The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-05 00:00:00

usually took place on Such occasion. lie nowt °hied to
the motion altogether. -

Mr. HUNT—.The tlallant Colonel had mentioned in-
surrectionary movement. -He (Mt. H.) could give him
every infortmtion about that,.—(Great laughter.) A few
dap% befnre the 9th of November, lie wa, Chairman at a
'very crowded radical Reform meeting in the Rotunda. Two or
'3,10) people could ftot obtain admittance. About three hundred
wetted round tht door for some time, and then, by a general
rush, made their way into the passage, stole three or four tri-
coloured flags—(A laugh)—and then went out again in a body
making !bud outcries. They were met by the police, who gave
theta a good drubbing. This was the Insurrectionary move-
mer,t, and this only. As to any danger which would have at_
tended the King on going to the city, he could only say his
Majesty might have walked without the slightest danger all the
way from his Palace.
Sir R. PEEL said a full explanation had, in his opinion, been
made in Parliament shortly after the disappointment en Lord
Mayor's Day, the 9th of November, which was entltely in con-
sequence of a letter written by the Lard Mayo!', intimating that
there would be some disturbance in the event of the King visiting
the pity. Various military precautions had certainly been made
to preserve security and tranquillity, in which tonSisted the best
interests of the people. He really could not See that there was
the slightest ground for making such a motion.
Colonel EVANS, after an explanadon, withdrew his thollOn.
SCOTCH ttiJIORM BILL

in toOn the question
on tats Rill that tht Order of the 5,7,i1 e read for going
Committee ,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to a very general report
that had gone abroad, intimating that the Reform measure was
not. final, and was not ikitaided as such by the Government,
begged to state that he had always maintained that the measure
was a fin d one.
Sir JOHN WALSH gave nonce of his intention to move,
that it be an instruction to the Committee +,3 provide two repre-
sentatives for St. Andrews University, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
and Aberdeen.

The House then Went into Caltmittee.
Sir J. CROFT complained of a Court cf Appeal being ap-
pointed to review the dal isious of the Sheriff's of Scotland relative
to the qualifications of voters, when there %Tat lid Such Court in
England appointed under the Bill.
Sir WM_. RAE made the same complaint.
Lord ALTHORP Wind(' disenss the matter fullf when the
clause relative to the Court of Appeal came before the
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL was of WalfOn that the
Sheriffs, who were men in general of great knnwledge, were de.
graded in having advocates to supervise limit decisions. He con.
tended that a High Judicial Officer Ought not to have his sen-
tences reviewed by a jurischetion appointed by a Relbthling
Chance tor, consisting of persons of inferior rank. vie. a number
of barristers.--(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen alit cry " Hear,
hear",: (A laugh)—avid those who, from taking repose, did not
kno‘v any thing of the subject milder discussion, might call
" Question, question ;" but he would protest against such a
Court of Appeal. He should like to hear the Hon. Mein'nel. for
Ripon on the subject of the clause, if that Hon. Metrket, Who had
repeatedly interrupted him, was capable of givim a Logical argu-
ment upon the question,—(Cries of hear.) FOt tile reasons he had
given he should, in the Committee, vote br the expulsion of
the clause.
Mr. WEYLAND claimed the ifidnigence of the House while
he replied to the personal attarkYnade upon him by the Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat •down—(Hear,) • Who the Hon.
Member had singled hint Out, and made hint a butt to shoot
his mark at," he did net know, as he had ncit in any
_ way inter.
rupted the Hon. Gentleman's loquaeityny acry of" Hear, hear,"
or " Question, question." If by e'en an involuntary nod-__
(Laughter)—hg had disturbed tht lion. Gentleman, he begged
his pardon.—(Hear and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman ex.
pressed his approval of the clause.
SCOTCH REFORM BILL
The House'went into a Committee on fps hill.
Sir GEORGE CLER hoped the oble Lord (Althorp)
would withdraw the first clause, trying to Scotland 4.5 Members
only, because notices of mouton ad been given by many Hon,
Gentlemen on the subject Of Increasing the number of county
Members for that part 'Of the British empire. If tilt Chins° was
now pressed, it would Vreclude Hon: Gentlemen, from bringing
before the House for discussion the motions he had adverted to,
respecting the giving eight additional minty Members to Scotland.
Lord A LTISORP had no objection to postpone the discussion
on the first clause, but it must hot be supposed that he had any
intention to withdraw it
On motion of Lord AL PHORP, that clause Ado stand
Parrot* the Bill,
isir. GILLON Moved an amendment, that tettain words be
left out of the clause, by which.the boroughs Of Peebles and Sel-
kirk would not be included in It, but thoSe places would be al-
lowed to return two Members to Parliament as heretofore. He
felt it to be his duty, urged on at he was by his constituents, to
bring forward this Motieht, and support it with all his power.
His constituents had been told that the Bill would be a bbon to
them, but they foUnd by this clause that they were totally dis-
franchised.
Sir GEORt3E HAY 'strongly objected to the clause, as it
would disppoint all the hopes of the holiseholders in the bo-
roughs. He would admit that the Noble Lord (Althorp) had
shown the utmost candour, and had evinced the most anxious de-
sire to extend the constituent power; and he hoped that the
Noble Lord would not press the clause the disfranchising of the
boroughs. He (Sir George Hay) was the proprietor of two-thirds
of the borough, and in case of an election he would be sure of
success if he stood for the cotility, but, connected as he was with
the townspeople, be felt it hi* duty to implore the Noble Lord not
to Tess this clause acrd he should feel most truly grateful. Lord ALTHORP said, if he had not seen sufficient reason for
throwing the borough into the county, the speech of the Hon.
Baronet would have satisfied him of its necessity—(Hear)—to do
away with the system of undue influence and nomination.—
(Hear.) The population of the doiliity of Peebles was 20,00,
and that of the borough, 2,7215. The county of Selkirk, 6,757,
and of the borough, 2,028. It Was desirous that the town should
sliare in the representation of the county, and, in his opinion, the
town would be gainers by the arrangement, and the constituency
would be greatly improved. He therefore hoped the Housewould
adopt the clause.
Sir GEORGE HAY said a few words against the clause.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said the boroughs ought to retain their
fraechise ; and the householdets were by the clause for ever dis.
inutchised.
Mr. KENNEDY declared that the householders of the bo-
roughs never were franchised.—(Hear) The franchise in the
boroughs existed Mils, in the corporations, and therefore there
was no disfranchisement of the householders. He would call the
attention of the House to the borough of Rothsay, which he had
the honour to represent, and he assured the House that his con-
stituents were fully satisfied with being merged into the county;
and he heartily approved of the plan of merging boroughs into
nomination counties,-(Hear.) He should, therefore, vote for
the clause merging the boroughs into the counties of Peebles and
Selkirk, and giving each county one Member.
Lurd ALTHORP explained.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON said, it had been admitted by
the Noble Lord (Althorp) that as a general principle the borough
populatton.and the county population should.be kept distinct and
separate, he therefore opposed the clause. He had- no objection
to include ten-pound householders in villages, as the rural popu-
lation ought to be admitted to the right of voting, but he objected
to the admission of borough householders to oversell elinthe county.
—(Hear.) He should vote for the exchision of the boroughs from
the Bill by supporting the amendment •
'Mr. PRINGLE should oppose the clause, and in his opinion
their thanks were due to Mr., Gillon, for the bold and manly
stand he had made on behalf of the Royal. Boroughs, which it
was determined should be disfranchised at one fell swoop, though
there was no objection to them on the ground of population or
political integrity. . .
Sir G. MURRAY would enter his protest against the false as-
sertion which had been uttered in that House, viz. that Scot-
land had no representation. .He was an independent represen-
tative of that country.—(Hear, hear )—lf it was true that there
was no represent,tion, it was not possible there could be any dis.
tranchisement—(llear)—so the Noble Lord ( A lth orp) had better
begin with Fdinburgh—(Hear)—and declare that that city
should not return a Member, because the right of election was
in the Corporation of 32.—(Hear.) He approved of the prin-
ciple of the representation of property, and that Member who
was returned by a small body of independent men representing
large property, was ai likely to act for the general good, as the
representative of the place where the election was of the moat
Pepular deser;ption.
Sir F. MACKINTOSH said the question was whether large
con-tituencies were better than small—(Hear)—and it was
clearly the object of the Bill to give as independent a power as
possible to the representative systein of the people in Parliament,
by the extension of the constituency. The inhabitants of the
large towns lost nothing by the franchise being given to the
county. In the case of Bath, it would be an extension of the
elective franchise, for the right of election there existed in
twenty-seven Corporators, who did not in any sense repre-
sent the forty thousand inhabitants. He approved of
the Bill, as a measure of the greatest importance to
the people of this country, and he affirmed that the' Bill was
the first attempt ever made to bestow on the people of
Scotland a real representation of the people in Parliament.--
(Cheers.) They never had the benefit of popular elections be-
stowed upon them till the present time ; and though the people
had anxiously wished to be emancipated, yet they were now to
be told by a set of lawyers and philosophers from the north—
(Hear, hear, hear, and laughter) —yes, they were to be told
that the people of Scotland ought to be excluded from the re-
presentation. They are determined to have a real, and not a
mock representation in that House, and they would not submit
that the Members of Parliament should merely represent certain
corporate bodies to the exclusion of the people generally.
Mr. C. BRUCE agreed ,ith the Hon. Baronet (Hay) as to the
purity of the Noble Lord's (Althorp) motives in giving the bo-
roughs to the counties, and he gave the fullest credit for wishing
to establish in Scotland the most independent constituency.—
(Hear.) He (Mr. B.) objected to the disfranchisement of
the burgesses, though he admitted that in 1479, they were de-
prived of their right to vote for Meinbers, and the right was
given to the Magistrates—the Town Council.—(Hear.)
Mr. R. DUNDAS wished to set the Noble Lord (Althorp)
right as to the statement that it was merely the transfer of the
borough to the county, whereas the right was given to a diffe-
rent class of persons.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the Corpora-
tions ought not to be disfranchised, and he would vote for the
amendment if his Hon. Friend should divide the House on the
question.
Mr. GILLON having been so pressed by his constituents on
this subject, their rights being deeply affected by this measure,
felt bound to divide the House.—(Hear.)
Sir C. FORBES wished the Hon. Member for Preston—(Hear)
—had been present to have heard the speech of the Hon.
Member on the Ministerial bench (Sir J. Mackintosh), who, from
the beginning of his speech to the end, was harping on the people.
It was all the people, and nothing but the people—(A laugh)—
but property was entirely out of the question.—(Hear.) He would
support the amendment.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON preferred the transferring of the borough
to the county, to the mutilation of the county franchise. It was
a libel on Hon. Members to say that Scotland had no representa-
tion. lie was a representative of Scotland, and was free and in-
dependent.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the Noble Lord (Althorp)
deserved the thanks of the Scotch Members for his agreeing to
extend the franchise to the small counties, and he would recom-
mend the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gillon) to withdraw his amend-
ment, and allow the clause to remain.
Lord ALTHORP expressed his surprise. at the opposition of
his Hon. Friend near him to the clause, as he had been led to
understand that he was content with the transfer of the franchise
from the borough to the county.
Mr. FERGUSSON had never so expressed himself.
Lord ALTHORP ex plained.—(Question.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK—(Question)—said the Hon. Gentle-
man near the bar •of the House might call " Hear !" and
Question !" had he been in the House during the discussion
but he (Sir George) was not to be put down by one who had just
entered the House for the. purpose of voting on a question he
had not heard discussed.—(Hear.) He (Sir George) had not
heard a single argument why the boroughs should be disfran-
chised, either on the ground of political integrity—for there had
been no charge of corruption—or as regarded the extent of popu.
lation ; he should therefore vote for the amendment.
Strangers withdrew, and the House divided—
For the clause
Against it
Majority in favour of Ministers --73
Lord ALTHOHP moved the adoption of the next clause,
giving 45
atembert
MURRAYo ctand.
Sir GEORGE felt called upon to move, as an
amendment, that eight of the largest
_ counties in Scotland should
return two Members, instead of one Member to Parliament—
(Hear)—and he made the motion on the ground that Scotland
was unquestionably entitled to a larger number of represent._
Lives, particularly as the elective body would be considerably in_
creased by this Bill. At the Union, the number of Members
Was fixed at 45, and whether that number was fixed upon as 1-
lative to the population or the revenue.ofr
case,thecmblz,pohemddiadtoriont
pretend to determine; but in whichever
and revenue had so considerably increased, that hetonsideirnedththaet
country entitled to an increase in the representation
House. At the period of the Union, the revenueof England was
thirty-six times greater than that of Scotland, and accordingI
,toB,ti.o
the returns on the sth of January list, ScOtland was as