Star.
London, England, 1821-03-06 00:00:00

GRAMPOUND DISFRANCIIISEMENT ETT.L.

The Order for the Day for receiving the lteport
on the Grampound Disfranchisement Bill being read,
Mr. STUART WOR'rLEY said, that understand-
ing the Bill, on account of the amended qualifica-
tion, had been abandoned by a Neble Lord (Lord J.
Russell), whom he did not see in his place—but not
feeling that he (Mr. S. Wortley) was obliged, there-
fore, to give it pp also, moved that the Bill be re-
committed and printed for the inspection of the
House. The only alteration he proposed to make in
the Bill was this—in its present form it confined the
franchise to such persons only at Leeds as had been
rated at £2O a-year fbr their house alone. He would
extend it further—he would make payment of scot
and lot a qualification, and whether a householder
was rated at £2O, or a less sum, for his house, if he
possessed £2O a-year from lands or tenements, still
he was to have the franchise..
Mr. ABERCROMBIE suggested the 'minting of
the new clauses for the accommodation of Members,
before the Committee was gone into.
Mr. LOCKHART thought more time ought to
be given for consideration before the House were
hurried into a Committee. _ _ _

Mr. S. WORTLEY stated, that there were 1,690
houses in Leeds, which were rated at £2O a-year.
"Mr. HOBHOUSE liked the former Bill but little,
brit he liked it still less with the amendments which
were now to be made in it. He thought the same
person might, with great consistency have voted for
one and opposed the other. The former Bill was un-
worthy the Noble Lord who brought it in, and only
disappointed the expectations of thetountry. It was
by ao means decisive enough ; yet he thought it
would be useful, and he voted for it just to shew that
a Reformer or Radical was not of so uncompromising
a nature but that he would take what was offered to
him, though he did not get all he expected. He did
not expect the Bill would improve much in the hands
of the Member for Yorkshire. When it was so in-
complete after coming from the Noble Lord, whose I
views were known to be friendly to Reform, it could
not, at least, be bettered by coming from another
quarter, where a contrary feeling was known to exist.
ißy a new gill, one would have expected some

provemettt ; the child ought to Wee beat More ami-
able than the parent—;—.
Mater isikhrge, fdis poslobior.
Yet the contrary was the fact here—not the mother's
beauty, but the mother's deformity, had descended
to her offspring. The Hon. Member then proceeded
to-defend the Electors bf Westminster from an attack
-U)

__Jade upon them on a former bight by the Honour-
able Member for Taunton (Mr. A. Baring), whom
he was sorry not to see in his place. The attack was
mast wanton and undeserved, for the Electors of
Westminster were an enlightened and patriotic set
men. There was no city in the Empire, possessing,
as it did, 1.5,000 Electors, where such small sums of
money were expended. He did not see the Honour-
able Member in his place; but, hotvever, as the Ho-
nourable Member did not.spare him (Mr. Hobhouse)
in his absence, he thought he was hatdly entitled to
sty forbearance from him on that score. The Hon.
Member had said, that on popular hustings, and he
mentioned Westminster and Southwark, nothing but
nonsense was talked to the people. These were hard
words ; but they were made more offensive by the

Mr. BANKES rose to order. It was unusual both
to advert to a past debate, and to the conduct of an
absent Member.

The SPEAKER said, that in both these particu-
lars the Hon. Gentleman was irregular. The prin-
ciple upon which alisision to a former debate was pre-
vented, was, thatmisrepresentations might be guarded
against. The Hon. Gentleman would see, therefore,
that he was irregular in alluding to a past debate,
and that it was aggravated when he himself acknow-
ledged that the lion. Member to whom he was al-
luding was absent.
Mr. HOBHOUSE bowed to the authority of the
Chair; he would be governed entirely by the course
which it thought proper to mark out to him, but he
thought it hard when he was charged with speaking
nonsense, that he should not be permitted to defend
himself—(licor).—The Hon. Member had no right
to assume that any man's language was nonsensical,
for what might appear so to him, would, perhaps,
appear sensible enough to others. He recollected hav-
ing heard of a popular Member for Taunton corning
into that town with four Cupids and a large log before
him !—(A laugh).—But this he (Mr. Hobhouse) knew,
that no Candidate for the City of Westminster would
get a single vote by such a classical exhibition !
(Loud lauglder).—The Honourable Member then
proceeded to argue against the principle of treat-
ing the people general.y, as if no regard was to be
paid to their common sense. He next vindicated
his own conduct towards the Electors of Westmin-
ster, remarking, that he had given them a pledge
which he should never ♦iolate. He augured well to
the cause of Reform, from seeing some of the Noble
Families of the land coming forward in favour of it.
It was also a good omen to see the Despots of Europe,
though leagued against liberty all over the world,
yet willing to give the people of Spain and Portugal
the advantages of a Constitution similar to that which
we enjoyed. He supposed it would be such a Con-
stitution as that which the Noble Lord delighted in;
a Constitution which recognized placemen, pen-
sioners, and sinecurists, in abundance!—(Laughter).
Though a Radical Reformer, still he should not oh;
ject to this Bill; because he was glad to see anything
that bore even the semblance of Reform acquiesced
in by the other side.
Mr. 'l'. COURTNEY said, that if the allusions he
had made respecting Westminster were not true, the
Electors were grossly misrepresented. As to what
the Honourable Member had said respecting him
(Mr. Courtney) personally, he should only treat it
with profound contempt.
Mr. lloatiouse and Mr. COURTNEY explained.
Mr. HUNIE made some observations in defence of
the Westminster Electors. He had had himself oc-
casion to witness the pure and disinterested motives
by which they were actuated in giving their votes.,
His decided opinion was, that any individual attempt-
ing to corrupt them, would be instantly scouted.
As to the Bill itself, he was a friend to it, though he
should have preferred the principle of scot and lot.
Ile hoped that this would be an earnest to the people
that wherever a blot was found to exist, it would be
speedily removed. His Majesty's Ministers were
bound to give such a pledge to the people.
Mr. H. GURNEY was in favour of the Bill, but
wished that the qualification of the Noble Lord (Lord
John Russell) had been adopted. In his opinion, the
Amendment of the Honourable Member for York-
shire (Mr. Stuart Wortley) made it much less useful
than it would be if the original principle were acted
upon.—The Report was then brou*ht-up, and the Bill
ordered to be recommitted forthwith.

The Bill having gone through the Committee, and
some vet bal amendments being agreed to, the Report
was ordered to be taken into further consideration on
Friday next.

TAX ON HORSRS USED FOR HUSBANDRY.
Mr. LUSHINGTON moved that the House do re-
solve itself into a Committee on the Act imposing .a
tax on horses employed for the purposes of husbandry.
Mr. CUR WEN urged the imperative necessity of
abolishing the tax, as he thought that every possible
relief ought to be afforded to the Agricultural In-
terest in its present'distressed state. Any principle
was to be deprecated, the tendency of which was to
add to the number of those 'labourers who were re-
ceiving parochial relief. The tax in question was
peculiarly severe, inasmuch as it was unequally pro-
portioned—(Hear, hear). Besides, it was to be ob-
served, that the agricultural estimates were now
made upon the same scale as when the nation was in
' a state of prosperity. This was not to be borne. The
Honourable Member concluded by moving, as an
amendment, " that it be an instruction to the Com-
mittee to make provision for the repeal against the
Duty on Horses solely employed in Husbandry."
Sir C. BURRELL supported. the Amendment.
He considered the tax as oppressive as if it had been
imposed on the cart, the plough, or even the labourer.
Mr. LOCXHART thought that nothing could be
more reprehensible than a measure which went to
impose a tax upon a'man who was already ruined.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
was not prepared to say that a substitute might not
be found for the tax in question, though he held out
no hopes of that kind. He complained that this pro-
position was brotight forward without notice. -
Colonel DAVIES said, that when the Army Esti-
mates should come before the nods*, he would be
able to kw that double the amount of this tax might

.he saved by t etretching in at part of the
,establishment alone—(Hear, ,hear). cif
Mr. MONCK concurred in thinking that a
effectual means of relieving the distresses ‘,.17410.
pressed on the country would he retrenchmentoi
expense and reduction of taxation—(Henn).
Mr. HUSKISSON argued that the most 066..
' nient mode for the Honourable Gentleman to
ma.-
ceed in would be to take an opportunity of moving
the repeal of the duty altogether. The instractlie
which the Honourable Member had moved walk
be inconsistent with the object of the Committee.
• Mr. aNETT (of Wiltshire) said, he %%vadat.'
tainly support every motion for the repeal of Tuft.
on Agriculture. He could not but feel with Homo
able Gentlemen, that a real retrenchment, that gale
'of real public economy, would go a great way sofa
move the present excessive weight of taxation.
Mr. BRIGHT complained of the anxiety 4c004;
try Gentlemen, who seemed anxious only to to
their burthens to the mercantile interest. It oasis's:
possible that the country could be served by trans
ferring oppressive burthens from one great publii
interest to another. As it struck him, the only et%
tual way of getting rid of the present Tax was,
the Country Gentlemen combining and oppo,ing the
Taxes altogether.
Mr. CURWEN explained. Ile said, he had la
wish to take the House by surprise, or to act unfairly
in any way. He had often declared his intention to
move to get rid of the present injurious and odious
Tax on Agriculture. Ile had no wish to press upol
Ministers: he knew they had difficulties to meet,*
that those difficulties increased every hour. If
ters would shew a sincere disposition to alleriatete
public burthens, he would not only not oppose the;
but would aid them in the effort.
The House then divided—
For Mr. Curwen's Motion 6.5
Against it l2
Majority against the Motion: .... . ......