pposed this part
of the ministerial scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with
the main principles of the bill, as it narrowed the sphere within which
aristocratic influence was to act, thus adding to its energy; and
that it was a wanton and unnecessary interference with the ancient
institutions of the country. Some members who had voted for this clause
in the preceding session now declared themselves opposed to it in
consequence of the extension of the comity franchise to tenants-at-will;
while on the other hand several members who had voted against it in the
former session, conceiving that the division would do good by preventing
contests and unsatisfactory compromises, now supported it. Sir Robert
Peel said, that though he intended to vote for the clause, he wished to
suggest that another arrangement might be made with respect to the right
of voting for counties, which would simplify the operation of the bill,
and improve it; namely, that wherever a right of voting accrued from
property, of whatever nature, in any city or borough, the individual
possessing such property should be allowed to vote for the city or
borough, but not for the county. Having made that provision for cities
or boroughs, he would continue the integrity of the counties, and
propose that each county should return four members. He offered this
suggestion _bona fide_, as an alteration that would simplify the
operation of the bill; and though he did not mean to move it as an
amendment, he would ask whether it was not a proposition that was likely
to please all parties? Ministers defended the clause on the ground that
it would greatly diminish the expenses of county elections, and thus
contribute to the purity of the representation, while it would neither
tend to throw the power of the elections into the hands of the rural
voters exclusively, nor of large proprietors, as it had been objected.
As for Sir Robert Peel's proposition, there was the great objection
which he had himself suggested; namely, that it was too great a
distinction between the inhabitants of towns and those who were more
immediately connected with counties. If the proposition succeeded, the
consequence would be that many voters possessing freeholds in boroughs,
which, as the bill now stood, would enable them to vote for counties,
would be disfranchised. The original clause, however, was carried by an
overwhelming majority. An amendment, intended to have a similar result
with