The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-20 00:00:00

while he gave an explanat'on upon points in which Ile
only was concerned. A motion had .certainly been men-
tioned last week, to declare that the total number of die
floosie oueht not to be diminished ; and his Noble Friend
(Lord Althorp) and himself had stated, that they would
take it into consideration ; but the proposition of the Ihin.
and Gallant General was entirely different.. It was not
that the total number of the House—including England,
Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, should not be diminiehedl..—
but that the total number of Members for England and
Wales. should not he diminished. That was a motion of
Parliamentary tactics, brought forward, indeed, by the
lion. end Gallant General, but concocted by more wily
advisers, by which an attempt was made to bring to-
gether all the enemies of the Bill, and to entrap such of
its friends as might be dupes and gulls enough to fall
into the snare.—(Much cheering.) With deep regret
he found that the first dupe, the first gull who ran
headlong and blindfold into it, was his Honourable and
Gallant Friend the Memler for Southwark, whom until
this moment he (Lord John Russell) bed looked upon as
a not more staunch, but more strenuous reformer than
himself.—(Laughter.) Upon the paint of population,
he would say that neither Lord Somers, the great author
of the Union with Scotland, nor Mr. Pitt, the able pro-
moter of the Union with Ireland, had ever thought that
there should be necessarily a particular rate and propor-
tion between the number of inhabitants and the number of
Members. In the same way Ministers had thought that
they had an opportunity, not of adding to the proportion
of Scotland or of Ireland, but of giving Members to large
populous and commercial towns; and upon the principle.
of Lord Somers and Mr. Pitt they had proceeded. Where
they thought there was a-want of representatives, they
wished that representatives should be given. If the mo-
tion were carried, and Ministers were called upon to deli-
berate on the fitness or unfitness of increasing the Mem-
bers of the House, to decide on the affirmative would seem
little less than an act of folly ; and supposing it decided
that the English Members should continue as numerous as
at present, what would become of the assurance of the
Hon. and Gallant General, to the Scotch and Irish /Mem-
bers, that they wets not prevented from having additions
to their number? If, indeed, the conduct of the Bill, and
the determination of the House, were in the hands of the
Hon. and Gallant General, he might order it as he pleased ;
but be (Lord J. Russell) gave warning to the Members for
Scotland and Ireland that if they supported and carried
the motion before the House, they must relipquisb for
ever the hope that new representatives could be given to
either.—(Hear, hear.) He was convinced that the Irish
Members would feel it as he had put it; but not so the
Scotch, who, by a little sophistry and a great deal of special
pleading, hail been led te htlietie that the two objects were
compatible. The motion, worded as it was, had been de-
signed merely to put the advocates of the Bill in a dilemma,
and to re-try the question of the second reading. Minis-
ters bad thought that the vote of the House in fatoor of
the recond reading was conclusive, that the measure should
be referred to the Committee, and hr (Lord J. Russell,)
said with the Noble Earl at the head of tl.e Government.
that any improvement which left the efficiency of the Bill
unimpaired would be adopted ; hut that by its efficiency
the Government was ready to stand or fall.—(Hear. )
When lee had last night introduced the names of Earl
Grey and of the Duke of Wellington, be had had no other
object than to show, in the shortest form and in the plain-
est manner, that there were but two courses—Reform or
no Reform. The Duke of Wellington had avowed himself
the friend of all close boroughs, and had defended the pre-
sent system and all its abuses, as the most perfect that the
wit of man could devise. Earl Grey, •n the contrary, had
applied himself to secure the confidence of the people,
by obeying the universal call far Reform. If the Bill were
thrown out, the consequences might he various. He would
not give it out as a threat, but he might allude
hypothetically to the results. The Crown might, in the
fir t place, appeal to the country, in order to ascertain
whether it approved of the decision of the House of Com-
mons.—(Much cheering.)-=That was at least a poetsitzle
ease, and it would be a very constitutional course. But
suppose some modified plan of Reform were introduced
and adopted before the dissolution of Parliament, it must
be dissolved afterwards, in order to give the people the be-
nefit of the change. Would that be accomplished with
peace and satisfaction, and would not the first step in the
new House of Commons be for some Member, favourable
to this rejected measure, to bring forward a motion to re-
vive it? He (Lord J. Russell) could not imagine how
any of the supporters of the present Bill could refuse to
vote for such a motion, and then, instead of peace and
satisfaction, there would be- a continual struggle between
the people, on the one hand, to obtain effectual Reform,
and the 'House • of Commons on the other to resist it. '
It had been said that this Bill would only be a stepping-
stone to those who wished for greater changes; but be
(Lord J. Russell) appealed to any man whether a more
moderate Bill, which satisfied nobody, and offended many,
was not much more likely to be converted into a stepping-
stone. Indeed the objection of the Hon. Member for
Preston was, that this Reform would be final, and that,
when once it was made, nothing more would be granted. He
(Lord J. Russell) contended, therefore, that this Bill was
not only much more likely to preserve the enduring excel-
lence of the cz:nstitution of the House, while it secured the
contidende of the people in its deliberations and decisions,
and confirmed their affection and loyalty to the throne.
The object of the Bill was to raise a bar to the accom-
plishment of this great end ; and, in conclusion, he en-
treated all who were friendly to the measure to vote with
him and his friends.

Mr. HUNT s:.id a few words in explanation.
The House then divided—
For General Gascoyne's amendment 299
Against it
Majority against Ministers —8
On re-entering the Gallery, we learned that, on the
motion of Lord ALTiIORP, the Bill was ordered to be com-
mitted on Thursday.
The decision on this most important motion was re-
ceived without the least manifestation of disappointment
or of triumph, either by the Members in the House or by
the strangers, who, even at that advanced hour, remained
to hear the result of the division.

The Orders of the Day being then disposed of, the
House adjourned at a few minutes before Five o'clock.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE. Seven o'Clock.

M PE RI A. L PA RLI ENT

TINS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair precisely at Three o'clock.
Several private Bil!s were forwarded a stage.
Sir 11. PARNELL took the oaths and his seat for Queen's
County.
Mr. BELL presented a petition from the county of
Northumberland against the plan of Reform.
Mr. BEAUMONT did not consider the petition as corn-
in: from the county of Northumberland, but from the
Duke who note that title, and his tenantry were obliged
to sign it for fear of being turned out of their farms.
Sir IL HARDINGE denied that the Duke bad• ever
turned ont a single tenant on poltical feeling. A more
amiable or kind-hearted man did nut exist.
Mr. BEAUMONT did not wish personally to attack
the Duke. The onus lay on his Commissioners. After
'mile observations from several Members the petition was
brought up and ordered to be printed.
Mr..-BELL then presented several petitions against
negro slavery.
Mr. HODGSON presented a petition from South
Shield., praying that they might not be disfranchised for
voting for Members for Newcastle.
Mr. MACKIN.NON presented a petition front Ipswich,
praying that that to.vn might not be disfranchised.
Mr. FOLEY presented a petition from Stowbridge in
favour of Reform.

Colonel LYGON was.in•tructed by his constituents to
say this petition did not express the general opinion
of the town, and he had a declaration from a number
of persons who attended the meeting, disserAing front the
resolutions that were passed. Phis declaration w,to
signed by ten Magistrates, who stated tL•ey were Dot
advtrse to Reform, but they considered that if the
Bill in its p►e•ent shape passed into a law it would en-
danger the glorious Constitution. lie profor3ed in this
opinion he perfectly agreed.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Kirk-
etalliright, against the plan of Reform.
After some observations from Sir G. MURRAY and Sir
C• FORBES, the petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON then presented several petitions
from various places in favour of Ref .rm.

Sir J. JOHNSON "presented a petition fi om Bishop's--
Cagle against Reform.

Mr. 134AUMONT presented several petitions in favour
of Reform.

Mr. JOHN WOOD presented a petition from Preston,
against the Beer Bill.
Mr. JOHN WOOD presented a petition from Pres-
ton, signed by. 2,400 inhabitants; and also one from the
M incliester Political Union, signed by 6,000 individuals.
hi and near Manchester, in favour of the present plan (!t
Reform, and expressive of their indignation at what his