The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-13 00:00:00

pole of showing that it was not within the reach of the
Bill. But the public would not be satisfied, if they found
that by this means the progress of the Bill seas to be
checked. The country had, from one end of it to the
other, adopted the principle of the measure.—(Loud cries
of " No, no.") Did Hon. Gentlemen think that they
could check public opinion by saying " No, no I" Ile
could assure them that something more powerful in the
way of argument would he required. He therefore begged
leave also to resort to the majority of the House, and to
ask them whether they were disposed to be trifled with on
this subject—(Loud cheers)—or whether they were de-
termined to proceed, and do their duty to the public.
Mr. C. WYNN—The objections made to the amend-
ment of the Noble Lord were such as in the experience of
thirty years in that House he had never beard before.—
(Loud cheers.) There had never even been so much as
an attempt to answer the Noble Lord's case.—(Cheers.)
In the first place, it had been said that this was not a Bill
of Pains and Penalties—(Cheers)—and therefore those
parties who were directly affected by the meisure—who
were by name deprived of their valuable franchise—had
not established a right to be heard.—(Cheers.) He was
glad to hive it in his power to in'orm the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who had spoken last, that he need
not be under any great apprehension that if this petition
was acceded to, every other borough would petition against
the pi inciple of the Bill ; it was the first A B C lesson of
the House, and known, he should have thought, to all
hot the very youngest Members, that it was only on the
second reading of a Bill that parties could petition against
the principles of it, the time to petition against any par-
ticular enactment of the Bill being when it was going
into Committee.—(lllear, hear.) The statement made by
Government was not sufficient for that House ; and if it
were to act on such a statement it would do so for the
first time. Take the case of a borough, which the Go-
vernment said should be considered the same as the
parish, er the case in which the Government decided
that the limits of a borough were not the same as time
of the parish ; either of these was a case in which they
had no principle to guiele them—at least no other
principles than those laid down by the Government, and
enforced by a majority. And was it to be said, that by
such a decision the House was to be entirely precluded.—

(Hear, hear.) Admitting the principles of disfranchise
went, as laid down by the Government, was it not better
to allow each borough which chose the opportunity of dis-
proving that it came within that principle.—(Cheers.)
Would the majority stop all inquiries? Would they say
at once that they were prepared to give their votes to the
propositions of the King's Ministers ?—(Cheers.) What
would be said if a Jury were to act so?—(Cheers.) Here
there were forty-seven boroughs arraigned before them,
and there was a call for a verdict without the Jury being
allowed to hear the evidence, though they knew not how
the evidence applied—though it was offered to be shown
of some of these boroughs that they were not guilty.
No; they were told that they must give a general verdict,
and must not examine the evidence of each particular
case.—(Cheers.) They were to disfranchise 47 bo-
roughs—they were to pass sentence, taking no time for
consideration, not allowing them to be heard in their own
defence, and not even asking them why sentence of death
should not be passed on them.—(Cheers.) Once grant the
principle contended for by his Hon. Friend the Attorney-
General, and let the House see the great injustice to which
it would lead.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ATTWOOD had never witn .ssed, since he had
been in that House, more impro},er, more unjust, or more
unfair conduct than that which was, then advocated by
the Ministers. He would for one thing tell the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (the Au( rney-General,) that lie had
no right to charge the petitioners with assuming for their
own purpose a mask.—(Cheers.) He had no right to
impute to them that they meant to throw obstacles in the
way of the Bill, when they distinctly disavowed any such
thing. If the proceedings of the petitioners were calculated
to obtain in their case the just application of the principles
laid down by Ministers, it would not be denied if those
proceedings were an obstruction to the progress of the
Bill, that the fault was not in the petitioners, but in those
who proposed an incongruous measure, which they could
not, without committing injustice, carry into execution.
Those who brought forward the Bill should be blamed,
not those who petitioned for justice; and the fault princi-
pally lay, he believed, with the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man himself. The Bill proceeded, as he understood, on
the principle that when a borough kad more than 2,000
inhabitants, it was not to be totally disfranchised. The
Minister, however, had inserted Appleby in the schedule of
total disfranchisament,—and on what authority? That of
the population returns, by which it appears that Appleby
has only 1310 inhabitants. It was on that account
placed in Schedule A. But the inhabitants of Appleby
i.ffer to show that the borough contained 2611 people, and
they offered to show that the return of 1340 was an error
in the population returns, arising from a parish having
been left out in 1821, which was not !eft out in 1811.
The case was clearly an error, and the population was
under-rated. Why then would the Ministers not allow
the error to be rectified—the Ministers who professed
liberality, to whom was ascribed a love of liberty, but who
were behaving most tyrannically ? If the House sanc-
tioned this measure, there was no injustice, no tyranny,
which a vote of the majority of that House might not
sanction.—(Cheers.)
Mr. C. WOOD denied that tl.c Ministers were entering
into the question without having made inquiries, though
they were treated as if they had, and as if they had refused
to receive the information. The question before the
House was should the petitioners be beard by Counsel at
the bar ? He begged to remind the House that
the Speaker, in the last Parliament, bad declared
that the question should he put on each borough,
and that was the time to determine whether the borough
should he kept in the schedule or not. He be-
lieved that there was a mistake in the population
returns as to Wareham—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
He was prepared for those cheers, but if he appealed to
the House, it should be to its reason, not to its passions.—
(Cheers.) They would not talk every thing opposed to
them down by a majority.—(Cheers.) If he brought the
question of Wareham—(Laughter)—before the House, he
should not wish to succeed unless he had the votes of the
Gentlemen opposite, and unless the House was fully satis-
fied of the justice of the claims. He would confidently
appeal to the majority which, thank God ! they (the Mi-
nisters) enjoyed, because he was persuaded that the ma-
jority would do even-handed justice both to Appleby and
Wareham.--( Hear, hear.) He denied that Ministers re-
fused inquiry. Ministers had declared, that if any borough
could make out a case which entitled it to be exempted
from the operation of the Bill, it should be exempted, and
to that declaration they would adhere.—(Cheers.) That
was not a new question ; but the question before the
House was a new one ; for that was, whether the peti-
tioners should be heard by Counsel at the bar ? The con-
duct of the Ministers had been described as unfair, and
it was said that they refused inquiry. The answer was,
that it was not unfair, fur they had not refused in-
quiry.—(Bear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE WARRENDER contended, as the
House always heard Counsel in case of boroughs accused of
bribery and corruption, that it ought with much more
reason to hear Counsel on behalf of those boroughs which
were to be punished without being accused of either bribery
or corruption. He was decidedly in favour of the motion,
and thought the House would act very unjustly if it did
not hear Counsel. llis views could not be ascribed to
party purposes, for he was generally willing to support
the Ministers ; and though he wished to see some amend-
ments introduced into the Bill, he had voted for it. But
if he saw injustice done, he should be inclined to oppose it.
Above all things, he recommended the House to deal justly
with the petitioners.
Lord MILTON was decidedly against hearing Counsel
at the Bar in the case of Appleby. lie wished, however,
to get some information from the Noble Lord (Lord
Maitland).
Lord JOHN RUSSELL here said something relating
to the peculiarities of Appleby not being then under dis-
cussion ; but his Lordship was not distinctly beard.
Lord MILTON went on. He wished to know from
the Noble Lord whether the town and borough of Ap-
pleby were distinct.—(Cries of " Question.")
Mr. PRAED was prepared, from what he had already
seen in that House, to expect much party feeling, and
much political violence; but lie was astonished at the op-
position which was given to the proposition of the Noble
Lord. The borough claimed to be heard in defence of a
right, and was it contrary to the practice cf that House to
grant the prayer of such petitioners? In case of the accu-
sation of corruption, such a prayer was granted, and why
not, then, in this case? It was said that the Members
might defend the borough. That was a new argument.
Whether the petitioners claimed the franchise as a valuable
Property, or as the exercise of a duty, which they had
never hitherto neglected, they had a right to be beard.—
Their claims were founded in equity and justice, and he
would support them.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said it was not for the innocent
but only for the accused or the guilty, to ask to be heard at
the liar. It was the first time, he believed, that ever that
House was asked to decide a great and constitutional
tion by the advice of gentlemen of the bar.—(Cheerr)es-
Fo his part he disclaimed being one of that marshalled
majority which had been alluded to, and he was prepared
to deal fairly and justly with any borough, whether
belonging to the Whigs or the Tories, which came before