The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-05 00:00:00

and therefore that country ilt'stel6cl a Very dibrent picture now
to what it, did at the Wine of the Union. The population had
also increaml greatly, though not in proportion to the increased
revenue.—( ear, hear.) He therefore contended that Scotland
was entitled to an increased franchise. The Noble Lord (Al-
thorp), when he introduced the Bill to the House, laid it down
as a principle, that he gave a greater number of representatives
to some counties on account of the extent of poplilation. There
were 27 counties in England, cptithining abov'e 150,0,•0 inhabi,
tants, to each of which four Members were .given ; and he
claimed the like extensinti of the elective franchise for thelarge
counties Of &ottatr3,-(Hear, and (cheers fm,qll the Scpteh Mem-
bers.) Ifi tie Er.glish Bill, that Heust had sanctioned the giv.._
ing additional Members to counties, as a sort of balance against
the mantifaeturing,intereSis ; and he Was,of Opinion the same ba-
lance ought tOte':,`lsien to &Ottani:l, and for kitilit reason he moved
that two Ate ;;hers shctuld be given tb bounties which he should
hereatar name. To four counties in Wales, additional Members
had been Alien and la Mentioned this fact to strengthen his Sr.
gument. Ti' Nit large towns of Stroud 'and 4k.shtentlinder-Line,
on account of their vast population, tddltto`Aal Members had been
given; and lie saw no reason
..why the same principle should not
be adopted with respeO'td Sbolland. With regard to the English
counties to whichtti`o Members had been given, Durham contained
a population Pf 207,000, sending to Parliament ten represents:
tives. Nrot•thumberland, containing 126,000 inhabitant% Sent
fotr County and seven other Mcnitler. to th4t tioils'e.--ih all
eleven. Cumberland, contain? 06;90 Inhhiratits, sent four
county and four horodg Mem etk. EN *but l proceed to di-
rect the attention ',Who Aso to the state of the representation
of the Scotch eonnties. .t. first was Perth, which he had the
4
honour of representing, containing 139,000 inbabitints, as ap-
peared by 'the '?.ensus of 1831, yet that county:, thf population of
which *d% larger than Cumberland, alkie.i sends eight Members
to Parliament, only had the powr:r of returning two Members.—
( Hear.) If the borlght foptliation of Cumberland was taken
away, it was redtiCed ea . 11,000, and so was the populapon of
Perth, which 4, ht the Bill, to send only one Member to Parlia-
inent--L(Hear)—while Cumberland was to, BMA four. There
were Set-th counties in England which, by the Bill, were to send
three Members each to Parliament, the I opulation being the
same as those counties In SWealiel Which henow proposed should
send two Members,-41-tear.) On what ground his fair and just
rroposition was to b S tesisted he knew not ; for he saw no reason
why the rerintleS of Scotland should be so restricted iri their re-
preseptatibb, and be debarred a benefit, trrhit,h, in his opinion,
they had a right to claim under tli Bill.—(Hear.) , He, there-
fore, moved that the following words be inserted in the clause
moved by the Noble t•efd I—. That two Members be returned for
the counties named In the schedule A annexed, viz. Aberdeen-
shire, Ayr, lerth, Porfar, Edinburgh, Banff, Fife, and Renfrew."
Lottk XLTHORP said, that the Hon. Gentleman who had just
taken his seat had proposed to increatt the number of Members
for Scotland from 45 to 61. Mlle Bill proposed to give eight ad-
ditional Member:, and be }lad been led to believe that the in-
crease from 45 totl Would have satisfied the Hon. Members who
supported We tiresent motion. The representation was not fixed
according tri the amount of population or revenue. If at the
Unit% the population of Scotland was as to England only thirty.
six to one, and was now as eight and a half to one, as had been
stated by the Hon. Gentleman, aliti if the number of representa-
tives were according to the population, there would have been
only sixteen Mi!mbers for Scotland at the time of the Union in
proportion ttil the English Members, and at the present time
Spotland would be entitled to one hundred and sixty-eight
Members.—(Hear.) Therefore, the question of revenue ought
to be put out of the consideration, as that was not the principle
on which the number of Members were given. While the
number of Members for England anti Wales had been di-
minished by the Bill, the number for Scotland had been in-
creased. The ntln. Gentleman says, that as an increase of county
Members.has been given in England, they ought to give an in.
crease of Members to Scotch counties, where the population is as
great, omitting to state that the number of electors in Scotch
counties were not proportionally as great as in England. He
would instance the county of Lanark, with a population of nearly
300,000, in which there were but 2,500 electors. He, however,
did not admit, but denied that Population alone was to be consi-
dered, In ficbtland they found.the representation unequal. They
found the manufacturing interests and the householders entirely
without representation—(Hear)—and therefore the increased
Members were given 'to large towns. He did not think that the
proposed increase of. County Members, if adopted, would be
founded on justice; and it was his opinion that the counties
were fairly represented according to the nurrber of electors, and
should, therefore, oppose the motion. It was not from any petty
jealous feeling of giving too enlarged a franchise to Scotland that
he opposed the measure; fir he wished the people of Scotland
to be hilly and fairly represented, and he was convinced the Bill
would effect that. object.. .
Sir a CLERK spoke in favour of the motion.

Mr. JOHN CAMPBELL did not think Scotland required ad.
ditional Members, and it was somewhat inconsistent in those
gentlemen who voted against the motion of General Gascoyne
for retaining the 513 English Members, that they should wish to
increase the number of Members for Scotland. It had been said
that the number of Members already in that House was too
large; and he confessed that, according to the size of that

Ho-use, a greater number would be inconvenient, as there were
not seats for all at present. He should oppose the motion, be-
Eieving it unnecessary.

Mr. R. DUNDAS, said that Scotland was hardly dealt with,
and was justly, entitled to an increase in the representation,
whether considered as regarded its increased population or re-
venue ; but he did not expect his Hon. Friend's motion to be
carried, when there were so many Members opposite who were
pledged to the Bill.

-Mr. GILLON said, the people of Scotland were fully satisfied
with the Bill. It was not an increased number of Members they
required—they looked to the quality of the Members—(Hear)—
which would be returned under the Lew system of represents..
tion ; and he was confident the people of Scotland hailed the
measure as one that would be productive of the greatest benefit
to that country.

Mr. J. W. CROKER said that a lawyer and a Scotsman (Mr.
Campbell) had opposed the motion, because, as he said, the num.
ber of Members were already inconveniently large. The truth
was, that the House was inconveniently small ; and if the House
had been filled as it ought to have been, the Hon. Mover would
have that night achieved a victory in the cause of Scotland.
Cumberland, he thought it hardly necessary to argue, was not
entitled .to two Members, when it had not a population of more
than 150,000, whilst such rising counties a: Perthshire and La-
narkshire, with populations nearly double that of Cumberland; had
only one Member. each.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill completely
pulled down all the old fortifications of Scotland, strong with but-
tresses, &c., and substituted inferior buildings, with light draw-
ing-rooms. If Scotland was to have her ancient castles scattered
in the dust, why was she not to receive in lieu of them a system
which would be based on the principle ofjustice ?—(Hear.) By the
Bill a most important line was drawn between England and Scot-
land, and he should not wonder if the old border wars were to be
renewed. The caterans might with justice go into Cuinberiand
and Northumberland, not for the purpose of carrying away
beeves and sheaves, but for the purpose of levying black-mail on
the numerous representatives which Cumberland and Northum-
berland Unjustly possessed.—(Laughter.) All was lost in Eng-
land. Not a borough or a corporation but had been changed.
Nothing, remained of those numerous vehicles by which the
Windhams the Russells, the Burkes, and Sheridans gave the
benefit of their illustrious and splendid services to the country
What was left ? Nothing but the imaginary line. between Eng-
tand and. Scotland—on one side of which there was unjust
favour, and on the other national degradation.--(Cheers.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by again adverting' to the
injustice which had been done to Lanarkshire and cther counties.
Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. CROKER mutually explained.
Mr. MABERLY said that the landed interests of Scotland
were in no way represented.' Those who bought superiorities
frequently had not an inch of land in Scotland. :The people. had
no voice whatever in the representation, and yet the Right Hon.
gentleman argued against the change in the superioritie-, which
he foil wed up by maintaining that Scotland, by the Bill, iad not
had sufficient justice dealt out to her.
Mr. CROKER denied having given any opinion as yet with
respect to the-supetiorities. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think,
that because Scotland had hitherto had only superiorities, the
should have in future nothing but inferiorities.—(Laughter.)
Colonel LINDSAY should vote for the amendment, although,
if he thought the people were in favour of the Bill, it would have
great weight with him.

Admiral ADAM declared that the people of Scotland were in
favour of the Bill, as might be judged from the feeling displayed
at the last general election.

Sir C. F ORBES contended that superiorities were a legal spe-
cies of property, and that the possession of them were legal
titles to vote at elections. •

Mr. M ‘BERLY repeated that superiorities were like nomi-
nation boroughs.

Mr. C. FEit GUSSON said that the Bill would place the re.
oresentatives of Scotland in a more independent situation ; still
he thought that more Members should have been given to her,
when they considered how long she had been deprived of the be-
nefit of free representation, and how many more Members
Wales in comparison possessed, and that, too, although it did
not benefit the revenue in a proportion at all approaching to that
which cotland did.

Lord ALTHORP had certainly not heard many strong argu-
ments advanced that night against the Bill. Ile was still of opi-
nion that Scotland had always had a sufficient number of repre-
sentatives to enable her to keep up her independence. Did the
House recollect the time when the Scotch Members united and
defeated the Scotch Notes' Bill. The' Government had certainly
not employed the same extended principle with regard to Scot-
land as had been observed in respect to England ; but then how
different had been the representation of the two countries. A
considerable portion of Scotland had never' been represented—
he alluded to the middle classes. By this Bill they would be re-
presented, and a great benefit would be, in consequence, derived
by Scotland.—(Mr. CROKER said, " you have done this much but
you have not done enough.") This, he thought, was treating
Government unfairly, and not giving them sufficient credit for
what they had done. Scotland had, in comparison, received quite
as much benefit by the Reform measure as England. The Right
Hon. Gentleman's speech, with respect to. Cumberland, was
nothing more than a repetition of some of his oration during the
orogress of the English Reform Bill, to which he (Lout Althorp)
had so often replied. Atter this he did not think that Govern..
ment should be pressed on the subject,—(Cheers.)
Sir G. WARRENDER said the Bill would exclude a great
number of Scotch gentlemen from getting into Parliament, and,
therefore, the Members for Scotland ought to be encreased.—
When the Small Notes' Bill was defeated, the Scotch Members
were supported by a number of Scotch gentlemen who obtained
seats in the House in various ways which would now be shut to
them. Scotland ought not to be dealt with by a comparison with
what had been done for England. Scotland presented quite a
diftbyent and di.tinct case ; a case of justice and demanding at-
tention, and as such the Committee ought to give ear to her
claims which were contained in some measure in the amendment.
Mr. JAMES had never heard a more radical speech than he
had that night from Mr. Croker. It came with a bad grace from
him who had in the outsetbeen opposed to all Reform.
Mr. CROKER said his speech could not have been a radical
one, for if it had, the Hon. Member would not have been so dis-
pleased at it.—(A laugh.)
Mr. RUTHVEN took the opportunity of stating that Ireland
was entitled to additional Members. The Hon. Member was fre-
quently interrupted by cries of " Oh, oh." At length they be-
came so sonorous that he observed they were ungentlemanly;
he never pursued such a course, and no gentleman would ever
pursue such a course towards him when he (Mr. Ruthven) knew
who he was.
A division then took place on the amendment—

For it ,
Against it ll3
Majority for the clause —s2
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked leave to
sit again on Thursday.

The SPEAKER took the chair, and the report of the Ways
and Means Committee was brought up and agreed to.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Two o'clock.

DORSET ELECTION.-(THIRD DAY.)

DORCHESTER, MONDAY

To-day has been singular for the large number of freeholders
who have polled. Indeed we are informed that so great a body
have never on any previous occasion been brought up in one day
in the county of Dorset, and the majority, it will be observed,
have voted for the 'Reform candidate, notwithstanding the op-
posite party have, it is said, not abstained from causing a liberal
distribution of money in order to induce them not to come up.
The Reform party are full of confidence.
Among the visitors to-day were the Tory family of Bankes,
father and two sons, and Sir James Scarlett, the latter of whom
voted for Lord Ashley; but neither of them addressed the free-
holders.
The numbers were at the close of the poll, for—
Day's Poll. Gross Poll.
lord Ashley 433 1,125
n Mr. Po.onby
Although this statement leave. Lord Ashley a heald26of his
opponent, yet it shows an advantage the day's poll of 50 votes
in favour of the latter,