The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-20 00:00:00

borough the same advantages. These were not, indeed,
biaexpressions, but they were nearly so, and, at least, they
were uttered in the same speech, and with the spirit of
such a-conclusion. Whether the facts he had thus stated
would produce the impression he expected on the House,
he could not say ; but he thought that he had done enough
to ''how that the case of Appleby was one which impera-
tively called on the Ministry to change it from its present
situation, and place it in schedule B.
Mr. CARTER said, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
nstPrPanin'iof teenjoyed the singular honour of continuing that
imputation on the motives of the Ministers, which
had indeed been begun in the last Parliament, but which,
except by the Right Hon. Gentleman, had not been repeated
i° tbis•—(Cheers.) He must confess, that, in his opinion,
that Strain of imputation was totally unwarranted by the
taets.--(Hear.) He asserted that the borough of Appleby
was properly retained in schedule A. No min could look
at the papers now upon the table of this House, and not
ace that upon the census of 1821 the borough was pro-
Perly placed where it was. According to the return of
1821, some boroughs were placed alone, and in some the
boroughs and parishes were united. The rule was clear
!weigh, and the special wto be exceptions. Upon
bearing the observations `made upon the case of Appleby,
be had at first believed that that borough, if properly re-
turned as to its extent and population, included the pa-
rishes of St. Lawrence and St. Michael's ; and that, by
omitting to include the population of these two parishes,
the return of 1821 had dune injustice to this borough.
But the people of Appleby themselves did nut pretend to
say that the return was incorrect, and that that of 1811
eught alone to be depended on.
M. CROKER had not intended to say that the return
1811 was to he taken in preference to that of 1821.
Mr. CARTER had so understood the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and so must every one else.—(Hear, bear, hear.)
The return which he had looked into showed that the
Parish of St. Lawrence and the parish of St. Miehael were
einlY touched upon by the boundaries of Appleby. The
borough was not included in either of these parishes.—
when a borough was included in a parish the Government
Properly enough took the population of the parish as their
standard, but they did not go into other parishes. The
borough of Buckingham only contained 3,465, with the
entire parish of Buckingham ;, but as the pariah included
the borough, the population of the borough was taken as
thenatandard. It was precisely the same with the borough
ol'n''„"akhampton, the population of which only amounted to
7;7 ; but the parish, which included the borough, con-
'aared 2,973, and was, therefore, taken to be entitled to
• MeMber. It was the same with Morpeth, the single
Parish of which contained 4,792 inhabitants, although
the borough itself 'was less populous ; but then the
borough was contained within one parish alone. The
tame was the case with Tamworth, as the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite would be able to testify ; and the same
rule had brought the borough of Horsham within the be-
nefit of the exception provided by Ministers. There was
inconsistency in this, and the facts on which the Right
f "n• Gentleman opposite made his charge having been
-1441 insufficient, the imputations he superadded must
~°
'et;ainly fall to the ground.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
°lr. RIDLEY COLBORNE with respect to the im-
Patation of motives, could fearlessly assert that a Noble
personage,
hitherto supposed the patron of the borough of
t"bam, would gain no advantage from the change, for
believed that he (Mr. R C.) could no longer count
mere
seat secure, through influence at least, for there
e note two gentlemen canvassing that borough. He
tr r°uld say, however, that if ever there was a Noble Lord
w,
"° had willingly made personal sacrifices of political in-
terest, it was the Noble Person to whom he alluded.
I°lr. H GURNEY said, that the parish now excluded
riciln the census of Appleby was a more important part of
d 2, borough than the parish which had been retained. He
ould vote to transfer the borough of Appleby to Sche-
ele
la
e ; and he contended that it was not unconstitutional
or Peers to return Members, as the Lords of Appleby
Castle had alone so from time immemorial.
Coltinel DAVIES wished to know whether the limits
°f the borough and the limits of the town were co-ex.
4riaive ?. If the Noble Lord (John Russell) could not
aa,nwee thee question satisfactorily, he (Colonel Davies)
e"°ald vote in favour of Appleby.
_Lord J. RUSSELL referred to the letter of the Mayor,
Which shewed that the whole population of the boroughs
th 1,054. The rest of the inhabitants, in order to raise
e emote to 2,600, were to be found in two country
Parishes, As he was upon his legs he would say one word
fas t° the charge of partiality. The Right Hon. Member
orAldeburgh (Mr. Croker) had displayed a great deal of
humourl„_ in what he had said respecting Caine and
row
the rest, for the sake of illustrating the position that
blea_istere had favoured their Whig supporters and friends.
had also instanced Morpeth in the same spirit, omitting
Were take
the slightest notice of seven other places, which
not Whig boroughs, but which were similarly cir-
cumstanced
the • He (Lord John Russell) was not angry at
accusation, because it was made, first, with so much
e„uitleur ; and next, with so much extravagance. Ceti-
67t3re was an important part of humour. He felt con-:
fnent) however, that he need not mind any such attacks.
'leo, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman would not be
,bleu
to persuade either the House or the countr that
Flinistere had adopted a particular rale, for the sake of
favouring one party and injuring another.—(Cheering.)
r• CROKER bad mentioned three other boroughs
—"el Morpeth and Horsham.
• Lord ENCOMB expressed his acknowledgements to
ap.hnisters for having removed Truro from the schedule.
They bad done so as an act of justice, because Truro had
t Population-of 6.687 persons.
Lord ALTHORP said that the difference between the
"aaeti of Appleby and Truro was this, that Truro ex•
eaded locally into the parishes included, whereas Appleby,
I° order to bring it within the limit fixed, required the
addition of the rural population of two parishes. Where
,„,Bieltle parish was necessary a rural population was ad-
riled, but not where two or more parishes were wanted
it°
ePake up the amount of population. It happened
blitvlily that Appleby was a neutral bothe other by rough, one Member
Ing been returned by a Whig and a Tory.
Bir R• PEEL noticed the conveniences of adnaitting
Pinta that had been decided. The House had deter.
ttlined t 0 be governed by the Population Returns of 1821,
h.1t14 also adopted the line of a population of 2,000 inha-
"cleta• The simple question now was, whether Appleby
ue within the rule laid clown for the boroughs in
eo "foie A? It was not disputed that the borough only
t_etailied no more than about 1,050 inhabitants, while if
..75) other parishes were included, it would raise the po-
l:lation to more than 2,600. The question, therefore,
I:: Whether the two parishes of St. Lawrence and Bond-
ezt
"I°tight to be taken into the calculation ? The borough
°,ll into both arishes and they were under the same
Plriadiction. P
llf:dr• BROUGHAM denied that the jurisdiction of the
otrigaiiiestraa.tes of the borough ran over the whole of the two
.Sir rt. PEEL remarked, that this denial was distinct
47Pt00f that the House was not in possession of sufficient in-
ation. He had understood that the Coroner for the
th.ell acted as Coroner for the two parishes, and over
Whole of them. It would undoubtedly have been
por better for Ministers in the first instance to have pro-
ea ,cl a Select Committee, to ascertain the facts relating to
borough.
Clio rd MAITLAND was instructed to say that the juris-
whirl of the Magistrates of the borough extended over the
pi., e of the two parishes, and that they exercised the
.71 of licensing all public houses.
tea• BROUGHAM said that his information was the
I
sib] f
poo WETHERELL complained that it was impos-
z",,°l' the House to proceed without more distinct and
to
4te information. What
.justice was there in coming
a C 1311011600, in giving a verdict without having heard
titatt iele of evidence. Ifthis were justice it was the jus-
°: a reformed Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He was
ef-Ti ed that the Noble Lord should object to the union
Well Parishes than one in boroughs, when he himself
foe the advocate, in the cases of Finsbury and Holborn,
:14klurkish poligamy of parishes.—(Laughter.) Wore
the state, in a few words, the principle upon which
fra
rners of the present Bill proceeded, he should
,• t. .•
9iefpo,.‘. they separated districts for the purpose of
of 'ehlaentlent and accumulated for the purpose
the"..f.ranchisement, and thus they bad the advocates of
t,„ the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, pledged
its
syt
411 entire support, and resolved to shut their eyes
their. re,". on, against -it. They inflicted one rule, when
whio,°°Ject happened to be to disfranchise a borough,
Nth: at the present moment sent Members
~,to
abed tilenra but adopted a totally different rule
sec}, their purpose was to create a new borough ; but
the a mode of procedure was in perfect accordance with
oteopecirien
ciples and practice of the present time—in perfect
fete SO_ ce with that practice which brought, within a
had days, a worthy Alderman to trial, because be
pearuteol.lved to hear before be determined. It would ap-
t, etati great and deep degradation to the city of Loo-
k)._ oat should be represented by a man who, in the
faetuose Of Commons, declared that he wished to bear the
se
the case proved before he came to a decision.—
tpoovTageventured to go eo far, all that remained for him
n" ail ay that his having done so was an inadvertency,
Ile ha be right again..—(Cheers and laughter. )
iy to admit that his consenting to do justice was