The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-26 00:00:00

proposed ? And the third was this—in what manner did his
right hon. friend propose to guard against the produce of our
possessions in the East and West Indies serving as a cover for
the introduction of foreign coffee ?
- -

Mr. S. Rick, who spoke with his back to the gallery, and
was consequently very imperfectly heard, said that though he
could not aiaswer his hon. friend's questions in the regular or-
der in w:hieh they had been proposed, he hoped he should be
able to give him a satisfactory reply. Ile had stated in the
course of the debate on this question, that care would be taken
that the relief given by the equalization of the duty on coffee
did not extend beyond coffee which was the growth of our own
territories. Perhaps he ought to apologise for giving more
than au answer to the question which had been proposed, but
it would be necessary to say wore, in order to make what he
bad said intelligible. it was intended that evidence should be
given that the coffee was the bond fide produce of those of our
pOssessions to whidi the act was intended to aeply, and in order
to,obtain an exemption,from the duty a certificate to that effect
would be required. As to the third question, the proper time
fur the consideration of it would be when be brought iu a bill to
propose the equalization of the duty, when he should state the
means by which he intended to prevent any abuse of the pri-
vileges.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.—COMMITTEE.
A long conversation arose as to the•qualification of voters on
municipal elections.
Sir ROBERT PEEL intimated his intention of proposing some
substantive clause on this subject in a future stage of the bill. •
The 7th and Bth clauses were agreed to.
On the 9th clause being proposed
Mr. Tehvoe moved that this clause be omitted. He defended
the character of freemen, and adverted to the cases of hardship
adduced by the member for Yarmouth on the preceding day.
Mr. Fielder supported the motion.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT addressed the committee at consider-
able length, and commenced by saying that he was not hostile
to the reform of municipal corporations, and that he had not
and would not do anything to oppose the object they all
had in view—the improvement of municipal government.
The ninth clause professed to have two objects in view. He
was not sure that it might nut also have a third, which was not
uclore them. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) He apprehended
that it would not be denied by the noble lord and his friends, that
as the clause' stood, it was intended to destroy the inchoate rights
and privileges of a certain class of individuals in voting for
members of parliament. (Hear, hear.) Another effect of the
clause undoubtedly would be, to take from those having such
inchoate righti of freedom both property and privileges.
(Hear, hear.) And he was not sure that the clause would not
also hale the effect of preventing the existing class of freemen
.from•voting at the electioo qf, inernbers.of parliament. (Hear,
hear:) 'He aikhd, 'if this were noi' the Lase, why .was, it that
some provision had not been introduced in the bill, declaring
that the rights of existing freemen were to be preserved?
(" Hear," and Oh, oh !" He looked to the clause now with
regard to the rights of voting, for members of parliament; and
his reason of so doing was a doubt as to the purport and the
effect of that clause. Of course, if it was the intention to
deprive freemen of this right, as his hon. and learned friend the
Attorney-General and the noble lord the Secretary for the Home
Department intimated—if they denied it—there was an end
of the matter—he had not a word more to say on the subject•
But let him just look fora moment to the wording of the clause:
And be it enacted, that after the passing of this act no per-
ion shall be elected, admitted, or enrolled a citizen, freeman,
liveryman, or burgess of any borough, or by any name a mem-
ber of any body corporate in respect to any right or title other
than by occupancy and payment of rates within such boro_tigh,
according to the meaning and provisions of this act." WoW
the government had a new corporate body, id which it would
appear no freeman could be enrolled, except, as an occupant and
rate-payer, according to the provisions of this act, and so enti-
tled as it would seem to vote. But if this were not the fact—if
the act really admitted that any body not qualified according
to the words of the clause Should be enrolled, he would say no
more. His hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General satis-
fied him there was no doubt, and so there was an end to the
subject. He now carne to what was admitted on all hands. It
was admitted that those who had an inchoate right to their free-
dam were to be deprived of all those rights, privileges, and
property which they had reason to expect they should enjoy.
It was admitted further, that every person now possessing an
inchoate right to his freedom was to be deprived of the right of
voting for members of parliament. (Hear, hear.) It was true
these two rights were of a different description; he admitted
this, but hb denied that they stood on difkrent grounds. (Hear,
hear.) He would first call the attention of the house to the
rights of property. A question bad been put yesterday by the
right honourable baronet the member for leaft;rd to the noble
lord (J. Russell) respecting the intention of government as to
corporation property left in trust for specific purposes. The
noble lord replied, that it was not the intention of government
to interfere with that species orproperty, but that it was pro-
posed it should be held by the new corporate body or by trustees
for the same purposes. This was sufficiently explicit; but the
noble lord afterwards qualified this answer in replying to his
right hon. friend the member for Tarnworth by saying. such pro-
perty as was in trust for charitable uses. It was this answer,
which was assented to by his honourable and learned friend the
Attorney-General, that made slim think the bill had been in-
troduced without due inquiry or examination—(loud cheers)
due inquiry, or examination as to the nature of property held
by corporations. (Cheers.) He said so because he was satis-
filed, from the answer of the noble lord,•that the bill would not
carry its objects into effect. (Hear, hear.) Now, as to
inchoate rights, there were persons who had a right to be
admitted as freemen ; they had legal vested interests in
all the privileges and property to which they would be se-
verally entitled on attaining the age of 21. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord bad spoken of charitable trusts. Was be indeed
acquainted with the nature of those trusts in the majority of
towns ? He (Sir W. Follett) had an account of the property
in one town with which he was not at all connected. It related
to the town of Coventry, and he believed it would furnish a fair
sample of the property in the different corporate towns. Cer-
tainly, there is, first, a species of property provided for by the
bill, and therefore he could not say that it hail escaped the noble
lord and his friends. Every freeman was entitled to turn out
three head of cattle on certain commons, called the Lammas
Lands; and every man who had served his apprenticeship had
a right to become a freeman at the age of 21. Next, there
were certain estates left by Sir T. White under this charity—
namely, that every freeman should be entitled, on entering
business, to a sum of £5O, which he might hold for nine years,
and every needy freeman was entitled to a sum of £74. More-
over, there was an endowed grammar-school with an income of
near £9OO, and every freeman might send his son to that school
free of expense. Estates, too, had been left upon the terms that
the trustees were to bind out the children of freemen in certain
places. Now, let the house consider what it was they were
taking from those who had the inchoate right to their freedom.
The apprentice who had completed his servitude was entitled
to all the rights, privileges, and property he had mentioned ;
was it the intention to take from them these rights, privileges,
and prorrty ? (Hear, hear.) He would not at that moment
stop to discuss the question of rights generally; but let him ask
the noble lord what under the provisions of the bill he meant to
do with that charity? (Hear, hear.) To what •purpose did he
propose to apply it? (Hear, hear.) Theie was no provision in
the bill for the case. Their answer did not apply to it. (Hear,
hear.) They meant to destroy the freemen. They had chari-
ties which by the will of the donor were specifically given to
freemen in some towns, to the wives, children, or widows of
freemen in other towns. What then, he asked, were they to do
with these charities ? (Hear, hear.) They had no provision
whatsoever respecting them in the noble lord's bill—(cheers).--
and this it was that induced him to say that the bill had been
introduced without due inquiry and examination. (Loud
cheers.) Was it intended to make these charities revert to the
donor,or to apply them to the general purposes of the corporation ?
Had they a right to say to the freemen of Coventry, " You shall
not have the £5O on entering business? You shall not send
your son to the grammar-school free of expense; you shall not
have him bound an apprentice; you freemen shall not enjoy
any of those advantages which to a man in your situation of life
are as valuable to you as the estate of an hon. gentleman here is
to him ?" (Hear, hear.) Let them try it by that test. If a
bill were brought in to affect the vested interests of any gentle-
man in his estate, would the house listen to it. (Hear, hear.)
And yet now they determined on depriving men who were
serving their apprenticeship, and entitled at its conclusion to
their freedom, of all their inchoate rights. Nay more, they even
said to the existing generation of freemen that they should no
longer enjoy their rights. (Hear, hear.) He submitted, then,
that this clause ought not to stand any part of the bill. It had
nothing to do with the municipal regulations of the town. He
did not propose to thwart the noble lord in his plan of reform.
He did not propose that in the noble lord's new corporate body
any person should be admitted who was not qualified by the
bill. His object was that those freemen now existing and those
having iuchoite rights of freedom should continue to hold their
property, and that it should be distinctly understood their right
of voting was to be maintained as secured to them by the reform
bill. lie did not desire at all to interfere with the municipal
government of towns, but he anxiously wished that for all other
purposes the rights, privileges, and property of freemen might
be preserved. The amendment which be was about to move
would not impede the improvement of municipal corporations.
It went only to preserve those rights of the freemen which had
been left to them by the agreement understood on the passing
of the reform bill. He did earnestly hope that the noble lord
would net persevere in this clause; but if he did, he (Sir W.
Follett) must take the sence of the house on his amendment.
He did, however, hope, that in a bill, by which it was intended
to win the affections of the people, the noble lord would not
press a clause which would certainly appear to a majority of
them to have the effect of violating a contract. The honourable
and learned gentleman then moved his amendment, which was
that all the words-after the words shall -be," in theseeond line
of the ninth clause, should he omitted, and that there should be
substituted words to this effect—" that without interfering with
the municipal government of corporate boroughs, all the rights,
privileges, and properties of freemen for other purposes should
be preserved."
On time amendment being put,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amendment. He con-
tended that the existence of freemen in corporations, distinct
from residence or occupation, was an usurpation, which the
sooner it was got rid of the better. He would repeat as a law-
yer and as an antiquary, who had paid considerable attention to
the subject, that where freemen existed unconnected with pro-
perty or with residence in a borough, their existence was an
usurpation of the rights of others. The reform bill left the
question of freemen open, and in continuing to freemen the
right of voting for members of parliament, it only said that as
long as freemen were allowed to continue, they should have cer-
tain rights. At present freemen might pass the greater part of
the year in gaol, and then come out and give their vote for a
member of parliament. The consequence was, that in this de-
graded state they were open to all sorts of corruption. It had
been said that other classes of electors in boroughs were also
open to corruption. If it were so, it was because this leaven of
the freemen had leavened the whole mass, and until this plague
spot was got rid of the whole corporate body would never he
sound. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons it was impossible
that he could assent to the amendment of his learned and hon.
friend. As far as respected the rights of property, he was willing
that where the bond fide right to property existed, it should be
respected; but he must say that there was no general public
measure which, as it affected the interests of some individuals,
might not be considered a hardship. There was scarcely a high-
way bill which passed of which some publicans or others had
not reason to complain; but those individual cases of hardship
could not be urged as against the general merits of the mea-
sure. It was so in the, present bill. Some individuals might
find it a hardship, but on the whole he was sure it would be a
great benefit to the community.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY protested against the language of the
Attorney-General, who classed all freemen of boroughs as if
none of them were to be met with but in the inside of a gaol.
He had the honour of being returned for the borough of Col-
chester by the freemen of that place for fifteen years, and he
would tell the king's attorney-general that the poorer he found
them the more honest did he find them. There was one point
which had not been dwelt upon by the hon. and learned member
for Exeter, and which, for those who were for enlarging rather
than narrowing the constituency, was most important. It was,
that the bill as it now stood would in a short time go to destroy
harf the constituencies of boroughs. In the borough ofColches-
ter, for instance, where there were at present 1,250 electors, in
the course of no very distant time, if this class of men who had
drawn the ire of the king's attorney-general should lie cut up,
the constituency would in a short time be reduced to 500, and

NIL*
THE LEVEOOOI, STANDARD.

in other boroughs in the country the numbers would be reduced
to 300 or 400, and thus, in the course of no very long period, we
should have rotten boroughs enough in the country.
The SoLiciToe-GENERAL supported the clause as it now
stood ; without it, he said, no cure in the corporate system could
be effected.
Mr. C. BARCLAY denied the assertion that freemen were more
easily bribed than other classes. He believed the Solicitor-
General knew something of a borough in the West of England
(alluding to Falmouth) whose purity had not been amended
.even by the passing of the reform bill, a measure which had
failed to make that borough immaculate. (Hear, and a loud There corruption was not confined to freemen, and yet
was so great that a relative of his (Mr. Barclay) had refused to
take any part in the two elections preceding the last. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS, the member for Coventry, supported the
amendment of the learned member for Exeter. The effect of
this clause would be to reduce the class of his constituents, de-
nOminated freemen, from about 2,50() to 1,509. This he took
to be a serious attack upon the provisions of the reform bill,
and a very great and extensive infringement upon the elective
franchise.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM would not follow the example of the
Attorney-General in vilifying the characterof freemen generally
nor join the Solicitor-General in annihilating a whole class of
electors. The hon. and learned member for Exeter had con-
tend:A, and contended rightly, that under the 9th and 10th
clauses two rights were provided for,—first, the rights already
held by persons now admitted freemen; and, secondly, those
possessing at present but inchoate rights. He thought that the
question would be much simplified by postponing the considera-
tion of the second point until the 10th clause came under con-
sideration. If the hon. and learned gentle Man would take the
sense of the house on that point, he would find many members
ready to support him. With regard to the second point, he
trusted that the hon. and learned gentleman would not contend
that the inchoate right to property should extend further than
to freemen already born or already apprenticed.
Lord Joust RUSSELL said that the provision in this (the 9th
clause) was a necessary consequence of our adopting this new
municipal franchise, and if so, ministers were not proposing it
for the sake of altering the reform bill, but for the sake of
amending the municipal corporations: The alteration, he did
not deny, was a great alteration in the franchise under the re-
form bill, but it was a consequence which it was difficult if not
impossible to avoid when they came to define the new munici-
pal franchise. The hon. and learned gentleman (Sir W. Fol-
lett) had said—" If you think these freemen worthy of punish-
ment, if you consider them unworthy the elective franchise, de-
prive them of it at once; if you do not deprive theta of it, then
a
preserve to them their present privileges. That was the di-
lemma is which the huh: and learned gentleman had placed the
ministers; but in reply to that dilemma he would put another:-
"If these freemen are worthy to be burgesses of bOdies corpo-
rate, keep them as bodies corporate (hear, hear) ; if they are
fit to exercise the elective franchise for members of parliament,
why do you agree to that part of the dense which deprives them
of the right of voting for the election of the mayor and coun-
cil? (Hear, hear.) Why, lie would. ask further, did the hon.
and learned gentleman- deprive them of privileges which they
had etijoed for hundreds of years, and give a corporation-16-the
towns over which those freemen were to have no control?
(Hear, hear.) Nay, more, if those freemen were not a proper
body, and if by the sixth clause of the bill we have formed a
better constituency for governing the council of the municipal
boroughs, for what end was it that you preserved a body of men
who existed only by corporate rights, and yet were to exist for
the future for purposes totally separate from corporate rights?
(Hear, hear.) Keeping these considerations in view, let the
committee look a little more carefully at the amendment of the
hon. and learned gentleman. It provided that nothing in the
act should extend to prevent the admission to freedom of all
persons who by law were entitled to it either by birth or servi-
tude : and it then proceeded to protect every species of property
to which they were at present entitled. Now there were two
separate objects for which it was proposed that this right to the
admission to freedom should be maintained, and neither of these
objects ought, in his opinion, to be regarded. (Cheers from the
ministerial benches.) First of all it was contended, that out of
the freedom arose the right long enjoyed by the freemen of
choosing their representatives in parliament. He was far from
saying that you ought to introduce a special act for the disfran-
chisement of freemen; but if, on the other hand, you preserve
those freemen for the purpose of electing
.members of parlia-
ment, you do that which is likely to prove injurious to the par-
liamentary right, and also to the municipal corporation. (Hear,
hear.) the preserving these freemen for the mere purpose or
exercising this parliamentary right must of necessity preveut
the good government of the towns to which they belonged.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. V. Ssirrx thought the clause the most valuable in tie
bill. ,

Lord SANDON defended the existing Tights of freemen, and
contended that the Attorney-General was not justified in vilify-
ing them as a poor, wretched, degraded, and demoralized set of
men, whose tights were an usurpation, and those of the general
population of the towns. If it were an usurpation, was it not an
usurpation of which no lawyer could trace the origin in remote
antiquity ? Was it not long anterior in date to the existence of
the property which the Attorney-General accused them of ap-
propriating to themselves? He observed with regret the hard
line which hon. members opposite were disposed to draw be-
tween the rich and the poorer classes. It would seem that, in
their opinion, the possession of property was the only requisite
for the proper discharge of the duties which devolved upon men
in society. The poor law amendment bill had already inflicted
a severe wound upon the feelings of the poor, by depriving
them of that which they had for a long period' of time been
taught to look upon as a right. (Hear, hear.) And now it was
proposed to proceed a step further in the same career, and to
deprive the poorer classes of their interest in funds left for their
use, by merging them in the general borough fund for the pur-
pose of diminishing the burden of taxation on the wealthier
classes. If the clause under consideration were carried, it
would tend to convince the people that the representation was
getting more and more into the .hands of the middle classes, and
that the rights and feelings of the lower classes had ceased to be
respected in that house as they used to be. (Hear, hear.) It
should be recollected that the privileges enjoyed by freemen
were objects not only of profit but of pride, and that a man was
frequently induced to pursue an honest course from an anxiety
not to.bring disgrace upon the body to which he belonged. The
proposed attack upon the rights of freemen was not incidental
to the bill before the house, and indeed that was acknowledged
by ministers, for the whole.strength of their argument was, that
they were about to corieet,an error which they formerly com-
mitted in preservingilieltichoate rights of freemen under the
reform bill. (Hear.) It must be obvious to those who had
watched the proceedings of that house that there was a party
within its walls who since the passing of the reform bill had con-
stantly endeavoured to raise a sort of hue and cry against free-
men,as if that class of voters was the only one guilty of impro-
per conduct. In conclusion, the noble hird expressed a hope
that the committee would not consent to sanction the first inva-
sion of the reform bill, proposed, too, by persons who were
members of the cabinet which declared that that was a final
measure. (Hear.)
'The CHAIRMAN then read the amendment, which provided
that nothing, contained in the bill should be construed to abolish
the right of voting for the electi m of members of parliament
now possessed, or that might be hereafter acquired, by freemen
under the provisions of the reform act.
Mr. ROBINSON and Captain BERKELEY spoke in favour of
the amendment.
Mr. C. BULLER supported the original clause.
Lord STANLEY rested his support of the amendment on the
grounds—first, of the political rights of the freemen having
been voluntarily guaranteed, as his noble friend had himself
admitted,- for the purpose of facilitating the passing of the great
measure of parliamentary reform; an'l next, because he thought
if that measure of reform was sought to be rescinded, the fair
and manly course was to rescind it openly, not by means of a
bill professing to be for the purpose of giving or taking away
municipal rights, but by a measure with an avowedly political
object. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite had shown
how political and municipal privileges might be reconciled, and
how the freemen might be permitted to enjoy their political
rights without interfering with the municipal reform which it
was desired to effect. In that proposition he fully concurred.
His grounds of objecting to the clause and approving of the
amendment wele, because what you now proposed to do was
necessary for effecting your professed object—unjust, as being
in opposition to your solemn guarantee given only two years
ago—and indirect, inasmuch us it did by covert means that
which, if done at all, ought to be done openly by a political
measure, and not by a side wind as in the present bill. (Loud
cheering.)
Mr. O'CoslNEr.r. thought the amendment an indirect attempt
to get rid of the bill.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
278

Majority against the amendment 46
Mr. A. TREVOR consented to withdraw his amendment,
giving notice at the same time, that on the bringing up of the
reort he would move the omission of the clause under con-
sideration.
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill, and the
chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring in a bill
to regulate the Ecclesiastical Courts iu England and Wales.
Colonel Startroae objected to the introduction of the bill,
which had been transferred from Attorney-General to Attorney-
General, hatched by one, and warmed up by another. It was
injurious to the poor, and destructive of the interests of the
country officers.
The ATTORNEY-GeNsItAL said that the bill had been recom-
mended by the Archbishop of Cantertrury, and by the cede
siastical commissioners, among whom were some of the judges
of the courts.
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS, Mr. SCARLETT, and
Mr. SHELL, leave was given.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
Mr. WA K LEY moved that the ballot for entering the names
of members having public petitions to present do take place 20
minutes before the time appointed for the Speaker's taking the
c hair.—Agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. RUT/IVEN, the house adjourned at one
o'clock.

HOULE OF LORDS, WEDNES DAT.
Several private hills were brought up from the House o,
Commons.

The highway bill was read a second time and referred to a
select committee.

The bills before the house were forwarded a stage.
The annual indemnity bill went through a committee, and
was reported without amendment.
The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that early next week he
would bring in a bill to bring the oaths abolition bill into opera-
tion on the let day of August next.
Lord Miii.nourtNE moved the revival of the select committee
of 18.31, which sat on the offices belonging to the house, in order
to consider what should now be done with regard to the situation
of clerk assistant at the table.—Ordered.
The noble viscount then moved the thanks of the house to the
Earl of Devon, for his valuable services while serving at the
table of the house.

After a few words of eulogium from the Duke of Wellington,
Lord Lyndhurst, and through him from the Earl of Eldon, from
Lord Brougham, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord Denman, and
the Earl of Abingdon, who said he had sat one day in appeals
with him—(Laghter)—the motion passed nem. con.
The Duke of RICHMOND thanked his noble friend (Lord
Melbourne) for the prompt manner in which he had acted upon
the report from the gaol committee—he had no doubt but it
would do much good fur the country.
T he house then adjourned

• HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
The Speaker took the chair at three o'clock.
Mr. GUEST brought up the report of the committee upon the
Merthyr Tydvil market bill.
Mr. St:mm..l,lEl.o presented a petition from Birmingham in
favour of municipal reform, the appropriation clause in the
Irish tithe bill, and praying that all parties in the liberal interest
would waive all minor differences of opinion and support the
present ministry.

THE CHURCH,
The Hon. W. Dwicohtait presented a petition from Chester,
gned by the archdeacon and sixty clergymen, praying that no