The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-20 00:00:00

an inadvertency, and then he need not take the slightest
further pains to restore himself to the favour of his con-
stituents. Some Hon. Members talked of the influence of
nomination, but what would be said to that species of de-
mocratic nomination which brought a representative to
trial for consenting to hear evidence before he decided ju-
diciallyß There was no one, who maintained the erect
port of a man, who would submit to such relentless, sa-
vage dictates.
Sir C. LEMAN said a few words which were perfectly
inaudible.

Mr. ATTWOOD observed, that, when the Noble Lord
refused to lay down any distinct rule, he laid himself open
to the imputation of partiality. He laid himself open to
the charge of applying one rule to the borough of Tavi-
stock, which was under the nomination of the House of
Russell, and another for the borough of Appleby, it being
supposed to lie under a different influence. Such were the
charges to which the measure of the Noble Lord was ex-
posed ; but all that he (Mr. A.) desired was, that a dis-
tinct ru'e should be laid down. The Noble Lord said he
was willing—nay, was resolved to be governed by the
census of 1821, but then the people of Appleby came
forward, and said that the representation, with respect to
their borough, was a mere clerical error ; and if there were
any doubt on the point, let the House go back to the cen-
sus of 1811, and then it would be apparent that the bo-
rough of Appleby could not be affected by the present
Bill, otherwise than upon unsound and unjust principles,
arising out of a clerical error—a manifest and palpable
error—one of those errors which the House would degrade
itself by permitting to have the slightest influence—in
fact, would prove itself to be governed by gross and mani-
fest partiality.
Sir E. SUGDEN understood, from the commencement,
that in the Committee the Noble Lord had agreed to hear
evidence upon any case demanding it. Such he certainly
conceived to have been the pledge given by the Noble
Lord ; and now, after what had been stated on the one
side and the other; he wished to know if the Noble Lord
was prepared to redeem that pledge? He made that in-
quiry without any wish to detain the House unnecessarily,
or to impede the progress of the Bill, or to urge that
Counsel be heard ; he merely wished to know if evidence
would be received.

Lord ALTHORP was perfectly ready to admit the cor-
rection of any error that might be shown to exist, but
there could be very little doubt that Appleby bad not ex-
tended itself in the manner which had been represented.
Lord J. RUSSELL should not object to the taking of
evidence whenever found necessary.
Mr. GOULBURN referred to the borough of Reigate,
and contended that, as that bad been admitted to sche-
dule B, the same principle ought to apply to Appleby.
Lord MILTON was of opinion that the borough of
Appleby only extended where the elective franchi,e was,
and had no reference to the parishes. In the case of Rei-
gate, though there were two townships there was only one
parish.—(hear,

Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN next addressed the Com-
mittee; but, owing to the confusion which prevailed, was
inaudible.

Sir J. SCARLETT thought the population of the two
parishes together mule up the town of Appleby, and he
did not see why that was not to be called the borough of
Appleby. The principle adopted by the Noble Lord was
very arbitrary ; but, according to the analagous cases that
haul been cited, he thought they had no right to leave out
Appleby. _ _ .

Mr. J. BROUGHAM remarked that the boundaries of
the parish were 33 square miles, while the jurisdiction of
the Mayor did not extend over above 100 acres.
Sir H. HARDINGE must say, after the discussions of
that evening, that he bad never heard so absurd a prin-
ciple laid down. According to that principle, East Ret.
ford, Aylesbury, and Cricklade, were to be rewarded for
their corruption, and allowed their two votes, because, on
account of that corruption, the franchise had been extended.
A feeble mind might destroy, but it required a strong one
to create.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—If he had been permitted to have
his way with respect to East Retford, that place should
never have sent Members again, for he would have trans-
ferred its franchise to Birminghatn.—(Cheers.) That, no
doubt was the action of a feeble mind ; while the Right
Hon. Gentlemtn't strong mind would only consent to ex-
tend the franchise to the hundred—(Loud cheers)—which
being the case, he should like to ask who it was that had
rewarded the corruption of East Retford ?—( Cheers.)
Mr. W. BANKES would have been more satisfied if
evidence had been adduced with respect to the condition of
Appleby. He thought it far beneath the dignity of the
House to legislate on the principle laid down by the Noble
Lord ; and that Appleby would, have a right now and for
ever to cocnplain.
Mr. CROKER did not see that the fact of Appleby
having two parishes instead of one made any difference in
the principle.

Mr. HUNT would vote for the disfranchisement of
every nomination borough—Caine as well as Appleby ; but
he would not do so were it not that he had a motion on
the paper to give the elective franchise to all householders,
Hd did not, however, see how the Noble Lord, whossid his
principle was population, could vote for the disfranchise-
ment of Appleby, after the conflicting testimony that had
been adduced..—(Cheers from the Opposition.)

Mr. ATTWOOD stated, that in • the case of Morpeth
the population of a chapelry belonging to that parish,
though seven miles off, had been admitted.
Lord MILTON said, that Aldburgh, in Yorkshire, had
been saved by adding it to the township of Miiby, which
was in another riding.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CROKER—Did they hear the admission that
Morpeth was saved by a chapelry seven miles off, an-
swered by stating that Aldburgh was saved by adding a
township still further off.—(Cheery.) And did those
two reasons come from the Bench from which they had
heard it urged as a reason against Appleby that one of the
parishes was six or seven miles in length.—(Cheers.)
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment .28
Against it 302.
Majurity -74
The original motion was then put and agreed to, and
the name of Appleby was inserted in the clause.

The House resumed.
The Chairman reported progress. 'I he Committee to
sit again to-morrow (this day).
The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought
up, and the resolutions agreed to.