The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-13 00:00:00

TING, DECEMBER 13, 1831

-,is.e.ries of 100 boroughs, leginning with the lowest, and
takine the number of houses and the amount of their as-
sessed taxes together. From , his return. of . these (the
grounds of which, in a letter and in an affidavit, explanatory
of the courselie has pursued, are now before the House), the
first step of the Reform Bill, the schedule A, is based.
The next Tiestion for . the Government to decide, was
What thee would take as their principle of disfranchise-
ment, and where. they would draw fie line. Now, as I
'lave said, it must be in every way an arbitrary line—
whether you are to take the number of population, the
number of houses,. or the assessed taxes, it must in every
ease he an arbitrary line-:-igreunded on the principle, that
Cie horeughs below a certain nombernre undoubtedly by far
too incon,iderable.to alloy ; them the least hcipe for having
the election Of Meinbere of ParUatnent, and that it is better
to transfer the rights, not rigbts.indeed enjoyed by them,
but only nominally their rights—to .transfer those
rights, to the great counties, or the large, populous, and
Wealthy cities. and towns , throughout the country.
As to the schedules A ,and Be it will be found
that those of last year contained, generally speaking,
pretty fairly the number of boroughs that were to be
disfranchised. The consequence of taking that scale is,
that sBine.liwougbe , which formerly escaped disfranchise-
menje' as poptilookatatlerge, will now be placed in sche-
dule A, while others, which arc better towns in com-
parison, will be' placed out even of schedule B. The
latter are five in number, and a sixth is under considera-
tion. The towns that are to,be taken from schedule B are
Aldborough, in Yorkshire—(Cheers from the Opposition)
--.Aliersham, East Grinstead, Oakhampton, and Saltash.
There is one other borough, which n-as in the list of the
forty-one boroughs in schedule B, and with respect to
Which there are even now still some doubts as to what are
the proper limits of the borough.' That is the borough of
Ashburton. Following up the same principle, the bo-
roughs of Midhurst,. Petersfield, Eye, Wareham, Wood-
stock, and Lostwitbiel; will be no longer in schedule A.
The other part of the disfranchising clause relates to sche-
dule B; and, in speaking of that schedule, I must say,
that it stands upon a different principle from that which
governs schedule A. . The borotighs placed in schedule A.
were placed there as Unfit, from the smallness of their size,
or low amount of population, to have a right to send
Members at all,, as it was unlikely they could enjoy the
,freedom of election. , But the boroughs placed in schedule
B were placed there originally more with a view to the
general frame of the representation than with any other par-
ticular. object ; and, in the first place, not to give to the
smaller boroughs such a large share in the representation as
they would haVe if they were to have two Members, and also
with the view to diminishing the numbers of the House.
With regard to the propriety of these boroughs not having
two Members, the opinion of the framers of the Bill is un-
changed—with respect to the other point, namely, as to fill-
ing up the Members of the House, it has been a matter of
consideration, many having objected to the diminution of
the House, whether it would not be more advantageous to
conciliate them without violating the great general prin.
ciplesnf the measure. In considering that question another
advantage was perceived—in filling up the number
it had been one of the most constant objections to the
measures Government had proposed, that many of
the large towns in the kingdom being left with
only one Member, would be in a state of discontent till
they obtained a second. Without yielding entirely to that
argument, it will be evident that great advantage would
be gained, if by :so giving a second Member, such objection
might in some degree be obviated ; but it was evident that
the whole number of these vacant places could not he given
to the towns in conformity with a motion made by a
Noble Friend of his, the Blember for Northampton,
which would have been giving too much weight to
the manufacturing towns ; neither would it be proper to
give them to the great counties ; wherefore if given
'to some of the highest in schedule B, there was this re-
commendation, that it took away some, of those objec-
tions that had been made to the Bill without in any
way injuring tbe'priticiple of the Bill. It is, therefore,
proposed that out of the twenty-three Members that re-
main in order to fill up the numbers of the House, ten
shall be given to the more considerable towns in schedule
B, that one shall be given to Chatham, in order to separate
it from Rochester, and one to the county of Monmouth,
which has repeatedly petitioned for another borough Mem-
ber, and which has, of late years, much increased in po-
pulation and wealth, and that the other eleven shall be
given to the larger towns, that would otherwise be in
schedule B. In consequence of this arrangement, there
will be thirty boroughs in schedule B instead of forty-one,
and instead of there being sixty-nine places sending but
'one Member each, there will be only forty-nine. Accord-
ing to the present population, and to the scale which I
have Mentioned, founded upon the houses and the as-
sessed taxes, we have prepared the list of the boroughs in
schedule B, which are now reduced to thirty, and which,
in several instances, 'differs from the former lists, besides
the cases of the eleven boroughs to which I have already
referred.—(fhe Noble Lord here read the list, but frosts
the low tone and hasty manner in which be read this, as
well as some other papers to which he referred, we were
unable to catch the names of all the towns be mentioned.
Those we . did hear were, Hythe, Lostwithiel,
Westbury, Wareham, Wilton, Midhurst, Woodstock,
Amesbury, Liskeard, Droitwich, Eye, Lyme-Regis,
Downton, Horsham, Thirsk, St. Ives, Morpeth,
Caine, Clitheroe, Helston, Christchurch, and Great
Marlow.)—These are the circumstances which I have
thought it right to state to the House. I know
not what use may be made of the statement.
It was the subject of much comment in a former session.
According to the, returns respectiug those eleven towns,
and on the subject of which fresh information has been
received, we are led. to think that the proper course will
be to remove them from schedule B. Amongst those
eleven is the borough of Tavistock, and I presume I need
not inform the House that it was my most earnest desire
that everything should lie done which could supply to the
House and the public every possible information, as it was
one which bad been more questioned and was likely to be
more examined and scrutinized than any other, and I am,
for that and other reasons, most anxious that every pos-
sible light should be thrown upon its condition and circum-
stances. But if any gentleman choose to say that any
unfair rule has been attempted to be established with re-
spect to that borough—that any unfair advantage has been
taken for the purpose of plating it beyond the reach of
disfranchisement—if gentlemen will say that, I shall
only say that such statement is utterly false and un-
founded. The towns to which I Teter are Bolton,
Brighton, Bradford, Blackb urne, Macclesfield, Stock-
port, Stoke-upon .Trent, Halifax, and Stroud (including
Tavistock, the Noble Lord stated, but ten towns,
though he said there were eleven). I have now done with
olbßntehei anotherin.rtgiven
With
vo(' fipl
that part of the Bill which relates to disfranchisement,
and that part which relates to the enfranchise-
ment
schedule-nnrae,7dp proposed
alsieecd,
o right
ihdgeihnltgr nowgftobvt
otthoi
efn
gcvooimnti
proposedencgi
cities
itteoos
o:ftaortdihnbeteoßttrihhielee;
tiaalairngnrtdgreeat town., beyond which there is no
and boroughs, I wish it to be particularly understood by
the House, and because the great disfranchisement clause
in schedule A, and the 10/. enfranchisement clause,' are
the two pillars on which this measure rests.—(Cheers.)
That without them this measure will be useless—(Cneers)
—that with them any minor defects in the Bill will
be amply compensated, by the great enfranchisement of
large town, by the great disfranchisement of nomina-
tion bormghs, and by the security of the right of voting
in cities and boroughs, founded on the common law of
the land, and particularly adapted to the present state
of the country, and which is likely to bring into the con-
stituency of towns those best qualified by their in-
telligence, by their interest in the country, and by
the interest it is necessary the Constitution of the coun-
try should have in them—the Very best qualified
to form the constituency of a large portion of this House.
I do not think it necessary at this time to go at length
into the Merits of the ten-pound enfranchise-
ment clause ; on another day, on the second read-
ing of the Bill, or on any other occasion, I shall
be ready to defend all the provisions of the Bill, and
even that part of the Bill which was the most unpalatable,
especially as some persons suppose that by raising the fran-
chise in large towns, and diminishing it in the smaller ones,
we should be making a sort of scot and lot boroughs, and
that we should be alienating from the Constitution &large
body of intelligent voters. With regard to that part of the
Reform Bill, we have never yet entertained any pro-
ject which' should have the effect of altering its value.
It will he recollected that by the clause, as originally pro-
posed in the last Bill, voters were obliged to pay a rent of
101., and before the person could vote, it was necessary that