The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-12 00:00:00

even told that not even the Ci ow u itself was to hone the
prerogative of supervision under the provisions of the Act ?
—(Cheers.) If the Bill was to pass into a law, they wer,-
bound to use their best endeavours to make it perfect as far
as it went ; and he, therefore, thought that they ought to,
inake the most strenuous opposition to the appointment of
Commis-loners fer the i.e formanee of a rluty which really
oelonged to the 'louse ; and if it was said that the 'louse
was too numerous a hods, to take this mater into consider-
ti.iut his answer was, that in that case a CAritnitte of tb,
House mieht he ;ippointed, whose capacity to perform the
tsk would he unexciTtiooalile, and whose teed-ion, as ma-
i-rain:: from an authorised pm thin of the Hou•e, cou'd not
he called in question by the House itse,f. Another Ores
it''jeetion which he had to this part of the Bill was, that the
flouse was called upon to give at once its conseet to an in-
lefinite division of all the priiii•ipal counties of England,
without so much as knowing whether the division was
to run from Norah to South, or from Eist to West ;
so that, in voting for the additional Memlters to
()unties, they would be in fact voting for some-
thing, the effect of which they could nut by any
possibility foresee.—(Cheer..) As he had already said,
to the division of the counties (akin;; it abstractedly), Ite
the greatest objection ; but when he viewed the sub-
ject with reference to this Bill, at the same time taking
into ccimideration the disfranchise intlit that hail been in-
flicted on the borough systm by means of schedules A
irod B, he thought that the adoption of the division of the
counties was a judicious step.—(Cheers troll the Ministe-
rial side.) He thought that the teal way of giving
power to the landed interest was by the adoption of this
system ; and it was for this reason that these who thought
that the Bill did not co far enough as a democratic toes
sure, would not be pleased at hearing that he intended to
vote for the division of the counties. In spite, however.
of that displeasure, he must fairly avow that he did so
vote, because he thought that this would he the only way
to give a counterpoise to the manufacturing interest. Put
though, for this reason, lie was ready to vote for the divi-
sion of the counties, he still thought ilest the proposition
was open tiegreat improvement—(CChrers)—and more es-
pecially with respect to the appointment of Commis-
sioners, to which he had already adverted. Another great
improvement of which he thought the plan susceptib!e,
would be, if after constituting an electorial district for
each town, they were to prevent any person having a vote
in that district from having any influence at the county
election. At present there appeared to be a strange ano-
maly its this respect, fur while the freeholder, to vote for
a town election, roust be a ten-pound freeholder (he was
speahing strictly of freeholders here)---a forty-shilling free-
hold was sufficient to give him a vote for the county. There
was one other clause in the Bill to which he hail a very
great chj-ction, and he would take that opportunity of
stating it. According to the provisions of the Bill, every
forty-shilling freeholder belonging to cities that were
counties, had a right to vote at the county election, but not
for the city in which they were resident. He would take
Litchfield as an instance; in that city there were great
numbers of persons created voters by being made annui-
tants, which, though not legal, was continually practised
to a very considerable extent ; in Lichfield, probably,
there were as many as front four to five hundred of these
persons ; and he certainly thought that it would lie most
unadvisable to allow them to have a tight of voting for
the county ; it was true that it might be said that annui-
tants might, in the same way, be constituted in the county,
but there was not the same temptation there; and at all
events, they ought to take care that the counties were not
overflowed by those annuitants from the county cities. He
did nut know whether these objections, which he thought
most important, could be got over ; but, at all events, he
should vote for the division of the counties on the ground
he had already stated—that it would be giving much
greater influence to the possessors of landed estates, and
consequently be the means of returning to that House
those country gentlemen, who, it WO; agreed on all hands,
were most active in transacting the business of the country.
A country gentleman, in his opinion, would have been a
much fitter representative for Yorkshire than the present
Lord Chancellor; and the great advantage that such a one
would derive from the proposed division would be, that he
would be able to secure his return at a much cheaper rate.
Mr. GISBORNE could not agree with the Right
Hon Baronet, that it would be better to confine the annu-.
itants of county cities to voting for those cities, and not
for the counties ; if they were so confined, they would
bare much more power in influencing the election than if
they were put upon the county, where the number of
freeholders sometimes amounted to eight or 10,000
Sir J. WROTTESLEY expressed a similar opinion.
Colonel DAVIES was astonished at the manner in
which the Right Hon. Baronet was going to vote, especi-
ally after the lamentation with which he bad commenced;
nor was this all, for after the Right Hon. Baronet had
been at extraordinary pains to show the evil that would
arise from appointing Commissioners to superintend the
division of counties, he concluded by expressing his de-
termination to vote fin the very measure that would give
them that power. The Right Hon. Baronet had talked of
democratic influence ; he was averse to democratic influ-
ence; but he was equally averse to aristocratic nomina-
tion, and he thought, after giving 250 Members to the
counties, no one could say that the interests of the Aristo-
cracy were not taken care of. He concluded by declaring
his intention to vote for the propestion of the Hon.
Member behind him (Mr. 11. Hughes), and observed at
the same time be should move, to-morrow, that no person
who voted for a city or borough should be allowed also to
vote for a county.
Mr. HODGES said that the part of the Bill which he
approved of least was the division of the counties; hut
the keling in favour of the whole Bill was so unanimous
through the country, that he had been induced to alter his
opinion. He was not so much afraid cf aristocratic in-
fluence as some other persons seetned to be; and although
he believed he would offend many of his constituents, yet,
as the country demanded the who!e Bill, he was hound to
preserve !he consistency of the measure, and to vote for
the division of counties. ho hoped, however, that in the
future elitists some provision would be made for the fur-
ther extension of voting in counties.
Mr. C. WYNN said he would support the proposition
for a division of counties. He had formerly, upon the
question of giving four Members to York, intimated his
owpeitsitioßnitdhinagt
the
st
would he equally beneficial in the. other great counties of
st,ileaniAdiemllbetrvsassbcuounidv inbecegdivtchnatto Eprainciainsliel
England. He objected, however, to the method of ar-
Commissioners,
anli:undon this sys-
anntndgli,t,i,gpetlite d
ti,a,tvitsiiiietris
o til,neortg
ii,iLtlttewn:,etiahnis
tem of delegation, and leave the boundaries to be arranged
by Pailiament, who writer], he was convinced, pass a Bill
for that purpose much sooner than the Commissioners
could agree on their plan of division.
Sir GEORGE MURRAY saw so much of a demo-
cratic principle in the Bill, that be was happy to give all
the Members in his potter to the counties. Ile objected,
however, to the division of the counties, because he

wished to avoid taking any step towards recognising the
employment of Commissioners, and because it might lead
afterwards to a departmental division of the kingdom,
which he thought highly obj,ctionable in any ease, and
which, in other hands than those of the present Govern-
ment, might ultimately }move dangerous, and be made still
further to operate to an increase of democratic influence.
After a few words from Mr. SAVILLE LumLEY, the
purport of which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. LITTLETON said, that unless the counties were
divided, the contests for a seat ;you'd he so frequent and so
expensive, that no Member would he able to retain his

place unless he made mean and unworthy sacrifices to the
sentiments anti prejudices of his constituents. As to the
division through the means of the Commissioners, he was

content to Inv; that plan to be carried into effect by the
honourable and intelligent men who would doubtless he

selected for this purpose by his Majesty's Government.
Mr. BRISCOE was determined to support the amend..
writ, because he thought the original proposition had a
tendency to subvert and neutralise the whole of the other

parts of the Bill. Now, he would ask, could those who

i'avoured popular representation vote for a measure which
would deprive the middle classes and mm of moderate
property of all their just influence in their counties ?

The proposal division of counties was calculated to rea►ore

that nest of corruption hich it was the protested object
of the Bill to destroy, and to put an end to the hope of a
full, fair, and free representation of the people.
Mr. BENETT expressed his regret at Icing compelled
to vote .against his Majesty's Government on the present
occasion.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL observed that in the
first Bill it was proposed to give to two or three Members
of the Privy Council the power to divide the counties.
That however appeared too gl,irimr, too enormous ; and
so in the present Bill it was proposed to give that power
to three, four, or five Commissioners, irresponsible, whose
decision was to remain unrevised by any one. He could never

consent to the delegation in this manner of that which
ought to be the exclusive province of the Legislature. No
Principle was laid down upon which the Commissioners
were to proceed. They were not told whether they were
to divide counties according to property, according to po-
pulation, according to the payment of taxes, or according
to any other rule. All this w,03 to be done, too, without
any previous intimation to those whose rights were thus
to be interfered with. Why, there was not a Canal
Bill, a Ihrhour Bill, a Dock Bill, a Turnpike mid Bill,
introduced into that House without a previous notice to

',stoic:, in (Ida that tic flu ties interested sleight
'guard against the infringement of their rights. And here
was a measure cutting tip all the counties of England
into slices, without notice, without appeal. What a
mockery was this 1 But it all tended to forward the pro-
gress of revolution. It all tended td a direct iacobinical
division of the country. It was a sequel to the measure
proposed by :Le Lord Privy Seal in 1821, for the purpose
of ono:tinning England into departmental divisions:
Whst woald be the enscquonce of adopting the proposi-
tion under eensiderrion ? There were many Hon: Tilsit!-
It rs who no at fancied t! emsrlc•es eetin ry Member-.
Would they he so by-and by ? For instance, there would
be no Hon. MenO•er for Wiltshir e He wrood
be sol't into a Member for the North of Wiltshire,
and a Member for the South of Wiltshire. The Noble
Lord opposite would not be the Member for Northampton-
shire. lie must be described by a circumlocution, tra-
v flog :Itrouel, the names of eeverrl little districts. There
w-orld be Cee nf:er for the North of Surrey and the
Niember for the South of Surrey—the Member for the
Maidstone division of Kent, and the Mender for the
Canterbury division of Keno Fifty per cent, would be
deducted from the present impor taece and dignity of a
county Member. At present the 'Member for a county
thought himself greatly superior to the Mendel. for a bo-
rough. But when a yre-ent county Member became only
a half-courov Member, he, the humble Member for Bo-
roughbridge, might stand erect by Its aide.—(A laugh.)
The propesitioo was to bring down the indeproolent and
dionificd county Member to the level of the pr or corrupt
Member for a borough. This was a change which, in
his opinion, was exceedingly unrehotesome. Arid who
were the Commissioners to he ? Addison had said
" that it was itnpossible to dislike those who we had
never seen, and whom we (lid rot know," He (Sir C.
Wetl:erel') could not be supposed, therefore, to speak from
prejudice. But he felt it impossible to consent to entrust
these incognito Commissioners with the power of destroy-
ing or diminishing, at their pleasure, !he influence of the
landed interest of the whole country. It was an anomaly
in the practice of the Constitution to which he would on-
pose all the resistance of which he was capable.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that if, instead of pro-
posing that the division of counties should be made by
Commissioners to be appointed by Parliament, it had been
proposed that it should be made by a Committee of that
/louse, all the ditlieultica which they had experience.' in
going through the schedules would have been material:),
aggravated. For the Hon. and Learned Member for Bo-
rouglibridge would still call oil that would he proposed in
that Committee blunders or corruption; and their pro-
ceedings would be involved in interminable details. It was
in anticipation of all these diffieulti.s, that it was in the
first instance proposed to refer the subject to certain mem-
bers of the Privy Council, now changed to Commis-
sioners. The objections made to the division of counties
were partly to the crop rsition itself, and partly to the
mode in 'which it was to be carried into effect. On the
mode he had already said something. Ile would say
further, that although it was pi oposed to effect the obj-ct
by the instrumentality, of Commissioners, there was nothing
in the Bill to prevent Parliament, if they thought any di-
vision had been ill made, to reverse the act of the Commis-
sioners, and to make a different division. As to the pro-
position ioelf, the division of counties would give birth to
a greater variety of interests, If a county were to return
four Members, instead of being divided into two districts
returning two Members each, the return would, in many
cases, he more a matter of chance than of choice. He
quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Montgomery,
that it was very desirable, generally speaking, that the
county Members should he permanent representatives.
Now it was quite dear that the election of four Members
would be liable to more vacillation and vicissitude than
the election of two Members. Itwould also he attended
with a greater expense to the constituency. Adverting to
the proposition of the lion. Member for Worcester, he
begged to remark, that allowing freeholders to vote in
towns would have the effect of converting them into no-
mination boroughs, and therefore art effect directly con-
trary to that intended by Hon. Gentleman.
Cololonel SIBTHORPE said, he would regard the
acts of the Commissioners with extreme jealousy, as gen-
tlemen on that side of the House had no meani of con-
trouling the election of those functionaries. He was glad
to see the Hon. Members oppcsite divided in opinion upon
this question, and thought the farther they went with this
Bill the mote necessity would be seen for altering it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the people of Englano
had been fascinated by that principle of the Bill which de-
stroyed nomination boroughs. Schedule A had delighted
the whole nation ; but nothing, however, would have been•
done—all the labour of that House would be thrown away
and the country disappointed and deluded—if they now
set up one set of nomination places instead of another.
From the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
and from the admissions of the Ministers themselves, he
was convinced these districts would be completely nomi-
nation districts, and quite as rotten as the nomination bo-
roughs. It was perfectly evident that the great proper-
ties, which in a whole county might balance each other,
or be balanced by a crowd of smaller properties, would be
of overbearing influence in its own district. This clause
Was, in fact, making a mockery of the Bill instead of a
reality. It was holding out the word of hope an-I promise
to the ear, arid not keeping it to the good sense.—(A
laugh.) All who cherished the democratic principle
ought to vote against this clause. If they looked back to
history, they would see that every country has prospered
and flourished in proportion to the extent of its democratic
Principle.—(A laugh.) He would, he admitted, vote for
this clause if he thought it would promote the vote by bal-
lot. This he did not believe, and therefore wished to se-
cure the only other protection for the freeholders—namely,
voting in large masses. On the same principle of Reform
upon which he had supported all the other clauses of the
Bill, he would vote agaiust that.
Lord MILTON declared lie would vote for the division
of the counties. He admitted that influence of familir s
might be increased in some few of the smaller counties,
but to no great extent. The statement of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Kerry was, he could state of his own knowledge,
most exaggerated. No division of any c linty would have
much less than 100,000 inhabitants, and therefore, to say
all their divisions would be nomination places, Was absurd.
Mr. HUNT said it was obvious there was at once a do-
fectiein in the ranks of Ministers, and a split in the enemy's
camp. He concurred with the Noble Lord in approving
of the division, as the best mode of proceeding under all
the circumstances. He thought Government ou-'ht not to
n
be left in the lurch on the present occasion, and expressed
his belief that to defeat this clause was to defeat the whole
Bill ; and he commented uponwthlirechitnicie(yrossisotesntor:
of
uou theiy
Hon. Member for Kerry, and others who knew this clause
'4
supported,
ami n the
Bill of last year,
and for which they had so recently declared,
shouting aloud for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing
but the Bill—(1Iear, hear, hear)—and who now, never-
theless, deserted Ministers, and rushed forward to oppose
it. lle aserved, too, how he bad been denounced by the
lion. Member for Kerry, when he had said this Bill was,
in essence, an aristocratic measure; and yet now the Hon.
Gentleman asserted the same thing Touching tie ap;
polo tment of the Commissioners, he had a scheme to pro-
pose.
R was to call a county meeting, and lot the free-
holders appoint three honourable men belonging to the
county, who knew the localities, and on whom they could
depend, to divide the county. In conclusion he stated,
tree
o support Government cwhonmwenistheend ttoheseeptrheeselnltillca rbecause they had been deserted by many who ought
occa-
sion,nihdave adhered to them.
that__allout

Mr. GOULBUIIN declared he would vote for the divi-
sion of countiep, because it was calculated to do more to
maintain the just influence of property, than could bs
obtained by giving an increase of representation to the
county at large.

Lord STANLEY said, that he had used his utmost en-
deavours to ascertain the feeling of the county he repre-
sented on this subject, and be had only been able to rind
one individual ill favour of the proposed division.
Mr- H. HUGHES was resolved to go to a division on
his amendment.

I Air• C. PELHAM said a few word..
'
Mr. BLANIIRE said that, though the county of Cum-
berland had now a small population, it had a large consti-
tuency,amounting to above 9,000 ; and he believed that
tleision would have a most injurious effect upon the
freedom of election in that county.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared--
For the original clause oil
For the amendment l 3"
Majority in favour of Ministers....-1 C 9
The House resumed, and the other Orders of the Day
having been diipesed of,
the House adjourned at Two o'clock.

ISO USE OF LORDS, AuGusr 11.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at a Quarter past Five o'clock.
Lord SKELAIERSDALE moved the second reading of
the Ecclesiastical Exchan,:e Bill : which, after a few ob-
servatior.s of the Noble Earl, explanatory of the nature of
the Bill, was ordered to be committed.
The Earl of FINCIALL presented two petitions from
raishes in the county of Meath against the grant to the
Kildare-street Societt.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice that to-