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

;11' Which ought not to have been omitted in the return,
.141 been included in it, it would have given the borough
", Population of 2,065 persons in 1821, which would
f_tlearly have saved it from disfranchisement. The dis-
gl,„ eilisement of this borough, therefore, appeared to him
ue totally indefensible.
Itlr. GRANBY CALCRAFT had hoped up to last
teek that he should be able to make out such a case for
Wareham as would have kept it out of schedule A ; but
that the decisions of the House with regard to Appleby
Downton had not left him a leg to stand upon.—
;Ave
It was utterly impossible for him, therefore, to
a' it, and it did not appear to him that there would he
1-1 good in attempting to throw a useless impediment iu
Way of that great measure, which, whatever impetli-
."
,„ ellts might be thrown in its way, must be finally carried.
IIIBANKES regretted that the Hon. Members
f
: Wareham would not stand upon the justice of their
le• In the levying of the assessed taxes this year, the
',pelry of Ard had been included in the borough of
Wareham, and their united population would clearly ex-
hlipt Wareham from disfranchisement.
slr. ROBINSON said it would be utterly imp
4ossible to
lid an independent constitueecy in Wareham.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the case of this borough had
en under the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers
Co* lime ago. .It did not appear to them that it would
token out of the schedule, and it was their opinion that
he.clutpelry of Ard was a distinct place, which could not
he
Included in it. In both the population returns of 1821
441831, it was mentioned as a distinct place.
AIN G, BANKES had been in Wareham within the
'utt three weeks, and had seen a considerable number
:111 new buildings there, which led him to suppose
40 the constituency of Wareham vras..in a most flourish-
-1,4 and improving condition. If, however, the Hon.
"letribers for Wareham, one of whom only was present
In this occasion, shotigignot stand up for the borough
which
had sent them ffre, he (Mr. George Bankes) was
4t Quixotic enough to persist further in its defence.
Sir C. WETHERELL argued against the disfranchise.
tee! of this borough.
T. GRANBY CALCRAFT said, that though, as he
"Id already stated, he was not able to make out a case to
kite this borough from disfranchisement, he felt bound to
note that it was an increasing and flourishing place.—
ti"lear, hear, from the Opposition.)
The question was then put and carried.
It Was then put and carried without any discussion,
that the boroughs of Wendover and Weobly should
"eV part of schedule A."
The next question was " that the borough of Whit-
"lech stand part of schedule A."
h M. /I. TOWNSHEND contended that this being a
Nage tenure borough, it ought not to be disfranchised.
Bie S. SCOTT expressed himself to the same effect,
1)4:: said that this borough had never been known to have
,1,11 bought or sold.
he question was then put and carried.
t:in the question " that the borough of Winchelsea do
I'V part of schedule A,"
atr• CURTEIS said a petition had been put into his
*Vs from the inhabitants of this borough, in which,
title they expressed themselves strongly in favour of the
th,,4 Bill, they mentioned several grounds for taking
s
is borough out of schedule A. Having detailed the
ate events eventsevents of the petitioners, the Hon. Member concluded
41 bend
that his Majeaty's Ministers might be able to
rd to their prayer.
I
CRESSET PELHAM said something which we
' not hear.
t After a few words from Colonel EVAN& and Sir C. WE-
%ltitxtr„, the question was put and carried.
lt,slue next question was, " that the borough of Wood-
'TX stand part of schedule A."
Lord STORMONT said that Woodstock, as many Hon.
ar.°Mers might be aware, was an increasing place, and it
4A-",?livioug not one of the places contemplated in the pre-
iteeuk to this Bill. The population of that borough had
18h11 Ilion erroneously given in the population return of
1 4,1. The borough of Woodstock comprised New Wood-
-44', population 1,451 ; Old Woodstock, population
talc'' and the parish of Bladen, population 510. The to..
it e_P"Pulation was, therefore, 2,364, which ought to save
'rani disfranchisment.
to."lti 3. RUSSELL said that the borough of Wood-
ao^ was totally separated from the borough of Bladen,
44lirtbat the amount of population in the borough was such
"gilt it strictly within the principle adopted with re-
gard to the boroughs in schedule A.
A/Air. O'CONNELL said he had been requested by the
roearqui' of Blandford, who had sat in the former Perlis-
nt for this borough, to state that he did not consider it a
'ruination borough, and that it did not appear to him to be
T;le which ought to be included in the disfranchised list.
he totes in it were freemen by servitude, and they were
quiteB independent of the patron.
made
C. WETHERELL thought that no case had been
hitue out on the principle of the Bill for the disfranchise-
''ent of this borough.
Mr. PRAED expressed himself to the same effect.
Lord ASHLEY said that there was no distinction be-
.
"veen Old and New Woodstock and the parish of Bladen;
`lld that the population of the three places, therefore,
should be taken together. The constituency of Woodstock
Was a most independent one.
Lord C. CHURCHILL said that he was averse not only
to the disfranchisement of this borough, but to the whole
'treasure. He was ready to support a proper system of
Reform, but he would not rob Peter to pay Paul.
The question was then agreed to.
On the question " That Wootton Bassett stand part of
schedule A,"
Lord MAHON made some observations, but the noise
la the House rendered him inaudible. The Noble Lord read
In extract from Lord Bolingbroke, which occasioned some
cries of " Hear."
wilLed PORCHESTER said, that after the decisions
be jell had been pronounced by the House, he would not
expected to allege any new grounds which should ex-
terpt this borough from the general doom, unless, at the
e'renth hour, the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, gorged with
"'lesacre, would extend their merciful feelings towards the
rnultimate of schedule A. He was not opposed to Re-
-471 of all kinds, but he was opposed tothe system of
ranchiseinent in this Bill,—to a disfranchisement which
/;",1 carried to an unnecessary extent, based on erroneous
cr„lneiPies, and fraught with ruin to our existing institu-
Lnk----(Hear.)
Mr• O'CONNELL said, that the borough of Wootton
oWl,set had been celebrated for other things besides Lord
lingbroke. It had a Member, Mr. Benjamin Walsh,
hl,‘) bad been expelled the House for a fraud upon Sir
hertlrnos Plomer, and had been made a bankrupt. When
slZre the Commissioners of Bankrupts, all was exposed
lieht this borough, when it was found that the noblest
k7tR, as the Noble Lord called them, cf the electors, were
rn tight for 201. a vote; and afterwards these rights were
e nobler still, by a Noble Lord giving 251. a vote.
LC'rd MAHON observed that the Hon. and Learned
~_entleman had been guilty of a mis-statement in a former
tllsrt of
h the night respecting Lord Camelford and the 41uof Sarum, and he wondered that the Hon. and
Learnedgin
Member should take pleasure in blundering again
ki° mdecent personalities.—(Hear, hear, and No.") In
018Ystero of representation there would be some abuses.—
s„tere occurred some interruption.) Some persons were
otl-tY. ready to hear a charge, but not the refutation. With-
al ItriPuting falsehood to the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
-44, he must say that he did not believe the statement be
hese just made. At all events, it was a case which had
hlr red 20 years ago.
or HUME observed that with respect to the charge
hi leeent personalities, he should be glad to know when
at:6'P. and Learned Friend had uttered them. He bad
1010 m a fact which he (Mr. Hume) could confirm. He
WP 4,4 liember of Parliament when Mr. Walsh was ex-
te.', and opposed his expulsion, because he thought,
It other Members, including Sir Samuel Romilly, that
thewr:;B.not for the House to erect itself into a censor of
rohher There was no doubt Walsh had been guilty of
eok, laugh)---but as the law then stood, be had
emutenitted no crime ; so that the House expelled him be-
Rott.,.ile had been guilty of an immoral act. When the
conic commenced the expulsion of Members for immoral
Re icuct, he did not know were it might stop.—(A laugh.)
to hen"' the fact stated by his Hon. and Learned Friend
torjoheserreet, and the subsequent circumstances were no-
clth' O'CONNELL vindicated himself from the two
se,„geeo brought against him by the Noble Lord. With
h.ey: t. to the charge of indecent personalities, be did not
Could Single personal word. He had stated facts, and he
bake refer the Noble Lord to public records which would
ki)Lw.hat he had stated as certain as the existence of the
gua._.L4r(l. He did not object, however, to harsh Wi-
z, there was no risk in using it towards him.
color(' MAHON said that, under the circumstances, be
site_'•lss thenhe Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he
,I,l:tenog personal.
question was then agreed to.
of re question, that. Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, stand part
4.ll.4,e.istilitedo.uualei,izs agreed to, after a few words from Sir
1,14111 being the last name in the schedule,
iIote...ftAIRIIAN put the question, " that the clause as
IC stand part of the Bill, when
thpre• PRAED proposed an adjournment, as he knew
Were many Hon. Members who wished to give