The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-03 00:00:00

ever, that it was directed, but to the principles he

professed.
Mr. C. FERGUSON said, that Manchester had a
greater population than all the boroughs to be disfran-
chised. So the parish of St. Pancras paid more assessed
taxes than all the boroughs in schedules A. and B. It
teas impossible that the Hon. Member's amendment could

be carried.
Mr. SLANEY, in answer to an observation of Sir
Robert Peel on a former occasion, showed that the popu-
lation of the northern districts of the country had increased

upwar,ls of 50 per cent. during the last twenty years,
while the increase of the whole population was only 24

per cent. The same fact was observable in the outskirts
of the metropolis. Birmingham, too, had increased 40
per cent.: Liverpool, 50 per cent. ; the out-parishes of
London, 50 per cent. ; and Glasgow, 100 per cent. The
towns which were to receive the franchise paid 262 times
more taxes than the boroughs to he dislranchised.
Mr. E\VART said, that Liverpool and Manchester were
now, by the rapid communication between them, converted
almost into one Sown. He must, therefore, cancer with
the Hon. Member for Lancashire, in the propriety of giving

Members exclusively to Manchester.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the amendment, that
there was always groat jealousy between Salford and Man-
chester. It was, therefore, thought better, as Salford had
a population of 50,000 souls, and paid 80,0001. a year in
taxes, to give it a Member independently of Manchester.
Mr. CRESSET PELHAM adverted to the increase of
population mentioned by the Hon. Member for Shrews-
bury, who seemed to regard manufactures and commerce
as the road to wealth, and population and agriculture as
the road to ruin. He could, however, tell the Hon. Member,
that the county of Sussex had increased in population

fast as Lancashire itself.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY admitted the force of the
arguments of the lion. Member for Lancashire. At the
same time, he regarded the giving a Member to Salford as
giving three Members to Manchester. He would not
divide the House on his amendment.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that his Hon. Friend
was quite right in the observations he made, and the view
he took in proposing that Salford should be united to Man-
chester. That was the case in the Bill brought in by the
Noble lord for giving the franchise to Manchester when
it was taken from Penrhyn; it was also the case when this
Bill was brought in last session, and therefore his Hon.
Friend was justified in proposing that Salford should he
united to Manchester. Since, however, it was otherwise

decided, he was bound to say, from his local knowledge,
that Manchester and Salford were different towns, had dif-
fereist feelings, were governed by different authorities, and
could on no account be regarded as the same town. His
lion. Friend was quite right, however, in thinking that
the question was open for consideration. For his own part
he thought that giving one Member to Salford might tend
to encourage contests, and would not promote the tran-

quillity of the towns.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the question
put on the original motion.
Sir R. PEEL said they had now disposed of the
clauses relative to the disfranchisement, and were prepared
to go on with what had been called the constructive
clauses. He would consider this question on the prin-
ciples of justice ; and should object to the proposed en-
franchisement as part of the measure. It was disposing
of spoil that was not their property to dispose of.—
(Heir, hear.) On that ground he objected to the en-
franchisement ; it was taking the property and privilege
from some, and transferring them to others. He had
also to observe that the disfranchisement of schedules A
and B was not sufficient to enfranchise all the towns in
schedule C. He objected then to the extent of the en-
franchisement, and lie objected to the principle of dis-
franchisement to ensure enfranchisement. Looking at all
the circumstances of the country, at what had taken
place previous to the dissolution, at the difficulty of con.
stituting any Government not prepared to concede the
principle of Reform, he had stated before, that acting for
himself, and not in concert with others, forming his own
judgment ; he for one, having yielded his own opinion in
deference to the majority of the House; looking, he said,
to all the circumstances of the country, to the formation

of a Government—the perhaps necessary formation of a Go
vernment pledged to Reform—he had stated at an earlier
period, that rather than hazard the displacing of the Govern-
ment,not seeing how any Government could be formed hostile
to Reform, he had professed himself ready to consider the
question of Reform, and what Reform should be granted.
As a member of the Government, though lie did not
object to enfranchise single towns, lie was afraid of letting
loose the question of Reform, and would have been satis-
frtd with a more limited enfranchisement than that now
proposed. lie was at the same time aware, that such a
limited enfranchisement proposed by the late Government,
professing itself hostile to Reform, would not have satis-
fied the people, and would not have been a permanent
measure.—(Hear, hear.) He should, however, proceed
to the consideration of Schedule C, forgetting what had
passed as to schedules A and B. He should consider it
for itself, and as part of a new Bill, and should consider
himself at liberty to make any objections he might think
proper, however those clauses had determined what places
should receive new Members. He should regulate his
conduct by considerations connected with the place to be
enfranchised. Though lie consented to enfranchisement
in some cases, he did not consent to it as a necessary con-
sequence of disfranchisement. lie did not consent to a de-
crease of the number of Members in that House in order to
make room for the new ones. The first place in the enfran:
chising clause was Manchester, which he did not deny was
properly and justly placed first, and he did not deny that it
ought to be enfranchised ; hut that any other place should
be disfranchised for it was most unjust, and the rule on
which the Bill proceeded was most absurd. He was not
prepared to say that he would not yield enfranchisement
to Manchester ; he would not contend against it ; and he
was not willing to diminish the grace of concession by any
captious objections. But if he were proposing enfran-
chisement, he should say that in all cases he would give the
enfranchised place two Members, not one. That was, if he
had fifty Members to give, he would select twenty-five
places, and give each two Members, rather than select
fifty places and give to each one Member. He certainly
thought that the enfranchisement proposed was much too
extensive ; but as it was, if priority were given to any
place, Manchester certainly deserved to be the first place
enfranchised. Birmingham also was fairly entitled to the
same advantage; and then followed Leeds, which ought to
have the same privilege. On former occasions these were
the towns to which it was proposed to give the forfeited
franchises; then the franchise of Penryn was to be given
to Manchester; that of Grampound to Leeds; and that
of East Retford to Birmingham.—(Near, hear.) That
was proposed by those gentlemen who were favourable to
the transfer. To the three towns which stood first, he
had no objection ; to the fourth town upon the list he
should object. He never could have supposed, when he
heard of a Reform Bill, that Deptford, and Greenwich,
anti Woolwich, were to send Metnbers to Parliament. He
believed, too, they dreamed as little of it themselves as
he did. If it was the great object of the Bill to get rid
of influence, be must express his surprise that one great
nomination borough should have been created.—(Cheers.)
He objected also to the enfranchisement proposed for the
parts of the metropolis. They might have added two
Members to Middlesex as they had added two Members to
Kent; but be objected to giving more Members to the
metropolis. He hoped the enfranchisement to which he
was disposed to consent would promote the prosperity of
those towns, though be confessed be had his doubts.—
(Hear, hear.) He could not believe that the prosperity of
'Manchester had been delayed from wanting representative.,
or that it would be promoted by having them The re-
marks made by the Hon Member for Lancashire, as to
the increase of its population, its accumulation of capital,
its improvements in the arts, were the most powerful ar-
guments he had heard urged to prove the present system
was net injurious to the welfare of Manchester. The
Lion. Member stated, ton, that with the increase of wealth
and the improvement in the arts, the sciences had been
studied, and successfully cultivated. While he admitted
the propriety of giving representatives to Manchester, he
did not place that right merely on its wealth and popula-
tion. The town, it was true, had grown in population
and wealth, and ought no longer to be excluded, but its
prosperity sheaved that representation was not necessary to
prosperity. It was a great community of men having a
common interest, and therefore proper to be invited within
the walls of the temple of the Constitution. Communi-
ties in like manner had been continually enfranchised, pat'.
titularly before the revolution ; but when they were en-
franchised, no vacancies were made to allow them to find
it place in Parliament. He admitted the propriety of en-
franchising the three first towns, and therefore he would
not waste the time of the House in discussing them. On
other points he should consider himself at liberty to offer
any opinions ; and when it came to Greenwich he should
propose to omit that from schedule C. He objected to
giving it the franchise because it was under the influence
of the Government. He objected, also, to giving the
franchise to the places forming part of the metropolis.
He thought they did not need additional representatives,
and the nature of their constituency was not such as to
recommend them. The means they had of hacking their
opinions—(Hvar, hear)—bringing both physical and moral
force to kiir on the resolutions of that House—would give
the metrrpolis more influence than it ought to have over
the deliberations of that House. The Right Hon. Baronet