Star.
London, England, 1831-08-22 00:00:00

Leroux BILL.
T. r iino,e then resolved Welt Into a Committee on the
fl f of Parliament (England) Bill.
at-. nrnvll, in the Chair. The Chairman thee read
t• ”In,e.oiont intended to be made in elutes 18, when
V-. n !ITN tome for the nonnew of knowing why so
r--•r -Ater:ohm had ?skim place in the present clause.—
as la he -o-,..ruction Nlirdetere put upon the clause uit at
;t .1,3% s perfect mystery.
Lo d A LTIIOR P stated, that the object of the clause
Trfa row ete-lirdelers should only be deprived of voting for
emeriti's when they poesessed the right of voting for towns.
it we. romider. 11 that it would produce a public 'neon-
rool-ree. I ti•nee towns to which representative', were given
W. to nvemnserr the county constituercy, and by their
ewes iefineece and enetroul the county constituency.
tie. H. HUGHES said. that by the origin's! clause a
freeholder in a town o" less than 101. a year woull have his
rich, of voting for the county continued to him t but if it
was 101. and operawle he lost hi- vote. A freehold"r might
tosses. property in a berme h seflicient to quality him for •
Niembey of Parliament for that borough. yet he would have
?light to vote for the county in respect of that property.
Ile also eomplained of th, alteration respecting leaseholders
aed eopyholderea, and of the obnoxious dirisien of counties.
The present clause he considered to be made contrary to
gond faith.
Mr, W A TIPU ETON could not sgree that there bad been
*l7 breach of faith, because the clause was drawn up in
accordance with ,he assurance of the noble lord and his
friends. The admission of such a numerous class as the
agricultural tenants at will, would go to overpower the bo-
rough constituency.
Mr. F. LEWIS would propose that the quantity of land
to he valued in the rural boroughs should be limited to 5091.
and that whatever remained should belong to the freehold,
rutting the occupier of it upon the same footing as any other
separate occupier. to the amount of 501.
Lord A LTIIORP said, if he understood ihn lion. diem.
her's meaning it was, that if a man had property to the
amount of 1,0001. a year, there was no reason shy that
Iran should hare only one vote, whereas only 501. was the
qualification. But the argument, if it meant any thing,
applied with equal force to householders also, and if it was
to he eonxidered bard that the holder of property to the
enteunt of 1,0001. should have only one vote, it was equally
hard that the occupier of a house of a greater value than
101. shruid he restricted to one. Ile did not see how soy
distinction between the two cams could well be maintained.
NO person .hould, therefore, vote for a county in rwpret of
any freehold, however occupied by him, for which he
might acquire a vote for a borough—nor ii respect of certain
copyholds and leaseholds in the borough. If the clause
were rejected altogether, and if the voters of the large towns
were thrown upon the counties, he should then consider
their interests decreased considerably.
The CHAIRMAN then put the original amendment, and
also one proposed by Mr. Hughes, fur the insertion of the
additional word. " not exceeding fire acres," when
.'r. wished to know if a freeholder had a free.
hold in a town. would be be entitled to vote for the county ?
lord A LTHOR l• said he certainly would if he were a
freeliokier, nut if a cop) holder or leaseholder he would not.
It wan not intend. d by the present elapse to deprive him of
any right that he at prevent poem-ord.
Mr. W YNN considered cepyhold a species of freehold.
lie felt considerable objections to the present clause, as
amended, feeling confident it would not answer.
Sir O. I'LERK could not conceive on what principle
coprholdere tont leaseholder. could he considered entitled to
the feanchise, while those who had just the same species of
po only in the Cour re were deorir'd of that right altogether.
11. thought it i, f nicely b tier to adhere to the original
clause, than make the alteration p-oposed.
Lord MILTON contended that the clause now under
consideration would exclude the boroughs front having any
influence in the counties, a grit ciple evidently erroreous.
The bill, and the extent to which it had gone, had his
hearty support, but the present cla'm was highly objec-
tionible. The clause preceeded on the most false poll-
tiosl view that ern d he taken.—(Cheers from the Oppo.
altion ) It proceeded on a principle of reparation, instead
of a principle of union. They we-e told that the towns
should not have too great an influence in coun else.
tiors. He begged the House to look at the conduct of ,
tins philosophers who framed the clauses—philosophers
.ho were not only found in the Cabieet, hut is this Howse
(lasghter)—they conk almost erroneous views of the subject.
They must surely have had an idea that the population of
England consisted not of one community, but of two
communities— one consisting of the population of towns, and
the other of the population of cowries—forgetting, no
doubt, that a man who lived in town one day was probably
the next day in the coun-ry—a population who had concor.
dant and not discordant interests. He admired the Reform
Bill as a whole—he admired its object—be admired its prin.
ciple—aud he admired the honesty and independence that
tu.d been show!' by Noble and Right Hon. Gentlemen who
hail introduced it-- but what he found fault with was, that
Ministers had not based soul! of its details upon the ancient
ins Buena. of the country.— (Chun from the Opposition.)
The attempt t balance one interest against another was not
a wise or a po'itical plan. and his wish was that every free-
holder—every member of tile ancient county court---should
retain-his right to rote at county elections. It was most
desirable that all the real property in the country should be
represented as it had been formerly in whatever way it
might be vested. It e.g.. not • wise thing to teach the
people that their in,tituti.:ns were of yesterday— anti it was
r. cessary that every frechoider should know that he derived
his right from six hundred yea» ago.—(len.) He would
tot vote for the disfranchisement of any freeholder in Eng.
land, although he had, upon principle, voted for the die.
trarehisenomt of ,he rotten boroughs.
Lard ALTHORP could not but say that the speech of
his noble friend (lend Milton) did appear to be • very en
trsordinary one to proceed Item the lips of any man who ap.
troved of the present Bill. (lieu) He bad stated that the
framers of this bill had no right to consider that there
existed separate interns a In the country. and that In that
house there were a great body of persons who liked only
separation. Now he (Lord A Ithorp) was of opinion, that the
motion of his ruble frierd, %fillet it was quite ueconaritu.
tional, had very little weight in that horse. Upon the other
pee •is hat h.a/ b ere referred to in that house. he hid eta (re-
v:toil, 11.41 oec.t.'on to Phew their want of application,
either as beirg erreare CasCs, not at all likele to occur, or
es different in principle. that he week, not take up the time
or Or house in again *Boding to them.
h r It. PEEL recentmended the t oble lord to adopt his
proposal, and to ullner small freeholders, in the electoral dis-
t", cos to vete for the town, where his interest and connection
were much mere intimate. and where his means of colunm.
oration with their repreeentalre were much avow numerous.
Mr. WA II BURTON proposed that the original clause
should stand in its present state. omitting the words • atttr'
rs in the fourth line, down to the word • as' in the founeetth
lit e of the el use.
The CH A I 113 IA N then put the question that these winds
hr struck out ;
And after a few words from Mr. Praed, Mr. F. Lewis,
at ti Lord Altheep, Mr. Warburton's amendment was rut
al d t egatived without a division.
The IR NI A N then put the question, that the
ante edment to the original 18th clause form part of the bill.
To • question from Sir T. FR EE3IA NTLE, which was
not audible in the gallery.
Mr. CARTER said. that if a person purchased property
in a borough of a nature that did not give him a vote for
the borough. be would be entitled to vote for the county.
The CHAIR)! AN then put the original amendment
%Welt was carried wiibout a division.
Mr. HUGH,- 8 moved that the words " or any ether
person," be left out of the clause for assimilating tie cases
et cop) holders end leneehaders with that 0' the trecholders
in acting for towns. The hoc. member stated his determina-
tion to divide the House upon it.
The House then divided, •hen the numberse were—
For leasing out the weeds .. ... 1
Against it . 187
Majority against it ...
The other parts of the clause 10, with a few verbal amend-
tau eta, were carried without a division.
'll.r C HA IRMA N then put the question, that clause 19,
et sit s ills the payment of the land.tax in the case of
watts for ma no, stand part of the hill, which, after a few
oisserva,iens from Mr. V 1 YN N anti Lord ALTHORP, was
I er,tti without a division.
01, the Cli Aili MAN putting the question, that clause
2n, which enacted that no person was to be eligible to vote '
for countymembers unless he had been for • certain time regis.
t t red, rand put of the bill, some disci...len arose. Ultimately
Inc Chairman read the clause, with the blanks filled up. and
'mite vet h 1 alterations made that had been proposed. and on
ti c question that it form part of the bill, it was agreed to._
'l be l batsman then reported progress, and thohoueeresurned.
After some discussion respectinere inteeference of govern.
inert officers in the approaching Dublin election. the other
;atoms of the-Jay were gone through, ai'ud the house adjourned.