The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-16 00:00:00

men, be felt assured, leas deserved such treatment. Upon
this subject the whole matter W4S a mere question, as be
. .

♦iewed it, simply of fact. Did the Catholics of
Ireland believe it consistent or not, to read the scriptures in

rhe way that Protestants thought they should he read ?
Much hid been said of demagogues agitating Ire-
land. He would say to the Honourable Member for
Dundalk, that if there were demagogues of agitation, there
were also demagogues of fanati6sm—(Hear) —who dared
to make the sacred teachers and sentiments of religion the

subject of political attack.—(Hear, bear.)
Colonel GORDON did not mean to deny that he bad
visited Ireland for the purpose of promoting there the
cause of religious education. That was a fact which he
was proud to acknowledge in the face of that House, of
the country, and of Heaven.—(Hear.) He had travelled

over the land, not as the agent, or the paid representative
of any system, but as the advocate generally of religion.

education.

Lord CASTLEREAGH said there were two points
to which he would allude. The Hon. Member for
Kerry hid stated that he, and the people of Ireland,
were decidedly opposed to the grant in question. The
petitioners, however, in its favour from that quarter which
he (the Noble Lord) had already preented to that House
were a sufficient answer to such an assertion. He could not

hut express his deep, unfeigned regret that the Hon.
Member for Kerry had, in the warmth of his zeal, given
utterance to expressions altogether uncalled for, and cal-
culated, in no slight degree, not to assuage angry and bitter
discussions in Ireland, but to kindle into a flame that
spirit of acrimony and party feeling, which those who
supported that Hon. Gentleman and his country had long
laboured to extinguish.
Mr. O'CONNELL had not said one word which he
considered at all cslculated to draw down upon him
such an attack. Ile had not addressed the Noble
Lord in the language he made use of, but of those who
had been, and who gloried in being considered, religious

enthusiasts and persecutors.
Lord CASTLEREAGH—I heard the Honourable
Member make use of the word " Orange," I think.
Mr. O'CONNELL—The Noble Lord has altogether
mistaken me : I used no such expression.
Mr. H. BULWER presented a petition from Coventry,
praying for the extension of the elective franchise to house-
holders paying scot and lot.
Sir R. PHILIPPS presented a petition from Tenby

against the dis:ranchisement of burgesses.
Si; G. WARRENDER moved for returns of all the
householders in the different towns included in schedule B.

REFORM BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the Howe resolve

itself into a Committee on the English Reform Bill.
O❑ the resolution that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM rose and shortly ad-
dressed the House, not one word of which was souhble in

the gallery.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee, Mr.
SPRING RICE taking the Chair.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the reading of the first
clause, that each of the boroughs enumerated in Schedule

A be disfranchised.
Sir A. AGNEW rose to move, as an amendment to the
clause, " that the boroughs enumerated in schedule A
shall, in future, cease to return Members to serve in Par-
liament," that after the word " shall" there be inserted
" have a share in the election of Member or Members to
t serve in Parliament as shall be hereinafter provided."
The lion. Member having read the amendment, proceeded
to address the Committee, but in so low a tone of voice, as
to be hardily audible in the gallery. We understood him
to argue that the Bill would tend to destroy the balance
between the electors in towns and counties, unless the prin-
ciple of his amendment were adopted. That principle had
been acted upon advantageously in the union of boroughs'
system in Wales and Scotland, and would be a great im-
provement of the system of representation in force in Eng.

land.
Mr. JOHN WEYLAND (Hindon) seconded the amend-
ment. We understood him to propose a new plan of Re-
form, but were quite unable to comprehend the details of
it from the fragments of his speech which reached the
gallery. There were thirty boroughs in schedule A
which he had no objection to disfranchise, but the re•
mainder he would deal with on the plan of his amendment.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON pointed out the incon-
sistency of the Hon. Member opposite, who, after voting
for the second reading of this Bill in the last Parliament,
now came down with a new Bill in his pocket, quite as
complicated as that of the Government. The plan of the
Hon. Baronet was to get rid of the principle of disfran-
chisement ; but if he understood the decision of the House
last night aright, they had determined to act upon that
principle. The boroughs in schedule A were marked out
for extinction, because no constituent body could be found
in them. How, then, could any good be effected by com-
bining several of these boroughs which had no constitu-
ency ? There were 20 of these boroughs, returning 40
Members to that House, which did not contain altogether
more than 94 101. houses.—(Hear, hear.) The House
was extinguishing these decayed boroughs in order to cor-
rect, and enfranchising populous towns in order to improve,
the representative system. In conclusion, be expressed
his intention to oppose this amendment, because it went
to destroy the principle of the Bill.
Mr. H. GURNEY objected to the ministerial measure
of Reform, because it rested on no one distinct specific prin-
ciple. Ile was, moreover, opposed to the total disfran-
chisement of any borough whatsoever, although he would
consent to the partial disfranchisement of some, and would
therefore make no difficulty of supporting the Bill to the
extent of schedule B. The existing system, whether irre-
gular or not, certainly represented every interest, and the
Members of that House were indiscriminately elected by
all classes of the community. Notwithstanding the vitu-
peration which had been so liberally heaped upon the no-
minees of borough patrons, it might be observed that county
Members had been at all times more prone to lend them-
selves to party purposes, and more ready to truckle to every
administration.--(Hear.) lie maintained that it was abso-
lutely necessary that there should always be persons in the
House of Commons who were not entirely dependent on
the popular voice, and at the present moment, when Ben-
thamite and Westminster philosophers were constituting
themselves the sole representative of public opinion, he did
contend that the much-abused Members for boroughs had
nevertheless rendered at least as much service to the state
as ever they could be said to have done hitherto. The
franchise i❑ his opinion ought to be low rather than other-
wise; Le would have no monopoly, but thought, ou the
contrary, flirt it should be extended to all great communi-
ties, although, as he bad already stated, lie was against
disfranchising any borough, however inconsiderable its po-
pulation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the Hon. Baronet's motion went upon the principle that
no borough should be entirely disfranchised. To such a
principle, he was decidedly opposed, as he would wish to
disfranchise all close or nomination boroughs, on the ground
that they were contrary to the principles of the Constitu-
tion, which required every representative to be elected by
the people. Even the Hon. Baronet's motion would so
far diminish the power of some boroughs as almost to de-
prive them of their franchise altogether. The Hon.
Baronet, it appeared, would unite two or three nomina-
tion boroughs and allow them conjointly to exercise the
franchise ; but be could sanction no such proposition, for
it would in effect make the franchise depend on a small
society of borough proprietors.—(Hear, hear.) The more
plain and simple course would be, to proceed on the prin-
ciple of the Bill, that all nomination boroughs without
population should be entirely disfranchised as evils in the
Constitution. The Hon. Baronet should observe that the
question now was not between the measure of Ministers
and the plan which lie saw fit to propose, but whether the
House would adopt the present Bill, the principle of which
hail been already sanctioned by the second reading.
Sir A. AGNEW conceived that the course which he
recommended would materially diminish the power of the
proprietors affected by schedule B, and asserted that Lis
suggestion would not tend more to throw the franchise in
the hands of a society of borough-proprietors than the pro-
position of Ministers themselves.
Mr. C. W. WYNN understood the Nohle Lord to state
that all nomination boroughs would be absolutely disfran-
chised, and if so, he could not imagine where would be
the distinction between schedule A and schedule B, for
how could Woodstock be considered more a nomination
borough than Malmesbury ? Then he would ask, was
the repeatedly convicted borough of Penryn to lose its
franchise? It appeared that, on the contrary, it. was to
be combined with Falmouth, and would continue to enjoy
corruptiatb.out(H tetahra,uneth
Barnstaple,tephaurer.si)efi e
pd Nla cobe; bnhhrdeeo ucyi gone Infti
infusion
concluded,
uitodaneswd
was still
of
ovtreher the
notoriously
ten-pound
necessarily-rbpi
eoouusn re-
tained.lyi
househo re, nor• would he stop to inquire whether that
i
same purifiers nevertheless, rntohte lbe ss ,
class, of a others, were not almost uniformly corruptible.
—(Heageea,r,thahteatrh.e)se
s,ilmt
applied somewhat
tto
r,
places which had never participated in tornerdeunption. The
inevitable effect of the Bill would be to re
roughs close which were now open ; and as efrorth many
bo-
pound voters, he only hoped that they would exercies teal;
franchise intrusted to them as honourably and honesetl t e
those who had property in burgage- tenure in Knayrsass-
borough and elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman VENA BLES eulogised the Bill as having