The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-23 00:00:00

• tavint•lt calla a wimp •
to *Mob It wag not Pnt;tlA, and
it could not be called a measure in favour of the people, if
it took away-the franchise of any part of them without
city, He would write to his constituents to-morrow,
acid tell ..them yesterday they were killed.—(A laugh.)
However,.he would endeavour to restore them by moving
at a future' period that this borough be incorporated
With sorne others. In illustration of his opinion that
the Bill was too much of a Reform, and by its great
disfranchising clauses ought not to get so great a
name, the Honourable Member said it reminded him
of a circumstance which he heard when a young man about
tWentY years ago. A foreigner arrived in France with
the tautologous name of Mouski•Moutiki. Ile was ac-
costed by a Frenchman, who asked him—" Comment
eaPpelle to ?" " Mouski-Mouski" was the reply. " Ah,
'4" anti," rejoined the Frenchman, " soyez Jlfouski si
"us voulez, coals vous ne serez pas Illousid-Moushi:
'eta ne passe pus." The Frenchman thought that a man
should not have a monopoly of a name ; and in the same
way he (Mr. Weyland) would say that this Bill ought
not to have a monopoly of the name of Reform if it were
nut a Reform Bill in reality. He did not wish to see the
People under a delusion as to this Bill, which they cer-
t'inlY were, if its effect should be to take from them wholly
the rights which they had inherited from their ancestors.
Sir C. WETHERELL was gl id to hear this from a
reformer. He was glad to find that a reformer admitted
the injustice of taking from those boroughs the tights
Which belonged to them, arid excluding them wholly from
share in the representation. He agreed with the Hon.
Member that there were persons out of doors hallooing on
the Afinisters.—(Hear.)
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN complained of the time
°l, the House being taken up by desultory conversations,
(wnieh had no connection whatever with the question be-
fore them. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite
never failed whenever lie rose to speak on all kinds of
Pestions and might very properly be compared to the
ItwYer Endless in the play._-( Hear, hear.) He hoped
that the Chairman would in future exert his authority to
Put a atop to such lengthy conversations.—(Hear.)
GOULBURN quite agreed with the Hon. Alder-
taao that the time of the House ought not to be uselessly
hiu ted ; hut he thought that the Hon. Alderman had
niself afforded a practical illustration of the violation of
the doctrine which he had propounded.—(Hear.)
Sir C. WETHERELL said that his conduct in that
Wif„,
e was solely governed by his own discretion. lie
to-4 under no orders to speak, nor was he under orders not
''Pesk.—(Hear, hear.) He could, however, mention a
'ace, the Memhe:s of which were under orders not to
speak, but to vote.—(Hear, and laughter.) They were
"fli.it•et to a sort of Old Bailey judicature, and if any one
e them wished to hear evidence before he gave his vote,
Would be arraigned at its bar.—(Hear, hear.) The
Pi 'lee he alluded to was the city of London—(Flea),
hear)
44 if the Hon. Alderman presumed to speak what his
f n,,stituents might not like, before that base and new-
T 'led he would be arraigned —(Hear, hear.)
g 'louse had lately witnessed one of its Members dis-
-444hi1l dragged before that cature—(Hear, hear)—
01 whicy h he was ordered not to speak, but to vote.—
(si't.sri hear.) Rather than submit to such controul, he
tvilli C. Wetherell) would perform any penance; he would
'beetl ••
g Y in preference stand a whole morning to a white
1,C---(Great laughter.)
"e CHAIRMAN of the Committee submitted to the
the"' slid Learned Gentleman, whether it was right, upon
th question of the disfranchisement of Hindon, to( occupy
tst,itoe of the Comtnittee with another subject ?—flear.)
'lid (-•''• WETHERELL would throw himself on the
groent of the House.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
II: asked whether he had not been first attacked by the
44 n; Alderman, who, with a facetiousness not common to
kre4_lderma„_(Latighter)—picked something out of some
Th: or play, and applied it to him.—(Hear, bear.)
(tieVi the Hon. Chairman had called him to order—
t,r hear)—lre wished to know why lie might not en-
his justification, and be permitted to declare that
Lt 'reatird with ineffable contempt and ridicule the oh-
ol.stions which had fallen from the Hon. Member for
Hear, hear.)
pouf'4l JOHN RUSSELL hoped the present discussion
not be continued.
1,114,1 r. Alder man VENABLES, leeing one of the repre-
k,',4tives of London, hoped to be permitted to give his
IC' entire contradiction to the statement made by the
I. 'ld. end Learned Member, that the representatives of
mn
were at all restrained `
oftih respect either to their
osZtvillon.°‘r their voter
—(Cries " Oh !" from the Op-
A)lderman WAITHMAN was elected by his fel-
l:11,10wZ tns, upon a full and fair declaration of his opi-
that'l,4•l'' it lie departed from that opinion, he considered
Is,ir is constituents had a right to call him to account.
LEE exPressed his belief that the inhatsitants of
krill" were favourable to the ministerial plan of Re-
Air-7,,,,(8ear, hear.)
thsthor'YEYLAND ran the risk of losing his election for
listn". °ugh, in consequence of having, in the last Par-
-1.6 voted for the Bill which disfranchised it.
144., e question was then put and carried, that Modem
7,u4lisrt of schedule A.
e next question was that " Ilchester stand part of
A.°
PETRE did not rise to object to the motion, for
favourale to the Bill, but to pronounce a short ,
oration over the borough—May it rest in peace .
,iehester was added to schedule A.
11‘'
4e CHAIRMAN then put the question, " That East
stand part of the same schedule."
1;r• DAViES GILBERT suggested the propriety of
frl4g West Looe and East Looe together, for the purpose
one Member.
11. A. HOPE also spoke in favour of joining the two
Zglis together.
r* STANLEY said that the two boroughs had
ti
„''.Peil themselves as being total.). distinct, by each re.
two Members.
ONNELL said, that there was one borough
Aft(2trupt than East Looe, and that was West Looe.
4,.d :r a few words from Mr. KEMMIS, which were not
Loo
u", J. RUSSELL said, that supposing any exception
st it be 'node to the plan of the Bill, he slid not think
is, tic" Were the particular boroughs which ought to
Nir.ie advantage of it.—(Hear.)
Lit,d,4'..; BARING said, that if these boroughs were
'Lis/tie:l'4'y would cease to be nomination-boroughs, in
Lich wet" of the new constituency of ten-pounders
4hwiti old be created. The Bill proposed a monstrous
4ry it°ll of the representation of the southern, in order
per to the northern, pelts of the country. More
the allY was the transfer made from the agricultural
commercial interests.—(Hear.) He cs rtainly
tope that the different interests in the State ought to
iitatirestiated, but he saw no advanta -e in giving repre•
:_ifhs"ettintv_a•terin,g-places such a!i Chelte,nharn.—(Hear.)
4Si fewe."4NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
pas Stembers would sit for Cornish boroughs after
5 slots 4„g of the Bill, but be thought that there would
rte at „of
men returns d from Cornwall than there
L'a•a ts,eot.—(Much cheering.)
letrrnt"lETON considered the decision which the
, " earne to last night respecting Downton to be
Parture horn the rule which the Noble Lord had
't
-44 Y ex! but only the addition of another rule to that
isting_
titto), bAWSON was surprise.' that any man of
fear, senhe
fro count thew
conduct of Min i about rules and principhs, when
Itt Esters last night,
• Yi:it!tended to be guided by neither one nor the
ds "e Hon and Learned Member for Kerry had
11l wti ps,,ale only true principle on which the House
_
1:1414e_ with any degree of fairness—namely, the
I•euse of of all boroughs which were under the
st come°I u 5,,,,• •
and .
-striation, that shape the question
cL store the House, of er all the discussion
of th taken p
1 lice. How then would ;Ministers gut
4s? e diffieuity in which they had involved them-
-100 to)Atfi ter the passing of the Bill, the borough of
Pita . Q he more than ever under the nomination of
4 I
eeiidatie • Ws,uld the public he satisfied with
i4ii
o'\;?N, No, they would laugh at it.
,ertat,:,ELL said the Right Hon. Gentleman
ii!c we ? of a disappointed Tory turned Whig. In-
calisr "tfurther than N 1 higgism, and touched upon
hefo; Bereaits-r, if the Radicals should attempt to
4St b°° further, they would take Tory speeches for
die
.If the Right Hon. Member would pro-
se,otti . . unsement of Mahon he (Mr. O'Connell)
boteurn,otion. II s object was to get rid 0:
facettedgns, by means of which persons totally
4 tii,tow th the places they represented found seats
?. I)A.AtsoN .
std not vote wishedit to he understoosl, that he
rhb,er• the disfranchisement of any borough
4d is who eatti_on. and Learned Gentlemen's sneer at
,12:ittlea,,,,e
_S. for places with which they were uncon-
04,kr :Lvrieteh a very bad grace from one who had been
11°
triem counties, arid was only slightly connected
IttININ,„:_
th. ruf Le__'x'Y begged to remark that whilst the
lee .rood Member tOr Kerry- had been returned
11a, with which he was unconnected, the lid fa,„ ii",eeritl.eman had found it impossible to get re-
iirelp, 444 °Elly county with which he was connected.
• 840,
,ughter. )
'LIEN said that measures ought to be taken

.t .7r Trtel-POI VOT'Twq
. -
sto check the Overflowing influence of the democracy in
this country.
The question was then put and agreed to.
The next question wa., " That the borough of West
Lone stand part of schedule A."—Agreed to.
On the resolution being put that Lostwithiel stand part
of schedule A,
Mr. GOULBURN observed that by a note to the re-
turns, it appeared that the borough of Lostwithiel ex.
tended to two other parishes; making a population of
3,11Y7. Moreover, it was the county town of Cornwall.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL referred to the rule established
in the case of Appleby, that where a borough extended
into another parish, tl.e whole population was not to he
computed; and denied that even if that were not so, the
numbers in the present case would be sufficient to exclude
the borough from the schedule.
Lord VALLETORT observed that when a question
was once put by a Court to a person who had been de-
clared guilty of a crime, why he should not be sen-
tenced, the answer was that he was innocent ; on which
it was observed that he was old and impotent, and there-
fore must be punished. Now he allowed that the bo-
rough of Lostwithiel was old, but he denied that it vas
impotent. It was net less fit for the exercise of the elec-
tive franchise than when it first esjoyed that privilege.
The resolution was then agreed to.
On the resolution that Ludgershall be included in
schedule A,
Sir S. GRAHAM expressed the cordial assent of the
nominator of the borough to its extinction.--(llear.)
The resolution was then agreed to
On the resolution that Midhurst be included in sche-
dule A,

Mr. J. SMITH rose, not to oppose the resolution, but,
on the contrary, to give it his entire approhation. At the
same time he observed, that during the last thirty years the
burgesses of th it borough had never received a shilling,
nor one favour, direct or indir,ct, for their votes.
After a few words from Mr. CRESSET PELHAM, the
resolution was agreed to.

A resolution that Milbourne Port be included in sche-
dule A, was agreed to without observation.

On the resolution that Minebead be included in sche-
dule A,

Mr. LUT TRELL stood before the Noble Lord as be-
fore a Judge with the Hack cap on his head. He must,
however, contend, that the course which the Noble Lord
and those who supported him wore adopting, was unjust
and unconstitutional. The borough of Minehead extended
into the parish of Dunster, and the population of the
former was, in I S2l, 2,134, and of the latter 1,235. It
was singular that it appealed by the recent returns, that
the population of the latter had grown exactly to the
amount of that which the former had been, viz., 2,131.
He maintained that the parishioners of Dunster, if they
were bona fide occupiers of houses in Minehead, were as
much entitled to ♦ote as the parishioners of Minehead.—
Even if there were any deficiency in number, Minehead
was situated in an agricultural district, highly popular, in
which there would be no difficulty in making it up.—
After various other observa.ions, which were not dis-
tinctly audible in the gallery, the Hon. Member cf,ncluded
by moving, as an amendment to the resolution, " That
Minehead be struck out of schedule A, and placed in
schedule B."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment. The
case of Minehead way the same au the case of Lostwithie'.
He referred to the returns t show that, by the rule ap-
plied to that case, 111inebead was not in a capacity to be
comprehended in schedule B.

Mr. GOULBURN denied that the principle applied to
Lostwithiel was applicable to M nehead.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed, th it the right of voting
possessed by the parishioners of Dunster belonged only to
those who resided i❑ Miuehead.
After a few words from Lord MILTON,

The Clerk read front the Journals a former resolution of
the House of Commons relative to the borough of Mine-
head, which stated " That the elective franchise in the bo-
rough of Minehead was in the parishioners of Minehead
and Dunster, being housekeepers in the borough of Mine-
head, not receiving alms,"
Mr. ROSS contended that Minehead was fully enti led
to one Member, as the parishioners of Dunster ought to be
included in the number of ten- pound housekeepers to whom
the elective franchise was extended.

Mr. STANLEY repeated the explanation already given
respecting the limits of the borough, declaring that only a
portion of the parish of Dunster was included, and adding,
that within those limits there were only 1,745 inhabitants.
He accordinJy maißtained that Minehead should be placid
in schedule A.

Mr. S. WORTLEY was of opinion that the parish of
Dunmter ought to be included, as, by the resolution of that
House, it was clearly contemplated they should enily an
advantage over all strangers.
Lord ALTHORP again explained that the whole of the
parish of Dunater was not in the borough, and that the
being a parishioner of Dunster, without being also a house-
keeper of Minehead, conferred no right of vote; there was
consequently no reason why the external portion of this
parish should enjoy the elective franchise.
Sir E. SUGDEN maintained that, according to the
resolution of the House, the words of which he repeated,
the right of voting resided in the parishioners of both
parishes—the parish of Minehead and the parish of
Dunster.

Mr. STANLEY denied that the right existed in all the
parishioners, but simply in those parishioners who were
were housekeepers of Minehead.
Sir E. SUGDEN repeated the opinion, that according
to the resolution the parishioners of Duneer enjoyed
privileges with respect to the borough of Minehead which
could not be extended to strangers ; and he thought that
under the existing circumstances the franchise ought to be
extended to the two p urishes.
Mr. O'CONNELL contended that Minehead ought to
be disfranchised, and that it was mere special pleading to
say that the parish of Dunster generally should enjoy the
right of voting. Any person residing for a time in the
borough would have the same privilege with a p irishioner
of Dunster.

Sir W. LIORNE did not conceive the parishioners of
Dunster generally had any right to be calle I in.
Mr. GOULBURN argued that the parishioners of Dun-
ster stood in a peculiar position, and were, aecolding to
the principle of the Bill, entitled to vote for MineheaJ.

Sir R !'EEL observed, that it was not the fact that
strangers who resided and parishioners of Dunster stood in
the ?ame p(ssition respect to Minehead, because a pa-
rishioner of Dunster being a housekeeper, was forthwith
entitled to vote for Minehead, whereas the stranger should
previously acquire a right of settlement.
Sir C. WETHERELL concurred in the statement, and
was of opinion the franchise should be ext nded to
Duuster.

Mr. O'CONNELL thought every man residing in a
parish was a parishioner, and consequently, if in Minehta I,
would, although a stranger, have as good a right to vote as
the parishioner and housekeeper of Dunster.
Sir C WETHERELL repeated that the stranger should
in the first instance acquire a right of settlement.
Mr. ATTWOOD contended that all the parishioners of
Dunster had a right, an imperfect right it was true, but
still one which was entitled to respect, and he thought the
franchise shou;cl be extended to the parish.
Mr. PRAED explained the different position in which
the mere stranger and the parishioner of Dunster stood in
respect is Minehead, and was in favour of communicating
the right to the parish.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON said that no claim had been made
out on the part of this borough fur the continuance of its
elective franchise. He did not think that the right of
voting depended upon the payment of the poor rates, and
even if it did in the present instance, still he thought that,
with respect to the borough of Minehead, it would be too
much to continue it when it was clearly one of the nomi-
nation boroughs.

Mr. HUDSON GURNEY contended that the parish
of Dunster ought to he united with the borough, as that
parish had been a borough in the time of Elizabeth, and
had returned Members at that time.
Sir C. WETHERELL said, that, for the purposes of
representation, Dunster and Minehead were the same p'ace
and might be united as one borough.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL answered, that a residence in
Minehead was nectasary to give the tight of voting, and
that consequently the parish of Dunster ought not to he
taken into consideration in the calculation of this matter.
Sir J. SCARLET I' observed, that though the pay-
ment of poor rates did not, perhaps, alone give the right
of voting, still the payment of the poor rates was general!)
taken as evidence of the right of voting, and that was the
reason why the two were so often united in the " last reso-
lutions" of the House of Commons. The right of freedom
in a borough was often only a mete personal right. If the
payment of poor rates was in this case any proof of the
right of voting, to disfranchise this borough would be to
disfranchise the two parishes.
Mr. GOULBURN was satisfied, so far as the arguments
went, that the parish of Dunster ought to be united to the
borough of Minehead ; yet lie would not divide the House
upon it.
The question of the borough of Minehead forming par-
of schedule A was then decided in the affirmative, without
division.
On the question, " That Newport do form part of
schedule A,"
Sir H. HARDINGE admitted that Newport came