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

Act, ; and there was an especial reason why the ham-
let of Ballingdon should be omitted. It lay in the county
of Suffolk, wherein the Magistrates of Es,ex had no juris-
diction ; there were, therefore, cogent legal reasons why
Ballingdon should not be included in the Act. In con-
clusion, he insisted that no claim could be more satisfac•
tory, or more clearly established, than that which had
been set forth for the borough of Sudbury; and he consi-
dered the Ministers need not hesitate to do justice in this
ease, because it was one essentially peculiar, and could
not be possibly drawn into a precedent.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that by the Act of Par-
liament referred to, it appeared that Ballingdon was not
in 1525 a recognized part of the town of Sudbury ; nor
was it, in his opinion, part of the pariah of All Saints.__
In the " Topographical Dictionary," Ballingdon was de-
eribed as a chapelry within half a mile of SurThUry.
Mr. WRANGHAM ssid, it was ate surd to call it a
ehapelry when there was no chapel ; and he pledged his
honour that there was not a distance of twenty yards be-
tween the nearest house in Ballingdon and the Nearest
house in Sudbury..-4Cheers.) The places were divided
only by a small rivulet, over which there was a bridge.

Mr: C. PELHAM bore witness, that in the Act for
lighting and paving the borough of Sudbury many parts
of the borough had not been included.
The House then divided—
Aye;
157
Noes
Majority l9
Sudbury, therefore, remains in schedule B
The next question was, that Totness remain part of
schedule B.

Mr. BALDWIN was of opinion trait Totness might to
be removed from schedule B, bemuse, if Bridgetown were
joined to it, it would have a population of .11389, atul 375
ten pound houses; and Bridgetown war in all respects,
excepting ecclesiastically, part of that town.

Mr. P. COURTENAY seconded the argumesete of his
lion. Colleague ; declared he had knows, the borough
for twenty years, and believed it to be pure. He thought
it ought to be removed from schedule B, as it well might
by the addition of Bridgewater, which was, to ell intents
and purposes,
,part of the town of Totness; and he con,
sidered that Ministers, by the present plan, would create
a worse constituency than there coeld possibly exist under
other circumstances. He disi feel mortified at time being
sent about his business, when he was not awere bf the ex-
istence of any charge whatever against either himself or
his constituents. He was sure that corruption could not
be charged against them, and he was equally certain that
he, on his part, had never been. guilty of it, so 'het on
neither side was there any ground for an aceesetion of the
abuse of the elective franchise. He bed said thus much,
because he did not think any reason had been given for
depriving Totness of one of its Members ; and he could
not surfer it to undergo this partial loss of its elective
franchise without saying one word in its favour.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman saw no reason for the borough of Totness being
placed in schedule 8., lie (Lord 3. Russell) could not see
any that would justify the Committee in removing it from
the schedule. It was acknowledged that the borough stood
in the same situation es that of Sudbury. Now as the
Committee had decided that that borough ought to remain
in schedule B, and as the two cescs were admitted to re-
semble eaole other, the decision in the one case must be
taken to decide the other. In the present instance there
was no allegation that the town belonged to the borough,
and unless it did so, its population did not come up to
the required number. The Right Hen. Gentleman seemed
to anticipate that, in future, bribery and corruption would
be resorted to, but it was more probable, under the ope-
ration of this Bill, that that anticipation would prove un-
founded.
The question was then agreed to without a division.
On the question " That the schedule B do stand part of
the Bill,"
Mr. CROKER observed, he could not let this schedule
pass without entering his protest against it, and without
saying that, objectionable as the whole Bill was, this par-
ticular part of it was the most objectionable. Having
thus eapreeteed, in general terms, his disapprobation of
this schedule, he should say nothing further on the subject.
The House having, when the schedule was first introduced,
discussed the whole principle involved in it under the ques-
tion whether the word ene or two should fill up the blank
in the first line of it ; and having subsequently, on the
questions relating to Sudbury and other boroughs, dis-
cussed the application of that schedule to particular cases,
he thought it would be a deviation from the voluntary en-
gagement into which be had entered, if he were to do
more at present than declare be protested most strongly
against this particular part of the Bill.
Sir C. WETHERELL said, that on this occasion he
should take the liberty of summing up the proceedings
that had taken place with regard to the Bill, and especially
with respect to this particular schedule. The Hon. and
Learned Member then went into a brief summary of the
objections that had been made to the Bill, and of the an-
swers give to those objections. In the course of doing this
lie observed, that the supporters of the Bill differed among
each other, so that those Siamese twins, the Noble Lords,
the Members for Northamptonshire—(A laugh)—could
not agree about all the boroughs ; and he had, therefore,
had the benefit of the vote of one of those Noble Lords
upon some of the boroughs in the schedule. In his opi-
nion, this Bill was a.Jacubinical insult towards the towns
and boroughs it disfranchised. It committed an injustice
towards them in depriving them of their franchise, and it
insulted them by the manner in which it did so. Ile had
referred to the division of opinion between the two Noble
Lords, the Members for Northamptonshire, and he should
only now add, that he hoped to see one of those Noble
Lords, whom ability and experience gave to his opinion
considerable weight, become the leader of the Opposition
on the schedule C, on the ground that a greater number of
towns ought to be put into that schedule.
Colonel WOOD wished to enter his protest against this
schedule, which, as it was now framed, contained boroughs
that could not be inserted in it without a manifest violation
of the principle of the Bill. He thought there was a dis-
position on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to force this
Bill, and the whole of this Bill, with all its blunders and
inconsistences, through that House ; and if, when it had
passed there, any indisposition to pass it in that state should
be exhibited in another place, whatever might be the con-
sequences of that indisposition, his Majesty's Ministers
would be responsible for them.
Lord MILTON said, that if the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman congratulated himself on having his (Lord
Milton's) assistance with respect to some of the boroughs,
he should expect the assistance of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman in the propositions he should make in a few
(Jaye.

An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
complained of the special pleading that had been resorted
to for the purpose of omitting some of the boroughs that
were at first inserted in the schedule, and for the purpose
of adding others that ought never to have been there. He
hoped that some opportunity would be taken to reconsider
the schedule B.
Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS took that opportunity of en-
tering his protest against this schedule. In his opinion
the Governmeftt had proceeded most inconsistently, and
had not acted upon any settled principle.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said, there were one or
two points on which he wished for information. There
were some cases which Hon. 'Members on this side of the
House had pressed upon the Ministry, and had recom-
mended that a certain course should be adopted. This re-
commendation had been refused, and yet, when certain
other cases occurred, the course which they had recom-
mended, and which had been before refused, was then
adopted. He wished to know on what ground it was that
the Ministry had pursued such a course ? Some bo-
roughs had been taken from schedule B, and had been left
with a double representation; but to effect this change in their
favour, townships, parishes, and ehapelries had been added
to boroughs. He wished to know on what principle this
had been done in some cases, and refused in others?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he was quite ready to give
the explanation required by the Hon. Gentleman opposite.
The rules which had been laid down were adopted upon
full consideration, and in the belief that they were calcu-
lated to produce the most extensive advantage. The
lion. Gentleman must be aware that these rules, though
excellent in themselves, could not be exactly applied in all
cases, and there were of course particular cases which
would depend only on their particular circumstances.
In some instances, if the limits of boroughs as fixed by
the decisions of that House had been taken as the in-
variable rule, much injustice would have been the conse-
quence. Many of these decisions had been capriciously
given by that House before Committees appointed to ex-
amine the matter. As an instance of this, he might men-
tion the case of Shrewsbury, where a considerable part of
the town was put out of the exercise of the elective fran-
chise, because that part was considered under the in-
fluence of a proprietor whose family happened to be ad.
verse to the Minister of the day. The legal limits of the
boroughs, therefore, were not in all cases to be taken
as an unchangeable rule. It wag true that they bad put
some boroughs out of the sch
nt edulbu e, and left them
t in every one of
with two Members as at p rese,
those cases there was sufficient ground of distinction for
them to make those boroughs exceptions from the rule,
and also not to induce them to carry those exceptionsa%ni
further. Ile defended the Ministers for not
length. g
pushed the principle of exception to its extreme h
He could out but remark) that eves the COVe94IOIIB they