The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-27 00:00:00

doom," which he busted the Nohle Lord would entirely
disregard, and rather abide by his owu arrangement for
the disposal of public business, as already determined on.
'lheie was no municipal distinction between the cases of
Sandwich and Romney, and he trusted, therefore, that the
latter borough would not be disfranchised, since the prin.
cipl• by which it would be saved had been already recog-
nizei in the case of Sandwich. Caine, and several other

boroughs in schedule B, it should be remembered, were
boroughs of nomination as well as Romney. With respect
to the Bill generally, he would merely remark, that its
provisions must be examined elsewhere, if they should not
he sufficiently investigated in the House of Commons.
Lord J. RUSSELL repeated his explanation of the
rule under which New Romney was disfranchised. Fal-
mouth had been united with Penryn, and Deal with

Sandwich, because Falmouth and Deal Isere populous and
flourishing towns, making, in both cases, a population tit
10,000 inhabitants. This was not the case with Romney,

and that borough, accordingly, had been left to its fate.
Mr. CROKER was proceeding to observe, that it wa4
rather strange that a Gallant Officer should have proposed
a rather summary and unheard-of mode of shortening the
discussions on the Reform Bill, when

Colonel EVANS, in explanation, had only recom-
mended that the House should sit at an early hour in the
morning.
Mr. CROKER repeated that it was rather extraordi-
nary that that Gallant Member should have been obliged
to rise, in the discussion on the disfranchisement of the
very next borough on the list, after having voluntarily
animadverted oa the delay of the Bill in consequence of
similar discussions. That Romney was a nomination bo-
rough, be submitted, could hardly be objected to it,
seeing that Arundel, Amersham, and several others in
schedule B, were equally nomination boroughs ; and as to
the allegation that Romney was not a thriving or maritime
place, that could hardly be in itself a sufficient reason for
its disfranchisement, as Fowey'e being both a sea-port and
a rising town had not been held sufficient to save it front
being included in schedule A. The people of Deal and
Sandwich had petitioned to be united, as being limbs of
the same port, and subject to the same regulations, and
Sandwich was saved for that reason, which the House
would see was equally applicable to the case now under
consideration. Great complaints had been made respect-
ing the delays which bad already retarded the progress of
the Bill, and yet they bad now for the first time been
made acquainted with one of the principles on which it
was based, for the Noble Lord had declined to disfran-
chise Penryn on the ground that Falmouth, an important
town in its neighbourhood, was entitled to be united to it.
(Hear, bear.) To such an enlargement of the prin-
ciples of the Bill, he certainly could not have any objec-
tion. Having said this, he must add that it would take
away the ground of the necessity of any forcible appeal to
the Noble Lord with respect to New Romney. What,
he asked, was the ground of the distinction made between
New Romney as connected with Old Romney and Lydd,
and Sandwich as connected with Deal and Walmer? But
he would beg to ask the Noble Lord at what time did it
occur to the Government to adopt the principle of uniting
Sandwich with Deal and Walmer?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL dtolined to answer.
Mr. CROKER—The Noble Lord introduced his Re-

form 13i11 last session, every part of which was considered
of such importance that Parliament was d,svolved for not
passing:it. In that Bill Sandwich stood in schedule B. It
was now in another schedule, and was to send two Mem-
bers in conjunction with Deal and Walmer. He had asked
the Noble Lord when it had occurred to the Government
to make that alteration, and the Noble Lord refused to
answer. Now that refusal induced him to state what he

supposed would oblige the Noble Lord to give some ex-
planation on the subject. Ile would mention, not a matter
of which he bad himself any knowledge, but a report which
had been circulated in one of the newspapers. Sandwich
is a corporation, most of the voters of which are pilots and
seamen, many of whom live along the coast, and several in
Deal and Widmer. It was stated that when the Mini-
sterial candidate went down to canvass the voters, some
of them said to him, what was very natural for men in
their situation, " Why you ask us to give a vote for our
own disfranchisement. You are for the Bill which is to
take from us one Member. Now Deal, and Sandwich,
and Walmer, would make a borough if united, and if you
were to give us such a Reform as that, we would vote for
you with pleasure." What effect this had on the change
made in the Bill with respect to Sandwich and Deal, he
would not say. If the change had been made before the
dissolution of the last Parliament, he would not occupy
the time of the House by mentioning it; but such a re-
port having gone abroad, the people of New Romney and
Lydd would like to hear some explanation why the dis-
tinction was made between their case and that of Sand-
wich and Deal. They had heard the statement, and the
silence of the Noble Lord would give it currency.
Sir T. TROUBRIDGE said he bad listened attentively
to the circumstances just mentioned by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and be could say that they were totally un-
founded.—(Cheers from the Ministerial side.)
Lord D. STUART was a Reformer, and so was the
Noble Lord alluded to ; but if his opinion had been the
other way, he would go over to that of the other aide with-
out any reference to that of that Noble Person.
Colonel EVANS said that two or three of the state-
ments of the Right Hon, Gentleman Lad already received
contradiction, He had accused him (Colonel Evans) of
having used language which he never held : but he hoped
that before he made such a charge again lie would make
himself acquainted with what he did say. He had only
spoken once on the subject, but be was within the mark
when he said that the Right Hon. Gentleman had ad-
dressed the House forty-five times on this subject, and had
gone round the world for topics, not ou all occasions having
any very close connection with the question before them.
He (Colonel Evans) did not accuse the Right. Hon. Gen-
tleman of that versatility of talent which he displayed on
these occasions. If he were not aware of the Right lion.
Gentleman's candid and straightforward manner, he might
say that some of his objections were made to gain time ;
but he did not make that charge, for he would pass no
judgment on the motive of the Hon. Member. With re-
spect to New Romney, he would observe that it was in
the centre, not of a populous district, but of an extensive
inar4ll, and that it would require to go a circuit of some
forty mites to get such a constituency as would be required
under the Bill ; Litt even then the question remained, was
it nut a nomination borough ? for the influence of the gen-
tleman who now had the patronage of it would remain
nearly in the same hands as at present.
Mr. 1. L. BODGES said the population in the vicinity
of New Itonmey were as staunch advocates for Reform as
any in Ken'. He had received the most cordial support
ft ow them on his canvass.
Mr. CROKER said he bad not intended any rebuke to
the Gallant Officer for his speech; on the contrary, he ad-
mitted his full. right, and that it was not only a right but
a duty to offer any argument that occurred to him on the
subject. The Gallant Offieer had said, that two or three
of his (Mr, Croker's) statements had been contradicted.
He begged to contradict that statement in the most direct
and unequivocal manner which the forms of Parliamentary
language admitted. No statement of his had been con-
tradicted. What he stated was a report which he had seen
ire a Newspaper, and which lie mentioned only as a report.
lie would bow to the House, or to any lion. Member, in
a correction of an error if he fell into one, but he would
not suffer the Galiaet Dicer, or any other Hon. Member,
to tell him his statements were c4ntradicted, when the fact
, was not so.
Sir E. DERING denied that his interest wouid b pro..
muted by an extension of the franchise to Lydd. lie had
uo Foperty in that place.
After arew words from Colonel EvANs,
Mr. CRESSET 114 HAM said that the farmers and
others in the neighbourhood of New Romney and Lydd
• were opulent and independent, and as 4-gly to make an
independent constituency as those in any oti.cr F.-..Tts of
the cot:tatry. They were likely to be more independent.
than the inhabitants of Sandwich and Deal, which would
, be as much under tl.;.e influence of the Treasury as here-
, tofore.

The motion was then put and carried, that " New Rom-
ney stand pert of schedule A."
The next moti.o was that " the borough of St. Ger-
mains stand part of schedule A."
Mr. C. ROSS expressed a 14;pe that the Committee
would give its attention to the case of this borough. In calling
attention to it he was not disposed to controvert any of the
principles laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site; but ha would beg
the House to consider what was
the proposition of the Bill of last Session with respect to
this measure. In the first Bill the borough of gt. Ger-
mains was in schedule B, and the House assented to the
proposition that where the population exceeded 2,000 it
should send one Member. It was true the borough itself
had net that population, but then it came under another
principle of Lord's, that where the borough and
the parish were of the szi.me name, and where the borough
was included in the parish, the vGpulittion of both should
be included. It was admitted, that if this pLii had not
been adopted, many boroughs would be disfranchised which
were now allow: to send Members. By the population
returns of 1821, St. Gertdisins had a population of 2,400,
and at present it was rather more. lie mentioned this
fact to ;how that the borough was not declining. 41 thi.
return the population of the parish was Included: In the
question of population it resembled Dawnton, but it differed
from it in these respects—that it was impossible, is any eon-