Star.
London, England, 1831-08-31 00:00:00

IT.TOR)I.

Lord J. RUSSELL mr;cath:t the }inure regolve itaeli
in.o a committee not Ora reform in parliament bill.
The hnu•c reanlred itself into a committee.

The CH AIRMAN rend elatne 22.

Colonel PERI. moved an amendment, that the right. of
eating should c blued to freemen and their cleseent'ants.
C“pttin BiiRKRE.EY Rai.% the freemen of Gloucester I
were st•rry for the disfranchisement of their posterity by the
Bill; but wool I mach rather submit to the clause than risk
ths loss the Bill. He hoped, however, the amendment
a i.;tir be c.zreel to with ut danger to the Bill.
Lord it 'UN opposed the amendment,
effect rti,ett...l by the Committee on Saturs
day
Sir 'AI. W. RIDLEY supported the amendment, which
only etmtinited an import.tut privilege to a large body of
man. by whom it was hiAtiy
Colonel BERErFOßUaupportedthe amend mt nt. H.:',
said, that ate Ochs., could au its principle would be severely
felt by the wives of freemen of iterwtck-upan.Tivee.l, who
.tetltt 11 container:cc, b. dcprivcl of their hereditary rights
to diff.tent charities.

Mr. IftittTON spoke in favour of the amendment.
Mr. MILL 1 It, in general terms, attacked the principle
of the big, which he desi,sisted as a most iniquitous bill, and
be exprei.sed himself glad to prefer the clause as amended,
to the clause in its original form Ile said, that h his opi.
the hill was objectionable in all its parts, but it was in
an U.creased el.gree ohjectio:.ahle hi this part, which was to
take away the rights ot hereditary freemen.
Captain FITZROY said that in the borough of Grimsby,
which he had the honour to represent, there were 404
voreis, who held their rights by descent, and the substitution
hf the MI. qualifications would neluce the number to 96.
Ile thought th.tt Si. would have been a more equal and
rational data fur qualification in th.tt borough, when the
low prices of land and of labour were taken into account.
Ile considered it an extreme hardship to deprive children
of the rights of their fathers._ . .

Mr. II A lIVEV reprobated tlt tone of argutneat that had
been adol.ted by lion. members on the opposite side ; he
thougi.t that it was the dusty of the house to legislate accord.
ing to existing circumstances. The public, if they Cid in
some instances suil;:r in a smell d.gre.: in their pecuniary
dci•endencies, would consider ihenisilves amply cl.npensatiti
in the increased indepentlencl and extension of their share in
the legislation of the country. Ile felt assured tha; the pro-
visions of the bill were such, that not a man in England, of
steady and industrious habits, hut wou'd he enablett to cc.
quire the exercise of his independent franchise. Ile would
oppose the amer.mint and support the original clause. lie
concluded :rash via .cting on the tactics a:A factiousness of
the opposition. lie called upon realms. not to be led
away by trifling amendments and quibbling, but to adhere
to Finciple, and support the bill as it was.

Sir IL PEEL complained of the insinuations which had
been thrown out by the her. member for Colchester, in say.
ing that the opposition were in the habit of bringing fotward
their motions of amendments in thin houses, hoping therchy
to obtain a chance of a majority, or a more respectable num-
ber in a minority, and thereby to send abroad an injurious
imptession to the country. He said his hon. relative had
given his notice of motion ; and if the house was thin, that
had been no fault of his. He said that he had never heard
a more lame case than had been made out by the advo-
cates for the original clause. He wculd support the amend.
meat, and in doing so, should the house come to a di
vision, nnd minister. should chance to Le in the minority.
that he could not see by what rcas.m it could be said that
Ilia IlLjesty's Ministers would be under the neceesity ot
abandoning the Hill. He at great length reprobated the
data of 101. being fixed as the qualilicati-n, as it would ope-
rate so variously in different places. The 101. voters in large
towns were a very different class front the 101. voters in small
towns, and he thought if they retained the hereditary rights
and privile,-es of Peers, it was unjust to deprive the poorest
classes of these hereditary rig.,ts. He was sure that the
people would not be contented, fur they held their privileges
as valuable, chiefly because they were descendable to their
posteri.y. On these accounts he would support the amend.
went.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, and he defend.
ed the general principle of the bill, which he said had been
accep.eit by the people, and consequently that this clause
had, among the others, been by them sanctioned. He
thought the assertions, that people were cooling in their ap-
probation of the bill, and would look on its being lost with
perfect indifference, was a weak absurdity. That had been
used as an argument the very firs; week of the Session, and
the people had, in declamatory speeches, been called upon
to conic forward and prevent corporation robberies and
spoliation of privileges; but all that these had produced were
some Laif.a.doren petitions, from corporations, against the
bal. lie was satisfied that corruption had existed in its
most extended scale among the freemen and corporations of
large towns, and he thought, by making the qualification
IUI. it would secure a coaatituency placed in circumstances
least likely to be exposed to tempts ion. He hall as much
respect as any one fur the hereditary rights of every class,
but lie was convinced that the bearings of the bill, as a whole,
would !..e advantageous to the freemen—and such, he con.
tended, must have been their own impression,• seeing the
spirit they had evinced when appealed to after the diaso-
lotion. (Hear.)
Sir L. WETHERELL was opposed to the clause and
supported the amendment. The circle of dissatisfaction was
widening daily ; York, Newcastle-upon-'Tyne, Newcastle-
under-Lyne, Durham, Beverley, Kerry, and Dublin, must
now be included in schedule A, of the dissentients against
clause 22. He had even heard that the Liverymen of Lon-
don had found out that they would lose much more by the
clause than they would gain. The clause attached an here-
ditary right, which once destroyed, lie feared the hereditary
right of another and a higher class would not be long re.
syected. He feared the hereditary right of the peerage would
soon be called in question. (Hear, hear.) There were two
males of destroying hereditary rights; one was t 6 begin
by the bottom and ascend to the top ; the other, to com-
mence by the top, and to d.scend to the bottom. In a
neighbouring country they had adopted the latter course;
we chote the tinnier ; the result would be the same—a ge-
nerd spoliation. For tile principle of spoliation once este-
, blished, what barrier could correct its progress ? Would
the arbitrary will of the resent referiners bind their sue-
, cessors ? The present reformers chose to confine spoliation
to the lower classes ; a relay of reformers would push it one
stage further, and an on until the ultimate rule of reform
should have been attained.. For his part, he could not see
why the right of a freeman of England should be less sacred
;Ilan any other right. Magna Charts declared the heredi-
nay right of corporations to be as indefeasible as the here-
ditary tight of the Crown itself. In the midst of the great.
est civil commotions the corporations had been respected.
He might remind them also that the first French revolu-
tion began by the destruction of the municipal rights.
Mr. STANLEY said it was refreshinfe=er six weeks
of languid discussion on details, to see the gentleman
returning to the principles of the bill, to the long exploded
ch.etrines of the inviolability of close corporations, and to
the prognostications of the downfall of the peerage and of
the crown. However, as he (Mr. S.) did nor 'hate in these
fears, which had been long forgotten by the people, as they
bed no reference to the present discussion, he should not
follow the learned gentleman on this point; the more espe-
daily as the right non. boronet had &elated that the amend.
mend would not affect the working of the bill; but it would
affect greatly its main principle--the non-inviolability of
close corporations, the giving of the elective franchise to that
class alone which exercised it with the best advantage to
the stare. As to the circle of dissatisfaction against the
bill having widened, the only dissatisfaction which he

_;_'_

could see, was caused by its slow paves. The very
towns cited by the learned gentleman had returned Tepee-
scivadves pledged to the main principles of the Bill, of
which the present clause was one. That they would wil-
lingly retain their privileges, if consistent with the principles
e the Bill, he did not doubt ; but that they would consent
to retain them, if injurious to the Bill, he denied, and
their representatives denied it also. The clause respected
all existing rights, the living freemen being retained. To
granting the franchise to their unborn sons, he (Mr. S.)
would not consent, until he was shown that they were more
competent for its enjoyment, less accessible to a bribe, more
discerning in their choice, than any other class of English-
men.
Mr. GOULBURN said the transmission of the elective
franchise to the sons of freemen born before the first of
Octo.oer, and not to those born titer, was an anomaly of
which he had as ye: beard no explanation.. Where was
the danger in the ore case which did nut exist in the other ?
The Member for Colchester had himself admitted that the
amendment did not involve the principle of :be bill.
Mr. PROTHEROE was understood to oppose the
amendment. It was customary, in the town which he re•
presented, for candidates to buy up the freedoms of those
whom they wished to bavc as electors.
Mr. GREENR would support C.e amendment, as it
was not contrary to the principle of the bill.
Mr. ROBINSON supported the arneMartent.
Mr. E. PEEL exidained.
Mr. DUNDAS had been requested by the freemen, his
crin.dru.nts, not ti .11/Tort their franchise if IL interfered
with the pr:tteples of As one of those princheles
was the ilia:nate ',Mona'', of the right of voting in clues
and boreughs, he should vote against the amendment.
Sir F. BLAKE wished du: the clause was so intAi.l.4l
as to preserve the elective franchise to ell freemen whose N-
rents should have been married before the passing of the
Bill. There would Bien LI no distinction amongst the
children of freemen. _ _

Mr.II()WARI), as the representative of a large city,
must opim: the amendment, as he thought the bill weld
place the d ctive franchise within the reach of honest in-
eustry, and his constituois were wtU content to accept the
bill as it stood, to secure the distinction of the nomination
boroughs which overwhelmed the country with taxation.
Mr. TREVOR supported the amtrdinent. He had not
heard one word thm cool] be called argument against M—
ile thought the freemen a much.injured body of men.—
(Hear, hear.) He would support the amendment, and oppose
the clause in spite of sarcasm and ridicule. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERGUSON could rot conceive on what principle
the gni:putters of the bill could support the amendment.—
(Mar, hear.) The principle ci" the bill was to extend the
franchise to those who acre in a situation that gave reasora-
ble assur.mce of their exercising it indepentiendy. The
franchise of freedom, being wholly iodevendent of property
was liable to be a:otsed, anfl hid been greatly abused ; am!
allowing it to continue during the lives of the present poi-
ressors, was an exception to the principle of the hill—not
the rule.

Colonel SIIITIIOIIP supported the amendment, though
he knew what he sa:d would not go forth to the public. (A
laugh.)
AIL Alderman WA IT'D! A N said. he could assure tic
learn 1 number for Hormighbridge that no change of opinion
had taken piar2 in the City of I.oneon on the great subj Let
of reform. Tn.: only tiisssatisfaction that was felt was at
the procrastination of 1112 bill iu that house. which was prin.
cipally attributed to the speeches of the hon. and learned
gentleman, which, it was stated in a publication, had
amounted to 73 in the Committee. (Great laughter.)
The Committee divided—
k'or the amendmen:
Against it .. 210

Majority for Ministers 79
Mr. Vi•ILKS moved an adtentlmcnt,, that every person
her after marrying the daughter cf a freeman, by ahieh
mauler at present he obtains his fleet:cm, should retail.) it
atter the passing of the act.
The ATIOIt NEY.GENERA L said, he knew that in
son e hur..ublts the dadghters of freemen had a right to can.
fer the fretdon) on he: ti-st and second husband, but not on
her third auci fourth. (A laugh.) He had no objection to
the amendment.

'I he amendment wav agreed to.
11Ir. TilEVOlt moved an amendment, that the tight of
voting should be continued to non-resident freemen.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it. He koew an in-
stance in which a whole regiment were made freemen.
The Committee divided—
For the amendment 3B
Against it

Majority for Ministers • 113
On the admission of strangers to the gallery, the corn.
mittee was engaged on that Fort of the clause, fixing the
distance at which freemen might have a tight to vote at
seven miles.

Mr. TREVOR moved, as an amendment, that all free.
t•tcn residing within the boroughs, or towns in the country,
within which the election was to take place, do have a egth
to vote.

After some farther conversation the amendment was with-
drawn, end the original proposition was agreed to.
Mr. POYNTZ and Mr. RUM BOLD severally moved
an amendment, the former affecting the vote of minors before
the passing tit the bill, and the latter touching the rights of
outvotcrs; hut both were withdrawn.

The ela.use, as amended, was then declared part of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave
to sit again en Thursday.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of; and
the House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock.