The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-06 00:00:00

HOLLAND.

Sir RICHARD VITVYANtvis-1;ed„, bcdose the Speaker
quitted the Chair, to ask the N 01.16 Lord opposite a ques-
tion, which he should lis.ve put to the Secretary of State
for Foreign M.:O ;re, if he had been present. It was well
known to the public, and of course to this liouse, that
the armistice of peace had bee=;, liet:oken in Holland.
He wished to ask whetlietr Covernment had received any
official inforrotion of the breaking of the armistice?
Lori ALT`HORP stated that Government had received
information from Sir C. Bagot that orders bad tail issued
to break the armistice, and there c0,,c4.1 be no doubt that
the armistice was broken.

Sir R. VIVIAN ‘lan.gave notice, that be wou':ol to-
morrow ir.ove ;or the production of pipers, relative to this
I),,&.ness.

Mr. CHOKER begged 4a, ask whether information had
been received on this subject from the Dutch authur;,iies in
this county.
Lord ALTHORP could not we:.l answer that question
without ioing more into, de:ail than he felt entitled to do.
The infornyatina Government had received came from Sir
nr.gat.
Mr. CHOKER put another question, 11ii:7it ts in-
audible in the gallery.

Lord ALTHORP said i. was with the greatest surprise
Government had rec4-fed, the information from Sik C.. Higot
that the armistice bad been broken, because, there had been
0, Minister sent from the King of Holland to taegociate.
That Minister had had an interview with the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, t;t which he did not mention that the
armistice had ken broken, and it was not until the
0;.,,me evening that the Noble Secretary had received the
information.

Colonel SIBTHORPE wibhed to a+k m Lecher there

. .
wilt any truth in the report 'blob had gone abroad of at.
intention to recall Lord Cowley from Vienna.
Lord ALTHORP was understood to say that he would
give no answer to the question.
THE REFORM BILL.
The House then resolved into a Committee on the Re-
form Bill,
Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.
The Cm).tonal; put the first question, " That Bright-
helmstone, including the pariah of Brighthehnstone,
Sussex, stand part of schedule D."
Sir CHARLES STEWART said it certainly had
been his intention to move for an amendment, that
aisnheadujonidneinrsgtoopd that
arish be
port of the Church Commissioners, he would not now
press his amendment. tnecrlsudwederewwitabitißngrigfhotrotnh,e breus.
I‘InCIJRTEIS observed that the population of Brighton
exceeded at the present moment 40,000; it had been blessed
with the presence of Royalty, and he thought he should
therefore not be infringing on the interest of the patron,
when he stated it was his intention to struggle hard for its
having two Members.
Lord MILTON thought that much valuable time would
lie lost if Hon. Members were to enter into discu.sions on
the claims of particular towns. It ought to be remein-
oered that Commissioners were to be appointed for the
atirpose of adjusting the operation of the Bill.
:Hr. S. WORTLEY contended that the House ought
not to abdicate their right of correction and adjustment in
favour of the Commissioners in question.
Lord ALTHORP observed that the Commissioners
would only have the power of interfering where there was
a continuance of towns.
Mr. GOULBURN said that that was not now in the
Act. By the Act they had the power of adding any
aarishes to boroughs created by the Act, Whatever
therefore Parliament might do, the Commisaiontas would
have the power of inundating the places to which reprJ4-
aentation was granted with a large neighbouring population.
Sir C. SVETHERELL asked if the new towns were
to be considered as settled definitively, or would the Coin-
iniosioners have the right of adding parts of adjoining
/Adobes?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that the Commissioners un-
doubtedly would have the right of adding portions of ad-
joining parishes.
Mr. GOULBURN observed that the 'Commissioners,
according to existing arrangements, would have the power
of undoing all that tha House of Commons had done.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was intended to amend the
clause relating to the Commissioners.
Mr. GOULBURN expressed himself satisfied.
Lord G. I3ENTINCE declare.' that he was of opinion
Brighton ought to be placed in schedule C. It was a town
of great population ; it was rated in 1821 at 39,000 in-
habitants, mad had increased considerably since; and it
paid more to the Assessed Taxes than almost any one of
the towns in schedule C; and as large an amount as four-
teen of the places in schedule D. The circumstance also
of its bring a Royal residence, anti its possessing many
permanent establishments of the nobility, entitled it ro
consideration. In conclusion he gave notice, that if some
person better qualified did not come forwgrd, lie would
move, when the report was brought up, that Brighton
have two Members.
Sir C. BURRELL supported the opinions advanced by
the Noble Lord, and declared his intention to vote for the
removal of Brighton into schedule C.
Lord ALTHORP stated that neither was the test of
population nor that of contribution to the Assessed Taxes
a fair test. Many men had doubted the propriety of
giving one Metiiher to Brighton ; he thought h was etaL
titled to one, but certainly it had no claim to two.
Sir J. SE:BRIGHT deprecated all diocussiour, upon
minute details, and thought the interests of the Bill
would be best promoted by making no corments upon it
at present.

Lord W. LENNOX gave notice, that he would take oc •
casion to re-move that Brighton be removed to schedule C,
for the reason already stated by his Noble Friend.
Mr. LYTTLETON protested against contribution to
the assessed taxes being taken as a test. From the pecu-
liar circumstances of Brighton this contribution roust be
very large; but at the same time there was capital enough
in some of the towns in schedule C to buy Brighton twice

Lord G. LENNOX said he would, when the time came,
oppose the granting of an additional Member to Brighton.
This he should do from a conscientious feeling that there
was no just claim could be urged upon behalf of the town,
while he felt that he was likely to lose many influential
supporters by the expression of that opinion.
Mr. CROKER wished to have the power of the Com-
missioners in some degree explained ; he wished to know,
for instance, if they had, should they think proper, the
power of adding the parish of Wedgbury to Walsall, or of
adding the parishes to Bolton, Bradford, and Blackburn;
with their own immense population ?
'Lord ALTHORP said, it was not the intention of de-
lepting such a power to the Commissioners, as that of
adding Wedgbury to Walsall.
Lord J. RUSSELL repeated, that the clause ahould
be amended.

The motion was then agreed to.
The next question was, that Bolton-le-Moors, including
the townships of Great and Little Bolton, Lancashire,
should stand part of schedule D.
In the first instance it was agreed, that the word borough -
reeves should be substituted for boroughreeve ; and after
Mr. CROKER having entered his protest against the
utter injustice of giving only one Member to Bolton, with
its 44,000 inhabitants, when Northallerton was permitted
to retain two ; and

Mr. TORRENS observing that Bolton was the second
in population, and the third in property, in the county of
Lancaster, the 'notion was agreed to.
The next motion was, that Blackburn, including the
township of Blackburn, Lancashire, should stand part of
schedule D.

After a similar protest from Mr. CnoxEß, the motion
was also agreed to.
The next question was, that Bradford, including the
township of Bradford, Yorkshire, should stand part of
schedule D.

An Horr. MEMBER stated that the individuals possess-
ing that wealth which gave employment to the great po-
pulation of Bradford, for the most part resided beyond the
precincts, of the township of Bradford, although within
that Gf the town. The town extended into twu conti-
guous parishes; Hantun and Illannington, and these be
considered ought to be included.

Lord MORPETII confirmed this statement, and sug-
gested that the word " town" should be substituted for
" township," the Commissioners having the power to
determine the limits of the town.
This was first agreed to, and subsequently the, original
motion.

It was next agreed that Bury% including the town and
township of Bury, should he part of sckedule D.
Next that Cheltenham, including the town and parish
of Cheltenham, should stand part of schedule D.
And next, alter a few wordy, not audible, from Mr. C.
PELA;Axi, that Dudley, including the parish of Dudley,
Worcestershire, should stand part of schedule D.
The question was then put that Frome stand part of
schedule D,

Mr, DOMINIC BROWNE thought, on comparison,
thr,t Ministers, in t.,is schedule, were giving Members to
too small communities, although he was decidedly in fa-
vour of the principle of giving only one Member to new
boroughs, as it prevented continual disputes. The popu-
lation of Viotue, according to the returns of 1821, was
abo4t 12,000, while the assessed taxes paid in the last
year only amounted to 1,960.1.

Lord ALTHORP said that the reasons for choosing
Frome were t wo.Sold : first, that it had large population;
and secondly, that it was the seat of an important mann-
faoture in the south-west of E.ngland.
Lord G. SOMERSET agreed that the trade of Frome
was increasing.
Mr. SANDFORD said that it was one of the most
thriving places in the country, where the fine cloth trade
w4.'s carried on to a considerable extent.
After a few words iiem Mr. D. BROWNY and Mr. Alder-
man WArriimart, the question was put and carried.
Co the question, " that Gateshead, including the parish
of Gateshead, stand part of schedule D,"
Mr. CROKER rose to state his objections to the grant
of Members to a cluster of boroughs in the same imme-
diate neighbourhood. One of these was Gateshead, the
southern suburb of Newcastle, which might, he thought,
I have been added withiuit much difficulty to Newcastle.
Although its poilc,lation was 1%000 souls, Gateshead was
not a place 0 that distinction and importance to be enti-
tled tc, ti separate representative. The total populatio❑ of
Newcastle and Gateshead (which would then possess three
Members) was only 33,000; while the population of
Bolton, which was only to be allowed one Member, ex-
ceeded 40,000. Besides, there were to be three other
boroughs created, 41 the immediate vicinity, via., Sunder-
' land, Sou:A Shiehis, and North Shitids or 'Fynemonth.
A,ll :-,Lese were situated within a circle of about ten miles;
I and, under t ese circusnstt.sCo9, he asked how Ministers
cwohuelnd
taccount u
population
• r to Bolton, which had
only two Members, was inferior
had mentioned were all
only °be?. The various plat' he
a very small nook of
In the county of Durham,r
of
witboauy" upondisposition a the kindi it
uniting
eititai lija:tt,esw-hridehtowl*o'eu7dcatslitadeen
land; so that,