Star.
London, England, 1828-03-12 00:00:00

1~- ~. -

..

aeipt St.snips under Abe value of sixpence, a hum that
did irt altogetber_extftd 44,0901. It was a fact, that
so higher a duty was paid upon receipts for 5000(x.
than upon receipts for 1,0001. and if the law were
* amended, together with some reductions in the expense•
of the Stamp Office. it would go near to coger-she dif.
faience which the repeal of so much of the Stamp
Dirties would make.
The Petition from the Merchants and Traders of Kingaten.upon-
Hull, for a repeal of the Duties on Receipt Stamps, was then read
and laid on the table.

FRICHOLLIERS.
Mr. SYKES said, that he had brought forward the
subject of District Freeholders, who had no right to
vote for any specific place, before the House on fo' tner
occasions; and his object now was, to move for a Select
Committee to inquire into the subject. It had been
pressed upon him by persons in several places, but pat•
titularly by respectable individuals in the town of Hull.
It was evident that many persons in different towns had
a right to vote for County Representatives, while seve-
ral freeholders of counties voted for burgesses for
towns, and to that extent no party had a tight of com-
plaint. But then there were other persons who bad no
such vote, although they had property which would
entitle them to vote for knights of the shire. He held
this opinion on the authority of Lord Coke, and deci-1
sions in that House; and although the Crown had the
power of making grants, it had not the power in con-
furring a grant, or withdrawing a previously existing
franchise. What was true of a borough must be true
of a county ; and where a liability could not be avoided,
a franchise could not be taken away even by the very
highest authority in the realm. There was also a case
in Glanville's Reports, page 54, in the time of James
the First, which further corroborated the views he had
stred to the House. He had made considerable in-

quiry into the subject, and felt quite satisfied that the
time was come when the places circumstanced as he had
stated should be entitled to the recovery of their rights.
It might be said that Petitioners could apply to Com-
mittees of that House on the subject; but then a diffi-
culty must be started, and a subject raised, before the
matter could be fairly brought before this House. Here
there was no motion for any thing like sweeping re.
form ; it was only for inquiry, and the application of a
particular remedy for a particular grievance. He
hoped, on such grounds, that there would be no objec-
tion to the appointment of a Select Committee to in-
quire into the exercise of the elective franchise in diffe•
• rent counties of England and Wales, and to report
thereon their opinion to the House.
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS never knew any state-
ment which less justified the appointment of 'a Com-
mittee than that made by the Hon. Member. They had
already the most abundant information on the subject,
and he did not therefore see any necessity for more.—
Besides, this subject involved in its principle, by ana-
logy, the whole state of the representati. n of the country
—a subject which was not now regularly before the
' House. Mr. Fox was of opinion that the state of our
representation was like an old fabric, built at different
timei, suited to many useful purposes, and not to be
viewed without reference to such uses He fully agreed
with the opinion of that great man. The freeholders of
London never exercised the tight of voting for repre.
sentatives fur Middlesex. li was different with the
cii.sens of York as to the county, for they setaiced the
fight to vote; but thre were cases which could not be
reduced to any positive and fixed principle.—ln Carr-
' =sullen the freeholders voted fw Repiesentatives for
the county, and the simple reason of Woos thii, that
' when it was exptinsive to send Members to-Parliament,
the freeholders of corporations were allowed, as I pri
'liege, to forego the charge of such a burthen. It was
a benefit conferred upon them at tl-at time, and he
kbew not sell their former privilege should now be
stared co them. Under such grounds be must oppose
the appointment of a Committee; but if a Bill were in-
troduced be would nor pledge himself to oppose it.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY, thought his Right Honourable
Friep‘i (Mr. F. Lewis), was mistaken respecting the
object of his Honourable Friend's motion, which was,
arot to restore rights that had been taken away or given
up—but rights which had fallen to the ground through
different circumstances, some of which his HonUarable
Friend had stated. A case in point occurred in the city
be himself bad the honour to represent, the freeholders
of which at one period voted for Members of Podia.'
Mont for the county of Northumberland— whereas.
both the county and the city now sent representatives.
The question had never yet been decided in Parliament
—he thought, therefore, that the House ought to con-
cur in the motion of his Honourable Friend.
Colonel SIBTHORP, though not favourable to the
prim, question of Reform, thought the case referrtd
to in the particular motion ',close the House deserving
of attention.

Lord LOWTHER opposed the motion. It was true
that the pasties referred to did not participate in the
privilege of voting for Members for counties, neither
did they, howe►er, participate in the county expenses.
It they lnst their franchise they shared advantages of
another kind.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the position of
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Sykes) was founded upon a fal-
lacy. The plain fact was, that the charter which took a
town out of the jurisdiction of the county, as a bargain
for the advantage of the town, which by such contract
escaped the payment of county rates and other heavy
imposts. If they were to be included in the county,
titer -must be liable to all the taxes incident to the
county ; he must serve on juries, pay county rates, and
be liable to every imposition made for the benefit of the
county. No right conferred on the freeholders of the
city. could practically be conferred also 'Upon the
county. without deranging the rights and liabilities of
each. If an enlargement of rights was to be given to
peculiar districts, why exempt the boroughs, some of
which had very large jurisdictions? He did not wish
to see any new theory laid down for the exercise of the
elective franchise; and if this measure were once enter-
tained, he feared they would be called upon to enter
into an inquiry of all the anomalies connected with our
representative system. If a Bill was brought in, he did
not say he would oppose it, but neither_would he pledge
himself to its support. It was an anousrly produced by
compromise, originally made for the benefit of the
freeholders of tarticular towns.
Sir J. NEWPORT denied that the freeholders could
be said to have surrendered their elective franchise by
charters or contracts with the Crown. In the charters
of those districts of Ireland which ware separated from
the cities. there was not Gip tinord about excluding the
freeholders from voting; on the contrary, all the free-
holders in such districts had the sight of voting for the
county. The charters then left the freeholders as they
found them. 'lbis was the case with the city which he
represented (Waterford); with Dublin, tuo; and Cork
sod Limerick. As to the defence of the present system,
or) the ground that it was a constitutional anomaly,
what then? If such anomaly was injurious to the
public interest, he
_loped the House would instantly
abolish it.
Mr. C. Vitatitsaid, the greater part of the system

or our repremotegfun was anomaleu.; but, in c e
present case, be considered Fieulauldess of
towns alluded to bad been svjth a •
to save themselves from the oteirtn m of sendink
Knights of the Shire to Pirliamed, Borgage Tenure,:
he knew the right of voting was in the boil, but hk
much doubted whether the tact was the same in the
mere forty-shilling Freeholder. If the present motion
or inquiry were acceded to, they would be obliged to
look into the state of every borough, city, and county
in the kingdom--an inquiry of so dangerous, compli.
rated, and useless a nature as he could never agree to.
The Members of this Hr use represented the whole body
of the people. With the present mode he was satisfied,
and he mu,t, therefore, oppose the present motion.
Mr. Alderman WOOD contended that the Free-
holders of London were placed in a very unfair situa-
tion, as compared with the members of the Livery.
However unpopular the expression of such an opinion
might be, he was friendly to an inquiry into this subject.
51r. PEEL said, that the Honourable Alderman threw out that
the Freeholders of London should have a Member for themselves.
Mr. Alderman WOOD—Exactly so.
Mr. PEEL contended, that the Hon. Alderman's
proposition would go to subvert the rights of the City
of London. as granted to the Livery exclusively, by
charter. As to the Hon. Alderman' s proposal to give
the power of electing representatives of their own, to
all freeholders residing within corporate jurisdictions,
if that were carried into effect it would introduce an
additional number of Members into that House, and
thus the number of Members returned by Scotland
and Ireland should be increased in proportion—a
consequence which would be rather inconvenient. But
surely, as persens resident in counties and possessing
much personal property were excluded, if they had
no freehold, from voting for the county, it was not un-
reasonable that persons possessing freehold property
in cities should be excluded from voting for the city,
in case they had no corporate right to the franchise.—
These were anotnalie , but they were useful in this way,
that through the meaos of them men of any condition
and rank had the power of obtaining the elective fran
chise—even the lowest in scciety could obtain it, as in
cities, by sersi,ude. But the local differences as to the
mode of possessing the elective franchise were very
numerous; in some places freeholders within corporate
jurisdiction had a right of voting for the county. In
other places they, as in London, had not a tight. In
Lichfield, Bristol, Exeter, and others places, freeholders
enjoyed the elective franchise for the city or borough.
York was different from all these; for in some districts
of that city, the freeholders voted for the city election,
while in other districts they could only vote for the
election of the county Members; and in souse places,
as Newcastle and Kingston-upon-Hull, the freeholders
could vote for neither city nor county. If the House
thought it right that every person possessing freehold
property within a corporate jurisdiction should have
the right of voting, it would be better to confirm it by a
direct Bill, than go into a Committee on such a wide
-prtading and- int'icare subject—for instance, in the
ca,e of Kingston-up nn-Hull, the better mode of pro-
ceeding would be by local Bill: It would be impossible
to enact a general measure suitable to so many dif-
ferent cases.

Mr. SYKES, after a few won!. in reply, withdrew his motion.
SCOTCH CRIMINAL counts.

The LORD ADVOCATE, atter stating that there,
had been a great increase of crime in Scotland, in,
consequence of 0 e gteat increase of the manufacturing
population of the Western Disci icts, said that it had
become necessary til have an additional Circuit at Glas-
gow, to enable the- administration -Of justice to go on
with sufficient promptness. Coupled with this measure,
the Rid be was about to ask lease ro introduce would
make some other requisite changes in the manner of
serving the Copy nt indictment on a prisoner fitieen
days before trial, and in the manner of receiving the
plea of Guilty, to assimilate the latter to the English
practice. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill for au-
thorising an additional Ci,urt nt Justiciary in Glasgow,
to facilit,te criminal trial in Scotland.

Mr. HUME said, that the propo-ed improvement was
not sufficient to met the evil growing out of the in-
crease of crime, and the delay v hich took place before
punishment was inflicted. He thought the plan of the
City of London ought to be followed in Glaigow, and
every where else throu6hout the empire, by having a
gaol delivery every six or e.ght weeks. In Scouland. the
fewness of the Judges c •uld not be an objec ion to this,
for these were nearly t a. many as in England.
Mr. BENETT said, chat he thought the increase of,
, crime was occasioned by the increase of distress among
the lower classes ; and he considered that it would be
much better to discuv.r and remove the cause, than to
increase the means of panidiment.
Mr. KENNEDY expressed hire elf in favour of the
Bill.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY WO, that he wished to ask the
Noble and Leatued Lord whether the puni bment of
banishment was not still in esistt nee in Sco:land? He
understood that it was, and that when any unfortunate
Scot became too bid tor his own counts y, they were in
the habit of banithit g h m into Wrthumberland.,-(A
laugh).—He should think that such a punishment was
not likely to have much effect in deterring Scotchmen
from committing clime, since it had always been con-
sidered a greater benefit for them to leave home than
to remain there. So strong tad been this notion, that
it had got into verse, and ran thus—
Had Cain been a Soot, Goa had altered his doom ;
Nut have forced him to wander, but kept him at home.
(A laugh.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said, that the law allutfed to
by the Hon. Baronet did still exist, but be might be ist
ease as to its effect in contaminating • the morals. of
Northumberland, inasmuch as it was not acted upon
ofrener than once in five or six years, He lasi; Variance,
as he often was, with the Hon. Member ,fa Aberdeen,
upon the fact he had stated to the House. He had said
that there might be eight Circuits in Scotland, becattie
there were more Judges than in England. Now the
• übject only embraced the Judges before whom criminal
causes could be tried, of whom there were twelve in
England, and in Scotland there were just six.
After a few words in reply, from the Lova Anvoc*rs, in the
courw of which be admitted that the state 14 the Scotch gaols was
a disgrace to the country, and that some legislative step should be
taken to put them on a respectable footing, leave was given to briug
in the Bill.

The Learned Lord also obtained leave to bring in a Bill to alter
and amend the Acc 55 Geo. 111. cap. 59. intituled " An Act to
regulate Mad•bouses in Scotland."