkeArr tbq clause, it was his decided opinion that the
Bill ought not to finele
The Duke of WELLMOTON rose merely to complain
that the Noble Viscount opposite !fad put into his mouth
words of which he had never made use. if he had quoted
the re'eerle which he bad used, be had omitted altogether his
reasoning, Wieieh had followed what he had said. As the
Noble Viscount had teen yleased to rebuke him for what
he had said, he ought to have followed that rebuke by a -ee-
-1 ferenee to the reasonings he had made nee ef. He had said
that es the Commissioners had made their Report, omitting
the evidence upon which it had been founded, and from party
purposes, and as they had taken down that evidence in wri--
ting, they ought and might have given the evidence to the
Government with as much accuracy and facility as they had
given the Report itself. No answer had been given to this.
He had risen from no party purpose, and he would not now
weaken the arguments of the Noble and Learned Lord
(Lyndhurst) by adding anything to them, and he would
only beg leave' to remind their Lordships that the freemen
bad in general obtained their freedom by servitude or by
purchase. In either case they had given a valuable consi-
deration for it, and, under such circumstances, he deemed
that fire, Were entitled to public attention.
Lord 1111OUGHAM had no doubt that what the Noble
Duke had just 1;g41 was considered as a well grouuded matter
of complaint against his Noble Friend (Melbourne), the
charge being that, instead of answering the Noble Duke last
night, he had answered h;m this night. He had no doubt
that the reason why his Not,:;' Friend did not answer the
Noble Duke last night was, that (Lord Brougham) had
taken upon himself the burden of the *deLate on the Ministe-
rial side of the question—( Hear, bear, froth Lerd Wicklow,
as we believe.) " And why not? (said Lord 13roujham)—
(Loud cheers.) If my Noble Friend does not repudiate my
assistance, 1 do not see why his adversaries have any right to
complain. On the contrary they have great reason to be sa-
tisfied, for they may be assured of one thing, that if instead
of my having answered them, my Noble Friend had done so
himself, they would have had a much worse customer to have
dealt with."--(Laughter.) The Noble and Learned Lord
proceeded to say that he had taken a part in the debate be-
claim he had himself originated the measure, and considered
that it would have been unmanly to have shrunk from its de-
fence. But with respect to the complaint of the Noble
Duke, ie might be well-founded ; there was one thing, how.
ever, of which the Noble Duke had no right to complain. The
answer had been made to-night, by Lord Melbourne in the
presence. of the Noble Duke; but how had he (Lord
Brougham) been treated?—(Hear, hear.) He could not have
believed it unless lie had heard it from the testimony of men
who were incapable of decciring.
The Earl of WICKLOW—You did not come in till half-
past seven o'clock.
Lord BROUGHAM—I came in at half-past seven o'clock
—that is the charge of the Noble Lord. Perhaps, in his opi-
nion, it is an impeachable offence—a gi'eat moral iniquity.—
(" Hear, hear," front the Earl of Wicklow.) The Noble
Lord says it is a great moral iniquity.
The Earl of WIC KLO W--{ said no such thing.
Lord BROUGHAM—Am I bound to be here from sun-
rise to sunset ? I was here this moruing at the sitting of the
House to do judicial business. If any other man in this House
except the Noble Earl, will have the courage to get up and
say I do not attend to my duty in this House, I will retire from
the House and plead guilty to the charge.—(Great cheering.)
There is no man in this House that attends one-fifth part so
much as I do. I have been here every day from the 13th of
-February, at ten o'clock in the morning till the rising of the
House. I was not lounging upon the seats last night, like
some Noble Lords—l took part in the debate, and I shall al-
ways do so when it suits my convenience. I care not one jot
whether my doing.so pleases Noble Lords or displeases them.
I do not do it to please them, but to satisfy my own sense of
duty. I did it with infinite pain, because I was labouring under
indisposition; but I did it as an act of justice to the Commis-
sioners, whose conduct had been impeached by speeches in
the House, and at the bar, in their absence, and when they had
not the phySical possibility of defending themselves. I came
here to-day at a quarter to eleven and remained till half-past
five o'clock, when I left to attend a Society elsewhere, and I
find on my returning hither, that I have been answered by my
Noble and Learned Friend (Lyndhurst), whom I have never
refused to meet in fair fight, face to face, in my life, though
in all our conflicts, political and professional, nothing has for
a moment interfered with that friendship which unites us per-
sonally.—(" Hear," from Lord Lyndhurst.) It is a very ex-
traordinary thing that my Noble Friend could not have just
attended to the Noble Duke's doctrine, and have made his
answer last night instead of to-night--last night, when it would
have been appropriate to the discussion. But no doubt the
zeal of my Noble -and Learned Friend in the cause of his
clients, the Corporations, made it incumbent on him to treat
me as the Commissioners have been treated—they were at-
tacked in their absence, and 1, their defender, have been re-
plied to behind my back. Yes, my Lords, I see that not only
do a large majority of you think that it was proper to attack,
convict, and condemn the Commissioners in their absence, but
that it was also proper to attack, convict, and condemn nie,
the defender of those Commissioners, in my absence.—(Ques-
tion, question.) Yes, and that one or two of you cry " ques-
tion when I undertake to meet this attack, from a total ig-
norance of my nature, and of my habits of life ; from a foolish
and ridiculous and absurd notion, that by crying " Ques-
tion" they can put me down. Why, I have stood up against
half the House of Commons when they have cried "ques-
tion" for three quarters of an hour, and they could not put
me down. Catalince gladios contonpsi : non tuos pertimescam..
I know what it is to stand up against 300 men, pretending to
be the representatives of the people, who have attempted to
drown the voieo of one man, who was their real friend and
representative, and they did not succeed; and do you think
that one of you, by crying "question," can put me down ?
(Order, order.)
The Earl of ROSSLYN spoke to order, but the Noble
Earl was wholly inaudible in the Gallery.
Lord BROUGH AM (without leaving his seat) said I have

done.
Lord LYNDHURST said the reason why he did not reply
to his Noble and Learned Friend list night was the lateness of
the hour when his Noble and Learned Friend finished his
speech. He (Lord Lyndhurst) did not mean particularly to
reply to his Noble and Learned friend to-night, but he thought
he could not address their Lordships without saying something
in defence of the Corpotrions.
The Earl of RIPON maintaiixd that there were no grounds
of expediency to warrant the passfng pf the present Bill. It
might be necessary in particular cases to deal with property on
principles which might appear inconsistent wi:h the principles
upon which property was founded, but he could not conceive
why the House was called upon now to deal on principles
which deprived of property persons who valued that property,
notwithstanding that his Noble Friend had said to the con-
trary. The property now to be dealt with beloogad to poor
individuals, and if the House abandoned their rights never
would they be recovered. The rights of the poor in commons
ought not to be swept away by political economists upon doc-
trines of producing the greatest quantity of food for consump-
tion. He wished to reconcile public justice with the claims of
individuals, and the same motives which had induced him to
let the Bill go into Committee would now induce lihn to vote
for the amendment.—(Cries of" Question, question.")
The Earl of RADNOR said that property of this sort
might be diminished to an indefinite extent by those who
had the power over it. The poor bad not come foe7ard, and
stated that they had any value for it. Those who 11,,,r1 ad-
ministered the property had come forward and said this I:2r
them. In some boroughs it was not the poor that had the
rights of common, and in other cases the value of the right
might suddenly be diminished by the admission of freemen for
electioneering purposes, even to the number of 800, as had
been done at Leicester. In the course of the debate the
Noble 14:114 on the other side had said that their Lordships
should do their duty—fear nothing, and trust to themselves.
In that he ( Lord Radnor) agreed. Their Lordships hail done
much in reference to their conduct on this 13ill to lower them
in public opinion, and they required to do their duty, unin-
fluenced by patty spirit, to recover the position they had held
in it. If they suffered themselves to he actuated by any other
feelings than those of consistent policy they would fail in their
efforts, and only disgrace themselves more in the eyes of the
country.
Lord SE AG RAVE approved of the principle of the Bill,
and he had expressed himself to that effect in presenting a
petition fiom the freemen of Gloucester, though a sense of
justice compelled him to declare his belief that some alteration
in the details was absolutely necessary. In the few remarks
he should make on the subject he should advert to a circumstance
little noticed and not much attended to by their Lordships..
He meant the indecent attacks which were daily made from
without on the deliberations of that House—( Hear)—As if
their Lordships were to have no opinion of their own, no eyes
or cars but those of others, and were bound on all occasions
to adopt blindly and implicitly every act of the other branch
of the Legislature. It was quite notorious that if their Lord-
ships did not submit to this species of legislatorial dictation
from without, the public papers were let loose against them,
and the walls we: c placarded in all directions with two ques-
tions. " What is to be done with the Lords?" " Of what
use arc the Lords?" He (Lord Seagrave) had been all his
li:etime attached to the liberal interest—indeed he might say
to the ultra-liberal side—but he could not help stating that
this conduct of its pretended friends from without filled him
with shame and deep regret, as it was calculated to detach
from that interest its truest supporters and most honest friends.
—( Hear, hear.) If he were to answer the question, " What
use are the Lord's?" he should say to interpose between des-
potism and anarchy—to hold the balance equally between the
Crown and the people—to oppose the illegal progress of de-
mocracy.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the clause before
the House he felt bound to say that it trenched upon the pro-
perties and privileges of the freemen. He had the honour of
being High Steward of a large and populous borough him-
self, and he could declare from his own knowledge that these
rights and privileges were substantial and valuable to the free-
men; and that they prized them as much, it not more, than
other properties. - It was therefore that he felt obliged to give
his support to the amendment of the Noble and Learned Lord.
Lord PLUNKETT was sure the House entertained but
one opinion on the rights of property, which was, that they
rights should be zealously watched over. But he thought
that, in introducing his amendment, his Voblc and Learned
Friend had? he was sure uriknovvn .to himself, piotised some

. deq,eleatoiofnsooifl hi
theseetry or g
ht ht
se. HTo uhsee
iwg lha et
se ohfe ftreerrnemeedeti,t,..ecreclaueoet
a Va...
equivaiem: to the rights of property ; they had nothing in.
dim indefeasible' hereditary, or acquired by industry or la-
bour ; they devolvea 2ri them in their political and not in
their private character—as Ter:lions of a public body, not as
individuals. They were net direct: rights, therefore they were
only incidental to their public capacity. ;f the Bill went too
take away the direct rights of property, he I,Lord Plunkett)
stleeelei feel it his duty to concur entirely with k's Noble and
Learned Friend, however dependent these righe's might be
even on the eeleet body or Corporation. His _Noble and
Learned Friend (Lard Brougham) had given them .a distinct
affil substantial answer to the substantial questions peepeeling-
these rights. He (Lord Plunkett) only desired to ,give a
teehnical answer to a technical question. The same areenment
urged in favour of incidental rights in this instance and theist
invielabil;ty might be urged with equal force and efficacy in
the este° of any alteration in any department of the State
whereby the interests of individuals • would be injured. • The
rights in question were not equal to the rights of private pro-
perty ; they were public rights, and, as such, subject to the
public good. He (Lord Plunkett) spoke as a lawyer on the
subject.
Lord SKELMERSDALE, in reply to the observations
of the Noble Earl on the other side of the House, who had
said that their Lordships were taking more trouble about
the freemen's property than they were themselves, if their
dispositions were to be judged by the prayer of their p,eti.
• tions, begged to state that, for the purpose of saving time,
Noble Lords on his (Lord Skelmersdale's) side of the House
had foregone reading the petitions at length ; but that they
contained, notwithstanding, the prayer which the Noble
Lord denied because it wee not every moment repeated by
those who presented them. his Noble Friend doubted it he
could easily obtain an abstract of the contents from the
Clerk of the House, as had bee-% often done in another
place, and the analysis would show .
that he (Lord Skel-
mersdale) was right in his statement. But, waiving the
agreement or disagreement of the petitions'e he (Lord Skel-
mersdale) thought that when a right of propeedy vested in a
certain class were in question, it behoved their Lordship to
give it every consideration.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON said the rights of free-
men were to be purchased by the provisions of the ?3i11; but
these could only be sold by the present generation as for' them-
selves, not as for their successors. In other worth, the pur-
chase could be valid only for the lives of the present free-
lieir and their sons, not for their descendants in perpetuity.
The Noble Marquis then proceeded to read an extract front
the last number of the Edinburgh Review, article " Phik.
sophy of Mankind," on the rights of property. The article
argued that security was the soul of capital, and that without
it it would be a useless mass. He (the Marquis of Northamp-
ton) agreed with the sentiments it expressed; and he thought
so did the House. The Noble Marquis was understood to say
he would support the amendment.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE agreed with the Noble
Marquis, that the question was one beset with difficulties. A
numerous class of persons were about to be affected in their
political existence, and certain rights held in conjunction with
that existence would, necessarily, be disturbed. As far as
these rights could partake of . the nature of property, he
thoirsht the vigilance exercised by their Lordships was per-
fectly is:reeler, and, therefore, he should state the grounds on
which he opposed the amendment. In his ()pinkie 'it did not
in any degree partZke of the nature of individual or private
property. It was vested in a certain class of persons as a po-
litical privilege in reviser' for their performance of certain
public duties ; and it was inseparably connected in the idea
of the grantee, as well as in thar of the person granting it—
whether it were a King or a priv,Ate person—with the per-
formance of certain public conditione.. It was absurd to sup-
pose that it was from any especial affection to the class
called freemen that it was granted ; and, therefore, it did
not follow that it was perpetual if these deities were to be
neglected, or the stipulations to remain unperformed. The
right was granted as a public trust—as a reward for the
performanCe of certain public duties. It did not, however,
follow that it was to be for ever. If that principle were ad-
mitted, the offices and emoluments of Admirals, Generals, Al-
dermen of London, and other offices of a similar character,
should be perpetual as to emolument, and hereditary as to
succession, and the Parliament would be bound to uphold
their rights and defend their privileges. The French Par.
lianients were bodies established originally for the dispensa-
tion of justice, and they possessed estates, like the Corpora-
tions of England, to facilitate the performance of that duty,
yet no one attempted to assert, on their abolition and the sub-
stitution of courts in their stead, that the estates and emolu-
ments should be continued to their descendants. But what
were the freemen about to be deprived of by the Bill, before
their Lordships? Nothing. When the Noble and Learned
Lord entered into a statement of this case, he produced an
unfair amount of the average. He said 26,0001., but that
was the present positive value, not that with which the House
was called to deal—the reversion at the end of forty years,
which would be about one-third of the sum. Ile could not
agree with the arrangement of the Noble Marquis who had
just sat down, because no arrangement would be satisfactory
to the parties. If the question arose on inchoate rights, it
should be carried into all parts of the subject. The inchoate
rights of the freemen had been spoken of by the Noble Lord,
but he had forgotten to mention the inchoate rights possessed
by every inhabitant as well as freemen. The very poorest in-
habitant had an inchoate right to be free, but he was stripped
of it, by the exciusive privilege hitherto enjoyed by the
Corporations. The principle on which the Bill was founded,
lii this respect, was the same as that which their Lordships
acted on, in the case of the Corporation of Edinburgh.—
( Hear.) The Corporations were not found to be a fit deposi-
tory of power, and it was therefore taken from them and con-
ferred elsewhere.
Lord BROUGHAM rose amidst a murmur of disapproba-
tion. The Noble Lord said—No doubt your Lordships are
prepared to say I shall not have the privilege of a Commit-
tee.—( Cries of "Go on," and " Spoke.") I hear cries of
" Spoke," in all parts of the House.—(No, no.) Don't deny
it.—(Go en.) I shall go on without bidding. I have a right
to speak, because I am in the House.—( Laughter.) Tho
Noble Lord continued. Having filled a high judicial office,
he felt it incumbent on him to coincide in the principles of
the Noble and Learned Lord on the vigilance that should be
exercised by Parliament, in all cases where property was in
question. But there was no violation of the strict rights of
property in the present instance. His Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Plunket) had so amply defined what in common
parlance was called the rights of property that he needed only
refer to his speech without saying any more on the subject.
If their Lordships in adopting the provisions of the Bill were
adopting a course wholly unprecedented, lie perhaps should
be found to agree with the amendment of the Noble and
Learned Lord. But even supposing that the property they
had to deal with was strictly private, he should remind theta
that motives of high State policy had always sanctioned their
interference with direct as well as contingent private rights.
He needed only adduce the case of a title and estate transferred
from one family to another a few years since, without the
consent of the party deprived, in consequence of the altera-
tion in the Marriage Act ; and also the Act of the Legisla-
ture, even in the present session, with respect to another large •
estate which was in the Court of Chancery. The ' Scotch
burghs was another case in point, in which the House had not
thought proper to interfere, lie, therefore, saw nothing to
jistify the present amendment.
The House then divided, when there were—
Contents
Non-contents 37
Majority for the Amendment --93
Lord LYNDHCRST said that the amendment he was now
about to propose he should introduce with as few words as
was consistent with the importance of the subject. The
amendment affected the rights of freemen. Their Lordships
would remember that in the draft of the Reform Bill the
rights of existing freemen were presented. After a short
interval the right; of freemen were extended to their descen-
dants. That 13111 came up, and was rejected by their Lord-
ships. He presumed that afterwards, to conciliate the good
will of their Lordships, the rights of freemen were extended
to all acquiring rights, as heretofore, by birth or servitude at
.
toe tone of passing the Bill. This measure was adopted, and
it had getefrally been considered a final measure. Yet there
were Low two Bills before their Lordships,. clearly showing
that it was not to ,Ise allowed to remain final. One of the
Hills he alluded to wee „!he present measure, altering the poli-
tical franchise, and the 0111.2 r !nide an alteration in the law of
elections. The full scope Ant: object of his amendment was
to preserve the political rigiite of the people of England, as
settled by the Reform Bill. The Nu,
hie wad Learned Lord
then proposed the insertion of a ciattee, ro the effect that the
right of voting for Members to serve in • Parliament should
remain as settled by the Reform Act, arid that swell right should
be as fully enjoyed as if that Act (for the Reform of Corpora.
rations) had not been passed.
Viscount MELBOURNE certainly expected the introduc-
tion of the present clause, after the vote given in favour of the
last, lie was altogether opposed to this amendment. Ho
thought the freemen were generally the subservient creatures
' of the Corporations, arid ought not, therefore, to continue the
exercise of their privileges. The Noble and Learned Lord
had alluded to the history of the Bill for the Reform of the
Representation of Parliament, and has ;implied that an under-
standing existed that the measure was to be final. Ile knew
not with whom the compact was made, nor was he aware that
any alteration had been made to conciliate the good opinion of
their Lordships. If so, it had not the effect, for on the se-
cond reading it was a second time thrown out, ire October,
1823, with nearly as great a majority as before. He thought
that the Letrislature should be united. That nothing should
be done to endanger the Parliament of Great Britain, and
which he thought would be done by an alteration amounting to
a rejection of the present measure. He disclaimed all disposi-
tion to interfere with the established rights of freemen, and was
not-influenced by any fantastic notions of political economy. If
he thought rights sufficiently protected by the present Bill, be
was not bound to consent to the Bill being inefficient in conse-
quence of any supposed understanding about the Reform
Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord had alluded to tlie Bills
then before the House (the Municipal Corporations VII and
the Limitation of Polls Bill) but he could not mean to sae pe-
remptorily and decisively that if advantages could be obtained
evidently within their reach, they should refuse them, in con-
sequence of the Reform Bill having been said to be a final melt.
sure. He should oppose the amendment.
The Earl of H ARROWBY could never approve of those
arguments that supported the utter extinction of freemen.
The reason he supported the last amendment was the ground
on which he should support the present, and it was because
he considered the body of freemen, politically speaking, one of
the must valuable institutions of the country.--( Hear, bear.)
Such a, class could not be created, and God forbid that ho
should abolish it. It militated nothing against the sacred na-
ture of these rights of property, that they were purchased by
long servitude and industry, not by money. Long-servitude
imparted n particular N'41.610 to Sun a 'ease of property, a 'value