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

►I UN IC IPA L REFORM BILL.

Several petitions were presented in favour of this bill.
`. Mr. PRAED said that he was not about to attack the principle
of the bill; but, while acting consistently with the objects they
had in view, good municipal government, he thought they ought
to come to a resolution that they would not take from any man,
however poor, his preiterty or his privileges. He would, there-
fore, move, that " It is the opinion of this house that all free-
men of existing corporations, and all those in the course of
acquiring their freedom, and their descendants, ought to be
maintained in the enjoyment of auv rights, privileges, and pro-.
perty which they possess or might acquire by virtue of any
charters now in force, in so far as the continuance of such-
rights, privileges, and property may not be found inconsistent
with the institutiou of good municipal government and the
popular control of corporate funds." (Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter.) He was prepared for the titter from the treasury benches;
but he could only say that it was most absurd to state that it was
necessary, in order to pursue certain objects, that they should
inflict an injustice which had nothing to do with them. The
report of the commissioners iecutnmeuded nothing inconsistent
with his motion. To show how the contemplated measure would
bear upon the poorer freemen be would cite a few cases in illus-
tration. First he would refer to the privileges now enjoyewl by
the freemen of Newcastle-iipon-Tyne Under the provisions
of a recent act of parliament the resident burgesses and. their
widows are entitled to a common of paSture each for two cows,
being their own prOperty, upon a tract of land belonging to the
corporation, containing about 1,100 Limes, called the tow ti4noor.,l
The value of this privilege is estimated at about £lO a year.
About 300 freemen enjoy this right. Under the same act of
parliament a portion of this moor is enclosed and let by public
auction. It produces a rent of £2OO. This is divided amongst
such of the poor freemen and their widows who do not enjoy
the right of pasturage. There are several charitable institutions
in the town, the benefits of which are enjoyed exclusively by
freemen and their families." Now this bill, if it passed into
a law, would have the effect of depriving all these who had coin-
plied with' the conditions, and were disposed to take out their
freedom, of the reversion of this £lO a year. He next begged
to read an extract respecting Newcastle-under-Lyme :—" The
burgesses are entitled to stalls in the market free of toll, and
this privilege extends to the widows of ,burgesses. They are
likewise entitled to .pasturage on land round the town extend-
ing,ever 205 acres. Ills land was allotted in lieu of a right of
common under an enclosure 'act of the 56th George III." The
case ,ot.lieveiley was still stronger:—" The burgesses residing
within the town lave the privilege of depasturing cattle, being
their own property, on lauds belonging to the corporation, con-
taining about 4,217 acres. They,are allowed to depasture three
cows in Westwood pasture, one horse in Hurn pasture, three
beasts in Figham pasture, and six beasts in, Swinemoor pas-
ture from the 14th of May to the 14th of February. This privi-
lege, if enjoyed to its utmost extent, would be worth £25 a
year." Under these circumstances he felt that, before they
proceeded with the bill, he was entitled to call on the house
to come to a vote, and declare whether they were, in the case
of poor persons, prepared to confiscate so large and so valuable
a property ? (Hear, hear.) There was only one other right
now enjoyed by freemen to which he proposed to advert.
They were about to take away by.this bill front the children of
freemen the right of voting at elections for members of parlia-
ment. Was it not extraordinary that the noble lord and his
party should, after so recent a discussion, and so recent a deci-
sion of this question, which was determined in favour of these
individuals, now attempt to destroy the right in a bill which had
uo immediate reference to it whatsoever ? The noble lord, after
the first reform bill had been thrown out by the House of Lords,
had introduced as an amendment this continuance of the right
of voting to the children of freemen now existing, and he men-
tioned it ai one of the improvements on the former measure.
He insisted that it was not desirable by this bill to strike off so
many of our poorer fellow countrymen. If there were indeed
any charge against them, let the house hear it. (Hear, hear.)
Let the noble lord bring in a bill, saying that whereas freemen
in such or such instances miscondueted themselves, it is expe-
dient that they should be deprived of the right of voting. (Hear,
hear.) If freemen now existing had abused the trust confided
to them, why should it not be taken away from them? If they
had not abused it, upon what principle of reason or justice coula
it be taken away from their successors? (Hear, hear.) Cer-
tainly nothing could be more inconsistent than the conduct of
the noble lord. (Hear, bear.) It was only in reference to those
two rights of freemen that he proposed to trouble the house. In
conclusion, he declared that by whomever be might or might
not be supported, by whomever or in whatever way he might be
opposed, it was his conviction that the operation of the bill
would be rendered more beneficial by removing from it even the
suspicion of enactments which must appear to be unjust as well
as unnecessary. For his own part, in bringing the motion for-
ward he had been guided by a strong sense of its justice and es:7
pediency, and he must add, that he had done so in obedience to
the wishes of the great majority of his constituents.
Sir M. W. RIDLEy seconded the motion. He observed, that
it had been for some time past the practice to raise a sneer in
that house whenev,r the name of freemen was mentioned. He
protested against this; and maintained, that generally speaking
there were no body of electors, rate-payers, or others, less ob-
noxious to the charges those sneers conveyed than the body of
freemen at large. He contended that it would be extremely
unjust to deprive individuals who had an inchoate right to their
freedom of the advantages which they should enjoy.
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the motion, which was subsequently
withdrawn.

COMMITTEE ON THE BILL.
The house then went into committee.
The Ist, 2d, and 3d clauses were read, and with some verbal
amendments.—Agreed to.
On the question that clause 4, the boundary clause, be agreed
to,

Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected against the grant of such a
power to the crown. Even the reform bill had refused to vest
such a power, and parliament took upon itself the task of fixing
the limits of boroughs.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished hon. members to recollect
that, from time immemorial the crown had possessed the privi-
lege of fixing the limits of corporations.

Sir R. PEEL expressed his surprise at the arguments which
had been employed by the learned Attorney-General. (Cheers.)
Here was a bill which superseded altogether the prerogative of
the crown, which set aside all the charters granted by the crown,
and when a question arose as to whether the parliament should
have au opportunity of determining the boundaries to be esta-
blished under the new system, the hon. and learned gentleman
turned round and said, " Pray respect the prerogatives of the
crown." (Cheers and laughter.) In conformity with the
principle of the reform bill, the boundaries of the corporations
ought to be determined by parliament. (Hear.) He appre-
hended that previously to the passing of the reform act the
metes and boundaries of boroughs were determined by the
crown, but when parliament made a total alteration in the
elective system, it was felt that it would be improper to continue
that power in the crown. So in the prevent case, when parlia-
ment was called upon to supersede the ancient charters of cor-
porations, it was right that it should reserve to itself the power
of fixing the metes and boundaries of corporations. It was his
deliberate opinion, that in conformity with the principle of the
reform act, not only the metes and boundaries, but the allocation
of wards, and the allotment of the number of representatives,
should be reserved for parliament. The only argument which
be could imagine could be urged against the adoption of that
principle was, the existing corporations might, in the exercise
of their lawful power, alienate the whole of their property.
That objection he would meet by consenting at once to the
introduction of a clause to prevent that abuse. (Hear, hear.)
He, therefore, would give notice of his intention to move au
amendment, the object of which would be to impose upon par-
liament the duty of establishing the boundaries of corporations.
(Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the question was one of expediency.
He could not imagine that any inconvenience could arise from
the King in council fixing the limits of boroughs,
_ and he be-
lieved that the inhabitants of towns, could they be asked the
question, would declare in favour of that proceeding rather than
run the risk of having the bill delayed.
Lord D. STUART moved an amendment, to the effect that the
boundaries of cities and boroughs should be settled by parlia-
me