The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-05 00:00:00

the whole of Scotland possessed had excited in his breast '
:as a Scottish Member, he had never once expressed any
such fear, or any such alarm, with regard to those b
roughs in Cornwall which returned forty-four Members.
being within one as many Members as were returned from
the whole of Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite
true that at the period of the Union Scotland treated
with England upon equal terms, and the only complaint
that could be made on the part of Scotland with regard
to that measure to which she was indebted for so much eif
her present prosperity, was, that it did not give to her
sufficient degree of representation. The reason that jus.
tine had not been done to Scotland in that respect was,
Scotland had been sold to that aristocracy which was now
the object of the Hon. Member's eulogy.—(llear) hear.)
The whole of the objections which were urged against giv-
ing a representation to the metropolitan districts had arisen
from one circumstance, namely, that one of the Members
for the city of London hid been taken to task by his con-
stituents for a certain vote he had given. That such a thing
had happened in the city of London was not the fault of
the constituents there, but was the fault of the Hon.
Member who had been called to account, When Hon.
Members pledged themselves at their election to follow u
particular line of conduct, it Was no fault on the part of
their constituents to bind them to their promitess. Wha'
had happened in this instance was not peculiar to the cite
of London, and would not be peculiarly characteristic of
the metropolitan districts ; and it was only what would
have happened, under similar circumstances, in any other
part of the kingdom.—( Hear, hear.) Such an occurrence
might be urged as an objection to the system of pledge-
giving on the part of Hon. Members, but it could net be 11
fairly offered as an objection to the giving a more ex-
tended representation to the city of London.—(Hear.)
The fact was, that if they did not give this representation
to those districts in London to which it was proposed to
give it, they would be deprived under the new saatem of
all representation whatever. They had been told that
such districts as the one whose claims were at present
under consideration would not select tit and proper per-
sons to represent them in Parliament ; but he denied that
such would he the ease. He would contend for it that
they would pitch upon persons of wealth, of respectability,
and of character, to represent them. It had, indeed, been
truly and eloquently said by Mr. Cobbett, a writer who
was well acquainted with the matter, that although they
might give an extended representation to large classes of the
people, it was as natural as that sparks rise upwards that the
people would prefer their superiors when a great and im-
portant trust was to be reposed in them. Now that they
were new-modelling the representation, and he would not
deny that this Bill was a new-modelling of it, it was their
bounden duty to give representatives to those wealthy, in.
telligent, and populous districts of the metropolis. If they
did not do so, they would have left still in existence one of
the most glaring of those defects in the existing system of
representation which it was the object of this Bill to
remedy. The real fact was, that the share of representa-
tion which this Bill proposed to give to the metropolis,
was not at all proportionate to the extent of its wealth and
population ; and if they had given 100 new Members in-
stead of 10 to it, the proportion would have been juster.
It was, therefore, absurd to argue that the metropolitan
districts were not entitled to the extended representation
which it was proposed to give to them.
Mr. J. SMITH said that he hail resided for twenty
years in the district to which it was proposed by the present
motion to give two Members, and that he could testify that
the wealth, the intelligence, and the talent which
existed there, entit!ed its population to a share in the
representation. By giving representatives to this dis-
trict, they would afford to its population a safety
valve, through which they would give vent to their
feelings and opinions in a conditional way, whereas to
omit such a district,when they were now new-modelling the
system of representation, would excite great discontent.
A great number of individuals of wealth, of high cha-
racter, and of undoubted independence, resided in this dis-
trict, and some of the most splendid, useful, and extraor-
dinary charities of which the city of London could boast,
had had their origin in this district. They should not give
the population of such a district reason to say that they
had been forgotten in the new system of representation.
lie would say that he had heard with no common degree
of indignation the charge which had been made against
the Livery of London for having called one of their Mem-
bers to account for the vote which he had given. In
doing so, they only exercised an undoubted right which all
constituents possessed, and one which, he begged to add,
if it had been more frequently exercised in former times,
would have saved this country from an infinite quantity
of evils..--(Hear, hear.) Their constituents who had
sent them to that House had a perfect right to call upon
them to explain any part of their conduct, and if they
happened to differ from their constituents, they had the
remedy in their own hands—namely, to retire. Ile gave
his cordial support to the present motion.
Sir J. WALSH said that it was quite obvious that one
of the effects of the Bill would be to localize the constitu-
ency and the representation all over the kingdom, and in
no instance would that be more especially the case than in
that of those metropolitan districts, the Members for which
would certainly not be representatives for the country at
large. It had been justly remarked that they were about
to give nearly half as many Members to the metropolitan
districts as the whole of Scotland possessed, and it was no
answer to that statement to say that Cornwall sent to that
House within one of as many Members as Scotland. The
Members who were sent from the boroughs in Cornwall
were not the representatives of local and particular dis-
tricts, but representatives for the country at large, and
Scotland always had had its share in that close borough
representation. !According to the new system, it was plain
that the representation of the metropolis would bear an
undue proportion to the representation of the country at
large.

Mr. C. DOUGLAS thought that Scotland was en-
titled to a much greater proportion of representatives than
she already possessed, and he hoped, after what had fallen
from the Hon. and Learned Member for Kirkcudbright,
that he would have his support hereafter for the proposi-
tion to give its due share of representition to Scotland.
Mr. HUNT said, that the Won. and Learned Member
for Kirkcudbright anticipated that those districts would
return men of rank and wealth. It was very probable
that such would be the case, but it was equally probable
that they would nut return any representatives but men of
talent. The statement of the writer who had been quoted
by the Hon. and Learned Member might be quite true,
but it should be recollected that the write: in question had
written for, and against, every single subject that he had
ever touched upon.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that after the decision which
had been come to last night, it was an understanding that
they should not further debate this schedule, and that was
the reason why those who acted with him on that side of
the Hons., did not go into any discussion regarding the
different places embraced in it. _

Lord XLTHORP said, that the same reasen had pre-
vented him from taking any part in this discussion.
The question was then put and carried.
The next question was, that " Mai ylehone, including the
parishes of St. Marylehone, St. Pincras, and Paddington,
Middlesex, stand part of schedule C."

Mr. C. FERGUSSON rose amidst much confusion,
.7riea of " Oh, oh," and " question, question." The Hon.
Member said he had promised to state the case which the
inhabitants of Pancras had requested him to state on their
part to the House, and he was determined to do so. No
cry of " question" should prevent him from discharging
his duty. The inhabitants of St. Pancras were of opinion
that they should not be included in Marylebone and Pad-
dington, for that in that case their constituency would be
overwhelmed and borne down by the more numerous con-
stituency of those places, but that their parish should be
erected into a separate district, and that one Member should
be given to them. To show that they were entitled to a
representative for themselves, they stated that their parish
paid in assessed taxes three time more than Manchester,
four times more than Leeds, four times more than Shef-
field, nine times more than Devonport, fourteen times more
than Wolverhampton, and eighteen times more than Sun-
derland, to each of which two Members were to be given.
They stated further that there were 10,000 houses for the
parish
the
ishwhich averaged 40/. a-year each, and that the parish
wasi residence of a wealthy, enlightened, and most
respectable population. They asserted that if their pariah
should he united to Marylebone and Paddington, which
did not pay more taxes than the
parish of Pancras
they would be overwhelmed by o
of those two places.
These where the'e greater population
grounds on which
they rested their claims for a representative for their parish
by itself.
Sir J. MALCOLM said a few words, the purportof
which was not heard in the gallery.
Lord ALTNORP said that the lion. and Learned
Gentleman had stated the grounds on which the pariah of
Pancras claimed a Member for itself, namely, that the
amount of its population was so small in proportion to
that of the two districts to which it was to be united, that
it would be borne down by their larger constituency.—
Now, looking at the extent of the parish of Pancras, and
seeing the number of voters which it was likely to produce,
he did not think it at all probable that they would be
overwhelmed by the voters of Marylebone and Paddington.
The population of Marylebone was 96,000, and that of
Pancras 71,000. It was not at all likely, therefore, that
the voters of Pancras would be borne down by the consti-