The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-16 00:00:00

% - 41,

objected to the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothir NV;
the Bill.

Mr. HUDSON GURNEY was satisfied that the Go-
vernment had, in their proposition with respect to Re-
form, got themselves into an inextricable dilemma. Every
one acquainted with the English Constitution knew that
it was composed of the onion of exclusive jurisdictions,
and it mattered not whether these jurisdictions were large
or small.—( Hear.)—The Bill, however, destroyed those
jurisdictions, and effected a Reform, which he would not
ca'l either aristocratical or democratica], but which he
might fairly characterise as radical—(Hear, hear, bear)...
for it sapped the foundations of the Constitution itself.
The Members who supported the enlargement of the buf •
frage frequently referred them to the working of the tle-
mocratical system in America. Now a friend of his who
happened at this moment to be in that country, and who
had beard of the Ministerial Reform Bill, thus expressed
himself In a letter which he had written to him on the
subject :—He said, " that his prejudices in favour of the
•lemocratical system had much abated, and that his dispo-
,ition with respect to it was chanced since'he had an op-
portunity of observing its working here." And he added,
" Beware of what you do in England; take a year to
consider of it."—(Cheers.)
Mr. WELLESLEY said a few words in favour of the
Bill, and observed that the amended returns would make
it more perfect.
Mr. DAWSON complained that injustice and partiality
had been shown by the Noble Lord and his colleagues, in
the selection of the boroughs to be disfranchised by the
Bill. The borough of Caine contained only 997 male
inhabitants; and allowing the same number for females,
there were not in that borough above 2,000 inhabitants,
while its Members were retained. How then was it to be
oreserved from the fate of the boroughs in schedule A.?
Why should not a Member be retained for Beeralston, which
was situated in a parish containing more than 2,000 in-
habitants? If that question was not satisfactorily answered
by the ',Noble Lard, he should suspect him and the Govern-
'sent of partiality in the selection of those boroughs to be
disfranchised.
_ _

Mr. HOBHOUSE would just call the attention of tie
House to the fact that the disagreeable exprasions that
had been used had originated with the Hon. Member him-
self opposite (Sir C. W.), and it was in reply to that Hon.
and Learned Member that his Noble Friend below (Lord J.
Russell) bad felt himself justified in making use of language
somewhat similar. His Noble Friend and his Right Hon.
Colleagues bait been accused of trickery and par-
tiality, but their characters were infinitely superior to
such insinuations.—(Hear, hear.) Could any one be-
lieve that it was for the sake of the Marquis of Lansdowne,
because he was a Member of the existing Cabinet, that any
distinction was drawn for the sakenfpreserving the borough
of Caine. He did not believe that any Hon. Member
could seriously for a moment suspect such a thing. Much
had been talked by the Hon. Member for Marlbo-
rough of its being " a large and flourishing town." Now
he happened to know the town of Marlborough, and it was
neither " large nor flourishing." Did the petition which
that Hon. Member spoke so much about pray against the
system which now degraded the state of the elective fran-
chise in that town? Did it pray that the franchise should,
he placed in the 300 petitioners, in place of the 13 that
now possessed it. Did the petition go to maintain the
system of abuses which was so prevalent in that "large
and flourishing town ?" As the Honourable Member -
had just evinced so much anxiety to protect the rights
of the residents of Marlborough, be hoped that in
case the present Bill failed he (the Hon. Member for,
Marlborough) would carry on the prayer of the petition,
and endeavour to give it effect by destroying 'that
usurpation which against the almost unanimous opi-
nion of the residents, had lately sent a Member to
Parliament. With respect, however, to Caine, em-
bracing as it did two very important branches of manu-
facture, it was in truth a large and flourishing town.
Mr. W. BANKES, as he had been so positively alluded
to by the-Hon. Member for Westminster, begged permis-
sion to say a few words in explanation. The Hon. Mem-
ber had referred to ths ease of Caine. Now .he (Mr.
Bankes) had undoubtedly taken up an opinion with re-
spect to the conduct of the' Government ; and if he had
found, when errors were pointed out to them, they had
taken immediate means to correct them, he should have
felt bound to retain that opinion. When he saw, how--
ever, that arithmetical errors, respecting which theie could
be no mistake, were pertinaciously retained, he must con-
fess that he could not divest himself of an impression that
there was partiality in their determination on the subject
of some of the boroughs whose rights were questioned.
With respect to the Hon. Member's observations on his
knowledge of the town of Marlborough, and the opinions
of its inhabitants, he could only say, that he bad attended
in that town on all occasions when an election demanded
his presence, and he was always attended to the Town-hall
by a large number of the respectable inhabitants, as well as
the Corporation, he must take leave to think that the unani-
mity of feeling between them and the Corporation must be
greater than the Hon. Member seemed to believe.—(Hear.)

Lord STORMONT did not wish to prolong the dis-
cussion, but he must say that the Government, on their
own showing, were open to the imputation of absurdity or
of injustice, and that they must choose between them.—
(Hear.) The Member for Westminster had observed,
that the Right Hon. Gentleman commenced the use of
objectionable language; but he did not recollect that the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) applied the word
absurdity to the arguments of the Noble Lord, but to his
Bill.—(Hear.) There were many boroughs which could
claim the same privilege of exemption as the Right Hon.
Gentleman had claimed with so much justice for Beeral-
ston. For instance, there was the borough he repre-
sented—Oldhorough. The parish of that borough con-
tained 2,400 inhabitants, and was, therefore, by the strict
rule which had been adopted, fully entitled to retain one
of its Members.—(Hear.)
Lord EASTNOR, before the termination of the dis-
cussion, touk the opportunity to ask the Noble Lord (Rus-
sell) whether, in the alterations he proposed, it was his in-
tention to adhere to the ancient boundaries of those bo-
roughs which were to retain their Members ? or whether
he proposed to take in the population of the houses in the
immediate vicinity ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he could not at that
moment give a full answer to the questions that
had been asked, without anticipating the statement he
should make on Monday, which, as it might excite fur-
ther discussion, he felt might be improper then more par-
ticularlf to mention. He thought, however, that he should
then be able to explain to the Noble Lord, that the prin-
ciple on which his Majesty's Government had proceeded
was on the strictest justice, fairness, and impartiality.
Sir R. PEEL would draw the attention of his Majesty's
Government to a point which appeared to him of much
importance. In going into Committee on the Bill, the
first clause was that which provided for the disfranchise-
ment of a certain number of boroughs,. which were not
enumerated in the clause, but contained in the schedule
appended to the Bill. The question then, on which the
House bad to pronounce would be as to the clause which
provided that all the boroughs enumerated in schedule A.
should henceforth cease to return Members of Parliament.
Was it intended to decide the whole fate of all the boroughs
enumerated in the schedule, when they gave their vote on
the clause ? Was schedule A. to be disposed of by the
one vote given as to the disfranchising clause?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the schedule should be
considered as part of the clause. It might be competent
for them (his Majesty's Ministers) to recommend the
schedule, and after it was so recommended, it would be
competent for any other Hon. Member to propose any
recommendation.
Sir R. PEEL said, that though it might depend on the
forms of the House, it was of the utmast importance to un-
derstand what was to be done. The Noble Lord had said
amendments-were to be made to schedule A. ; and nothing
could be more important than for the House to be told
what those alterations were to be. From the observa-
tions which had been made, be (Sir Robert Peel) most
distinctly understood, that in going into a Committee
upon the clause the House was indistinctly to pass a vote ,
of disfranchisement in every borough in schedule A.
Lord ALTHORP—If it appeared necessary that any
alteration should he made in schedule A. Hon. Members
opposing the contents of the schedule in going into a
Committee upon the clause of the Bill would have an op-
portunity of moving amendments to the schedule.
Sir R. PEEL understood from this, that schedule A
was to be determined upon before the clause was
discussed. Ile considered the usual course to he that
schedules were postponed to the end of the discussions
upon Bills, and that at the conclusion it was competent for
every Member to take objections to every item
Lord JOHN RUSSELL believed that it was according
to the usual course to take the schedule at the end ; but he
thought it as usual to take the schedule as part of the clause,
and amend or reject part of the schedule as they went along,
with the clause. This was the course his Majesty's Mini-
sters wished to pursue on the present occasion, and he put
it to the Speaker to say whether it would be competent L
for them to take that course or not.
The SPEAKER said it was clear the Committee ambit
a
ttnnoho;arbs:elaaaticuel ads :ell
,etaidi utat
hat cause co
all the ho'ntained.
avh}:oi
nnotretn:i
ei
ordinaci,
haviyloin':u,g,:i
aidiyet
hasic.eese
to return Aleulbei*
the
ud of
the
Bill the Com-
chat the schedule being at e