The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-23 00:00:00

REFORM.

The E►rl of ROSEBERY, in the absence of a Noble
Friend, presented a petition from Falkirk, in favour of
Reform.

FACTORIES' REGULATION RILL.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE presented a petition
from the Corporation of Derby, praying their Lordships
to establish some regulation in the cotton factories.
Both the above petitions were laid upon the table.
The Poor Allotments Bill went through a Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having taken his seat on
the Woolsack at half-past five,
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY presented a
petition from Sunderland Biped by 600 or 700 hundred
persons, principally ship-owners, against the Hartlepool
Railway Bill, which he was sorry to say had passed the
House yesterday.—Laid on the tittle.
IRISH TITHE BILL.

Viscount MELBOURNE moved the (miler of the day
for the House going into Committee on the above Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW begged to make a few ob-
servations before the House went into Committee.—
He complained of the manner in which the Bill
had been delayed, and in which the whole subject
of Irish Tithes had been neglected. The Committee,
which has sat ever since the 16th of February, has had
no other evidence before them than the witnesses
examined in one week. One effect of this delay had
been, that the recommendation of the report totally to
to extinguish tithes had been effectually accomplished
in Ireland, where there was a total suspension of their
payment; and be bad been assured, upon the best
authority, that when application was made for pay-
ment, the people expressed their astonishment, and asked
~Iwther the Legislature had not declared the extinction
f that impost. The consequence was, that if every
individual who could not recover his tithes, were
'o snake application under this Bill for relief, the
amount granted by it would not furnish one day's
in some
se.,ottst
rut
itacpi ;se:
peaceable
eotarl
rtdieatiiytsrittrmioefsfat families.
renerdG.
aEedynv
ee
ant.
in diostfurbtehtei
a:ltt,lteittreil
ttgcili‘vcvoeyhvrestotritfinid:emci teloinnaitbenywidi eitoadiuti
iilo:dfnnß, them.
lit,,,fetrneo:libieyntthaewipettotpleestt,otbirisei:
an organized system which would enable them to refuse
of
s
tui
stattotahekedfeondtrl teungetoryote
jobtmhir, therefore
posed upon them, of enforcing therirandpnalau;ceyteineditcnernt of these ar-

Lord DURHAM said he could not join with the No-
Ide Earl in his lamentations over the present state of the
House, and as little could he concur with that Nble Earl
in the view which he took of the Bill then under the con-
sideration of their Lordships. The Noble Earl had spo-
ken of the vote by ballot, and armed to reecommend it as
the only effectual means of ascertaining the true sentiments
on a particular question of the Members of both ?louses who
had supported the Reform Bill. He protested that it did
appear to him rather a novelty, to hear the Noble Earl
opposite become the advocate of vote by ballet. With re-
spect to much that had fallen from the Nahle Earl,
he (Lord Durham) did not think it would be neeressary
for him to trouble their Lordahips with replying to it
much in detail ; and he hoped that in their future discussions
they would proceed in a more becoming tone and temper
to deal with the measure then before theta. He trusted that
they would proceed with it calmly and deliberately, and
that there would now be an end to everything like heat
or animosity on the subject. Ile took for granted that the
House would excuse him froui entering upon any defence,
either on his own behalf or on that of his colleagues, re-
lative to their conduct on the Reform Bill, and that the
House would nut expect from him any vindication from
lie charges brought against them for the first time. As
tar as he knew the principle of the Bill, he understood it
to he that of population, adding to that all the various
considerations arising out of commerce, manufactures,
wealth, the payment of assessed taxes, &c. &c. Now if
those principles formed the basis of the Bill, and if they
constituted a sound hisis, then be would say that there
erre no parts of the kingdom better entitled to send Re-
presentativee into the other House of Parliament. But
the Noble Earl had contended that cont.rring the elective
franchise upon the Metropolitan districts would have the
effect of increasing and continuing that agitation which
'or the last year and a half it bad been the object of the
Government to prevent. He seemed to have nothing before
his imagination but broken heads and broken windows.
There was surely no reasen to suppose that the pos-
session of the elective franchise would produce results in
the metropolis dissimilar from these which it bad pro-
duced in other places. Representation uniformly led to
tranquillity and calm deliberation with respect to political
matters, while its absence was marked by riots and dis-
turbance. Let Noble Lords only look to the places where
riots took place at ally time within their recollection, and
they would find that the greatest amount of turbulence
ind discontent proceeded from the unrepresented towns in
the north of England ; and even those districts of the me-
tropolis which had representatives, were, in that respect,
easily to be distinguished from those which were unrepre-
sented. In the Noble Earl's own neighbourhood there
had been for two months together a series of meetings of
the largest and most tumultuous character ; then, as he
before said, let them only look to the unrepresented por-
tions of the metropolis—karylebone, Greenwich, Black-
heath—and let them compare the meetings hell there with
those in the represented portions. There were meetings,
no doubt, in London, Westminster, and Southwark, but
they were calm and moderate compared with those which
took place in the other parts of the town ; he would there-
.ay, that the evidence did by no means ben- out the Noble
Lord in his statements—statements as unfounded as the
leductions of the Noble Earl from ascertained facts
were illogical. lie should not then feel himself called
upon to enter further into topics of general reasoniug,
but proceed with some matters of mere detail, which
fie trusted would place the question upon its true foot-
; but, in order to do that, lie feared he must trespass
,ipon the indulgence of the House for some time longer,
and with less interesting materials than he would have
wished ; but the question was one of some imporrance ;
end, though most men of intelligence in the country •
agreed that the number of Members aasigried under the
Bill to the metropolis was not too much, yet some might
not be aware that if the circumstances which all parsons
admitted ought to constitute the elements of representa-
tion were to have their full weight in this particular case,
the number of metropolitan members would be far greater
than was ever contemplated by any Reformer. With the
view of making this apparent to their Lordships, he should
beg their attention to some statistical details, and if he
only succeeded in making himself clearly understood, he
could not feel any apprehension as to the result ; anti he
hoped that when the subject was fully before them, the
House would be induced to follow the ancient precedents
under which representation had front time to time been
conferred upon different places throughout England and
Wales. The City of London was not enfranchised until
the 49th of Henry 111. ; Westminster did not receive the
right of representation until long subsequent to that pe-
dud ; nor did Southwark until after Westminster,
though the precise time when that borough was en-
franchised had not been accurately ascertained for a long
period after the enfranchisement of London and Westriiin-
s:er had elapsed before that suburb had arisen into sufficient
wealth or so much increased in p rpulation as to entitle it
to send representatives to Parliament. That great prin-
ciple of gradual enfranchisement, as places eularged is
wealth, population, and intelligence, was the principle
upon which our ancestors had preceeeie;l, and that was
he precedent which the promoters of the pte,etit Bill
aarnestly wished the Legislature at the present day to
pursue. At this part of the ob.servationti 17;licli he in-
,ended to address to their Lordships, he could not help
calling their attention to the fact, that there was not, in
lie whole list of Parliamentary Reformers, to be Lund
me who had even contemplated a measure of Returns
ehich did not embrace the enfranchisement of the metro-
politan districts. Both the plans of Mr. Pitt, in 1783
ind 1785, bad that object in view; and in 1783, there
were four petitions presented to the House of Conmons,
Iron] places iu and about the metropolis, having that ob-
ject for their prayer. The first petition was from Kent,
the second from the freeholders of the city of London,
,he third from the inhabitants of Westminster, and the
fourth from the Tower Hamlets. It was part of Mr.
l'itt's plan, in 1785, that seventy-two Members should
Je assigned to the metropolis and to the too metro-
politan counties, and divided into suitable proportions
iniongst them, for it was a matter conceded on all hands
twat the metropolis was not adequately represented. But,
is he had before stated, that was not the opinion of
alr. Pitt alone ; a Reformer (Mr. Horne Tooke) who
erough t for ward his plans of Reforin more than 50 years ago,
held likewise the same doctrines. The projectors of the
present Bill only proposed to add to the number of Mem-
oats whom they found sitting for the metropolie, and let
.oily Noble Lords compare that with the proposition of the
Reformer whom many of them followed as a political
iaader during a great portion of their lives, and whose
rrinciples all of them professed to revere ; and he begged
.f them at the seine time to remember how much the
netropolis had increased in wealth and population between
fw)oliist'ely,d,maasei metropolitan
etbanaa..t
hat time and this. Mr. Pitt made a calculation With a
it
tut
ji.e,
twat
ric)t.to:teheaeunnidni enfranchisementatrelynnd,qieu,:latlhat i
rat earlier Reformer had no idea of limitiug the franchiet
at ;isi ene_ la :1
.ounb
-

Lion to make a scot and lot right of. election. For i
rt, he was unable to conceive any plan of Reform which
did not include the enfranchisement of the metropolitan
districts—which did not acknowledge the claims of tl e
metropolis, founded upon population, wealth, and intelli
gence. With respect to its population, the whole of the
districts to be enfranchised under the Bill, including the.,
at present represented, contained a population of 1,474,000
The whole population of Great Britain amounted to
16,000,000—the metropolis then formed one-eleventh
part of the whole, yet it was not intended to give it more
than one-thirty-fourth part of the representation.
So much for the mere matter of population ; but if
they took the other elements of representation into account,
they must find that the metropolis was entitled to a
much larger share of the representation than even one-
eleventh of the whole number. The Noble Lord then
proceeded to contrast the expense of maintaining the poor
iti the metropolis with the expense attendant upon their
maintenance in certain of the counties of England, con
tending, from the difference subsiting between them, that
the wealthy and independent classes in the metropolis
were much more numerous than in any other part of the
empire. He next proceeded to show the great amount of
the metropolitan trade, stating that in the year 1829 the
mere tntile navy of Grett Britain was formed of no fewer
than 19,000 vessels, the tonnage being 219,000. Now
one-seventh of the vessels, and one-fourth of the tonnage
belonged to London. He then proceeded to compare the
revenue of customs in London with that produced in other
parts of the country, greatly to the advantage of the me-
tropolis, showing that the customs in London were sixteen
times more productive than the whole of the cuss
tones of Ireland, and yet Ireland had 105 Members ; the
fact was, that if due weight were given to all the circum-
stances that should decide the question of representation,
the metropolis and the adjoining districts would have no
fewer than 200 -Members out of 658. But there were
other criterions, even to some of which the Noble Earl
himself had adverted. He had said that the intellect and
the capital of London ought to be represented, and his
mode of doing so was rather curious; for it was in-
creasing the influence of the freeholders of Mid-
dleex. There could be no doubt respecting the high
intellectual character of the people of London ; he believed
there was no city in Europe which contained persons
of so.much intelligence, and of such general information;
arid the fact was proved by the amount of books sold, and
the number of literary and scientific institutions subsisting
in •the metropolis. One third of the books published were
s )1d in London ; two-thirds of the newspapers of the em-
pire were published in London, three-fourths of them were
read in London, and one-half remained in the metropolis.
He had not been much in the habit of attending the scientific
institution of the metropolis, but he understood and believed
th st many of the lectures deliveredthere would do honour to
the Professors of Oxford and Cambridge ; and the Members
of those institutions and of the public libraries in London
afforded very fair means of estimating the extent of intel-
ligence to be found in the metropolis. He then called the
attention of the House to the generally peaceable and
tranquil character of the metropolis, especially that portion
of it which possessed representatives, observing that there
had been no really serious riots since those of Lord George
Gurdon'e time, and thence contrasting the general de-
meanour of the citizens of London with that of the in-
habitants of the great manufacturing town•. There was
another very important fact to show that the inhabitants
of tie metropolis were entitled to an enlarged representa-
tion, and that there could not be the slightest ground for
apprehending that they could be parties to any project for
unsettling the present order of things ; it was that out of
85,000 (the average number of dividend warrants) no fewer
than 70,000 were issued to inhabitants of the metropolis.
He likewise compared the four great metropolitan districts
with the four largest o' the provincial boroughs, of course
with the same results as in the other in which he bad in-
stituted comparisons. After going through the several
districts—Finsbury, Marylebone, Pancras, and Lambeth
—and describing the separate claims that each had to re-
pre•entation—for example, the high station, great wealth,
and general intelligence of one; the commercial and ma-
nufacturing character of another; the learned institutions
contained within a third, as well as its large population,
&c. &c.—he came to that which formed the great bone of
convention at the present moment—namely, the Tower
Hamlets. Those who judged of the Tower Hamlets by
the knowledge which they might obtain during a cursory
view, obtained when rapidly journeying towards the Con-
tinent, would form a very erroneous estimate indeed.
There was in that district nearly twice as much wealth as
in any other. It contained also within itself a separate
jurisdiction, which greatly facilitated its being raised to
the privileges of representation. He begged Noble Lords
to remember that the Tower Hamlets contained within
their limits the East India House, the East and West In-
dia Docks, St. Katharine Docks, the London Docks, and
a far grea'er mass of the commercial population and wealth
of tie metropolis than any of the other districts: they
also contained a large population engaged in the manufac-
ture of silk. On these grounds, then, he would contend,
there was not the slightest danger that those said Tower
Hamlets would return demagogues. What he expected,
and he was sure all impartial men would join with him in
that expectation, was that that district would send to the
other House heads of great commercial houses, and ncne
other. The 'more he reflected upon the subject, and the
more he made himself acquainted with the population of
London, the more he became convinced of its vast superi-
ority over other parts of the kingdom. Could I,e agree
with the satirist, that London was

" The needy villain's general home,
The common sink of Paris and of Rome,"

theta he might, perhaps, hesitate in imparting to it so
large a proportion of the general body of representatives.
But when he looked upon it as the great emporium of the
commerce of the country, the centre of the moneyed in-
terests, the general source of information, he could not but
feel that if he were to make one more change, it would
rather be to extend than to circumscribe the representation
of the metropolis.
Load IVYNFORD alluded to the riots in London,
Nottingham and Bristol, and contended that they proved
it was not the want of representation which led to disor-
der and a breach of the laws. He remarked, too, that in
consequence of these riots, many men had given votes in
the House against that Bill who otherwise never would
have had a seat in it, the votes of their opponents having
peen interrupted by the violence of mobs. He maintained,
also, that although there might be snore wealth, popula
thin and intelligence in the metropolitan districts than any
where else in the empire, yet that this did not by any
means prove they were entitled to or stood in need of re-
presentation. It had been said the agricultural districts
were much inferior in all the qualities to as hich lie had
alluded; fur this very reason it was that they were more
entitled to representation, to remedy their poverty and dis-
icr,2ss, than were the other districts who were in such a
flipurshing condition. He agreed with the Noble Lord,
that in the Tower Hamlets there was more wealth than in
Any district in the world, but it did not all belong to the
inhabitants. It was the property of merchants, whose
residences were scattered throughout the empire. As to
intellect, he believed it was generally in proportion to the
number of inhabitants, and sa were the reading-rooms of
which the Noble Lord spoke. Representation, he main-
tained, too, was always to be decided on as a matter of ex-
pediency, and not to be set up as a matter of right. But he
did not like the word expediency in the preamble as re-
ferring to the taking away of rights—rights should never
be taken away except from necessity. But enfranchise-
ment was to he governed by expediency ; he considered
that it was most inexpedient to enfranchise the metropoli-
tan districts. He had no otjection to give Members to
the Tower Hamlets, if the constituency was to consist of
that class of its inhabitants in whom the wealth and in-
telligence resided ; nor would he object to giving the whole
sight additional Members to London if they were to be
returned by the present constituency. In a commercial
place the ancient practice was to confer the elective fran-
chise on the corporation ; in an agricultural district on
the land-owners and farmers, not the labourers ; in a
manufacturing place, on the masters and proprietors, not
the operative+ ; and he wished not to dissent from this
practice until he saw good reason for so doing. Ten
pounds he believed to be too low a qualification, and such,
not excepting the large towns, it was considered to be by
the great majority of the Reformers. The Bill he ob-
jected to, because it granted to poverty and indigence what
it denied to wealth and respectability. Besides, the change
would be a source of perpetu el irritation and bribery, as
a similar sjAtem was in America. The members for these
districts, likewise, he maintained would be no better
than delegates. For these reasons, he was going to say lie
would vote against the clause ; but he recollected the hu-
miliating situation in which he was. A few weeks ago he
was an independent Member in an independent delibera-
tive assembly. He was not in that condition now, there-
tOre he would not call for a division, nor never should,
until this state of things was altered. He never should
think it right to call for a division under the existing cir
cumstances. He had rather again be an advocate ad.
dressing Judges than addressing his brother Members, as
he was at present; for although he did not doubt the in-
tegrity or talents of the Noble Lords opposite, \Oleo he
considered their prejudices, he had no hope of persuading
thew to adopt his views. He still, however, thought it
his duty to state his objections to the measure ; but, as
their Lordahips had no power of deciding, lie would not
call 00 them to divide.—(Chet-re.)
Ltd ELLENBOROUGII was sorry t t hear tic last

observation made by the Noble and Learned Lord.
should consider himself an independent Member, althougl
alone, and would, if it so pleased him, go below the bot
alone. He admitted all the Noble Baron had urged re-
specting the wealth, population, and intelligence of ti
manufactut ing districts, but contended that they did no.
need representation, that represent ition would be uaeles
to them and mischievous to the public. They were al
ready, for all beneficial and practical purposes, represents"
by the number of Members resident in them and interested
in their prosperity ; and he opposed their enfranchise.
ment, because he conceived it would be most detrimental
to the interests of the country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not imagine how
the Noble Baron could make out, in a Parliamentar
sense, either theoretically or practically, how those dis-
tricts were represented by Members happening to reside
within them. The very name of representative meant
that he should he under some control. He received a
rust from his constituents, and for this he was account-
able to them. One great reason, which weighed with
him was, that he wished the measure to be final. Now who
could suppose that this would be the case it the metropo
litan districts were not enfranchised?
The Earl of HARROWBY thought the doctrine of the
Noble and Learned Lord was even more subversive of the
Government and the Constitution than this Reform Bill.
He always understood that a Member, when once elected,
was not simply the representative of his own particular
place, but of the country at large. The Noble and Learned
Lord seemed to say, that he should be under the absolute
control of his constituents. If this were the case, these
Members would be the daily and Lowly slaves of public
meetings. Look to Westminster and London ; see how
they deal with their Members, and consider what injunc-
tions would be fulminated over the beads of a metropoli-
tan Member. Consider what would then be the influence
of Political Unions and public meetings. For himself,
without disrespect to the class it was proposed to enfran-
chise (for in these Meetings the Members would have no
means of distinguishing them from the mere rabble) lie
would say, that he had rather live under any Government
in the world, than under the rule of the slaves of a vile
democracy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his astonish-
ment at the extraordinary misapprehension under which
the Noble Earl appeared to labour with respect to the
observations which had fallen from him. The Noble
Eat I seemed t,) tl ink that he (the Lord Chancellor) had
said, that when an individual is returned to the House of
Commons, he was a Member for his particular constituents
only. Now he had never said anything of the kind. He had
never said that the Members for the metropolitan dis.
tricts, for instance, were not to consult and to act for
what they cot ceived to be the b n fit oF the whole country.
What he had said was—and ha had never heard the
doctrine doubted—that every Member of Parliament had
constituents to whom he was accountable ; from whom he
had received a trust, and to whom that trust was to be
surrendere 1, being accountable for the manner in which he
had executed it. Was that saving that he was to attend
only to their particular interests, and to no other? When,
however, he said that every Member when he surrendered
his trust to his constituents was accountable to them for
the manner in which he had executed it, he begged not to
be understood to cast the slightest doubt on the right of the
constituents of any Member, from time to time, to meet
for the purpose of communicating to such Member their
opinions and wishes. How far he might be bound to
attend to those opinions and wishes was another question,
which must, of course, depend upon the circumstances of
every particular case.
The Earl of HARROWBY, in explanation, repeated,
that it was an unconstitutional doctrine that it was the
duty of a Member to change his general views of what was
beneficial, in consequence of the orders of his constituents.
The Earl of CARNARVON, adverting to the case of
Sir Robert Wilson, observed, that in that case the Hon.
Member was not only under the control of hisconstituenta,
but felt himself actually obliged to relinquish his seat. This
control would be more dangerous in the metropolitan dis-
tricts than anywhere else. In his opinion, a Member for
St. Mawes, or any other small place, was as touch a Mem-
ber for the wl.ole country, as a Member for Manchester, or
any other large place enfranchised by tho Bill would be.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that a Member
of Parliament must always be under a certain control of
his constituents. They had no power, however, to force
a Member out of his place. They were only entitled, from
time to time, to offer their instructions to their represen-
tative ; and if, at the end of the period for which he was
required, they were not satisfied with his conduct, they
might refuse to return him a second time. With refe-
rence to the case of Southwark, it ought to be recollected
that Sir Robert Wilson had given a pledge to his consti-
tuents on his election.
The Earl of ('ARNARVON said a few words in ex-
planation. It was not the Members of the House of Com-
mons alone- who were under control. Were they (the
House of Lords) under no control? What prevented them
at that moment from following their own judgment, but
the very dictation of the Political Unions which had been
alluded to ?

The Marquess of SALISBURY observed that it would
be of no use to press questions to a division in the Com-
mittee, as the opinions of those who divided would not be
recorded on the Journals ; but he reserved to himself the
only lower left him—that of dividing the House %%hen the
report was brought up, upon every material point that it
contained. On the heads of the authors and supporters of
the Bill would rest all the evil that would result from it,
and he prayed God to grant that that evil might not be so
great as he apprehended.
On the Earl of SHAFTESBURY putting the question,
however, Lord WHARNCLIFFE demanded a division,
The nuinhers were:—
For the motion 9l
Against. it 3i
Majority for Ministers' —3s
Finsbury was then added to the clause.
O❑ the motion to add Marylebone,

The Duke of NEWCASTLE observed, that they had
two plans of Reform to discuss ; that of the Noble Earl, and
that of the Noble Baron ; the latter, in his opinion was as ob-
jectionable as the former ; the only difference between them
bring, that the one was genuine, and the other not so. He
felt that the character of their Lordships was deeply affected
by what was going on. He did not quarrel with the
Noble Lords opposite, for they were consistent, although
most pernicious in their opinions ; but he quarrelled with
the Noble Lords on his side of the House who turned round
upon them in a harlequin kind of fashion.—(A laugh.)
Of this he was persuaded, that no earthly good could re-
sult from the course which they were at present adopting.
Fur himself he would give nu farther opposition to the
measure; and he thought it would save a great deal of
their Lordships' time to terminate this solemn mockery,
and to allow Lord Shaftesbury as once to read to the end
of the Bill.—(A laugh.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE could not agree with the Noble
Duke, but must do his duty in the Committee, when cer-
tain parts of the Bill, of which he disapproved, came under
discussion. He should do his duty as an independent
Member of that House. From the beginning of the agita-
tion of the question of Reform, he had always been of
opinion that to a considerable measure of Reform they must
concede. It was true that he had last year voted against
the second reading of the Bill fur the reasons which lie had
stated on the occasion. But he had voted for it this year,
it being in his opinion a paramount necessity to read the
Bill a second time after it had been twice sent up to them
by the House of Commons. He had agreed to the second
reading, however, with the view of endeavouring to amend
the Bill i❑ the best manner he could in the Committee;
and he should fail in his duty if he did not do so. It
might be advantageous to express an opinion by a vote in
the Committee, and it was for that purpose he had re-
quired the recent division. It was his intention to divide
the Committee whenever he might consider it beneficial to
do so.

The motion was then agreed to.
Lambeth, Bolton, Bradford, and Blackburn, were then
ordered to stand part of the Schedule.
Os the question for adding Brighton,
The Earl of HADDINGTON said, that if Brighton
were enfranchised, it appeared to him that Margate, and
the other places from which petitions had last night been
presented, ought to be enfranchised. The population of
Brighton, like that of every other watering place, was
fluctuating : he was not aware that there was any manu-
facture carried on in it, and be believed that it bad great
influence on the representation for the county of Sussex.
flie same observations were, indeed, applicable to Chel-
tenham. He had never heard of any claim which Brigh-
ton possessed, that was not possessed by the places hum
which he had last night presented petitions.
The Duke of RICHMOND observed, that Brighton
was a place of considerable importance. Its population
amounted to 40,6:34 soul*, and it paid in assessed taxes
the enormous sum of 35,5801. They had already given
the tight of representation to towns which paid vouch
smaller sums :—to Leeds, which paid only 18,0001. ; to
Bolton, which paid only 4,1351. ; to Sheffield, which
pail only 12,6051. ; and it was proposed to give it to
Dartmouth, which paid only 6751. Brighton paid more
in assessed taxes than nine large towns (the names of which
the Noble Duke mentioned). Ile was quite surprised,
therefore, to hear tEe objections of the Noble Eirl. Was
the Noble Earl aware what a constituency the Members
for Brighton would have ? It would be composed princi-
pally of persons who, having accumulated fortunes by ho-
uest industry, had settled there. The Members for Brigh-

lon would be always found the advocates of peace an l
4001 order, and must, therefore, be regarded with favou.
by those who took what were called conservative views
He had no personal interest in the question, for be hid n
property there. He only hoped that the House would not
in consequence of its being a watering place, take an et
roneous view of its importance. The Noble Duke cob
chided by observing, that Brighton had a still stronge:
claim to representation than any be had yet mentioned.
There were more houses in that town rated at forty pound•
a year than in all the rest of the boroughs contained in
•lie Schedule. He confessed, indeed, that he felt much
surprise to hear the Noble Baron object to enfranchise any
place possessed of so much wealth, intelligence, and re-
spectability.
The Eail of MALMSBURY complained that no par.
ticular interest was to he repr,sented in the town of
Brighton, and that the Government were, therefore, in•
consistent i❑ proposing to give it Members purely bee Luse
there were a number of residents of respectability. Dart.
mouth, a place of great importance, carrying on an ex-
tenstve trade, and requiring a representative for its pecu
liar interests, was to have one of its Members taken away ;
while Brighton, a place without any trade, manufacture,
or peculiar interests whatever, was, on the contrary, to
have two representatives..—(Hear, hear.)
The question that Brighton stand part of the schedule
was then put and agreed to.
Halifax and Macclesfield were also ordered to stand part
of the schedule. . . • _ _

On the question that Oldham stand part of the schedule,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH complained that Oldham
was not a town, but a township of ten miles square. He
recommended the Government to abandon the idea of
giving representatives to it and Rochdale, and other places
in Lancashire, and to revert to the plan in the farmer
Bill, giving two Members to Manchester and Salford
united, and two to Bolton, while they might, at the same
time, most advantageously increase t` le representation of
that great manufacturing district, by conferring six Mem-
bers on the county of Lancaster. He thought that course
would be infinitely preferable, and form a much fairer
method of giving expression to the opinions of the pecu•
liar interests of Lancashire.

Lord DURHAM observed, that the recommendations
of the Noble Lord, in the present instance, afforded little
encouragement to the Government to adopt any future
suggestions from their opponents. The change in the
Bill had been introduced at the desire of the Noble Baron's
friends in the other House ; and he (Lord Durham) saw
no advantages to be obtained by departing from the plan
now, at the suggestion of the Noble Baron in that [louse.
Lord ELLENBOROUG II defended his consistency in
proposing these Amendments ; and observed, that he
adopted now the course he had originally declared he
would take—namely, to propose such alterations as he
thought expedient in the Committee; and if they were
not agreed to, he reserved to himself the right of taking
the sense of the House on the third reading of the Bill.
After a few observations from Lord Suffield, Lord
Holland, Lord Haddington, and Lord Radnor, on the sub-
ject of the rising importance of Oldham,

Lord ELLENBOROUGH took occasion to remind
their Lordships that they were proceeding in that House
on a totally different principle from that which was
adopted in the Commons. Iu the Lower House,
they began by disfranchising a large number of
boroughs. In that House they were, on the con-
trary, inquiring to what number of boroughs and
towns they could extend the franchise, and if
they could not bear in mind that in every cue they
were robbing some place of its right in order to confer
it on another, which perhaps had very little higher
claims on their attention, they would, he was sat.sfied, in-
volve themselves and the country in endless trouble and
contention. This, lie repeated, was the question. They
were in every case cal, d on to draw a comparison between
a place which had possessed the right of returning Members
for ages, and some other place of a perhaps not much
greater importance, which it had obtained in the course
of later years. This it was necessary they should hear in
mind when they proposed to give representation to Oldham,
which hail not much greater wealth or importance than
some of the places they proposed to disfranchise.—(hear.)

The Earl of WINC HILSEA, after protesting against
the division to which their Lordships had come during hie
absence, and after restating his opinions on the subject of
Reform, took that opportunity to ask the Noble Eirl at
the head of his Majesty's Government whether he was
prepared to consent to any modifications whatever in the
Bill then before the House. He slid not speak of amend-
ments with respect to the franchise, or to the 101. right
of voting, although to them lie entertained objections ; but
he wished to know whether individuals were still to enjoy
the right of voting for both counties and boroughs on the
faith of the same property ? He asked the que•tion, that
he might know what course it became his duty to pursue,
if the Noble Earl persisted in trampling on the character
of that House, and on the liberties of his country.

Earl GREY could not object to any protest the Noble
Earl might think proper to make for the purpose ofmain-
taining his principles, or supporting his reputation in the
eyes of the country ; but he objected to the questions of
the Noble Earl, repeated as they were night after night in
the same words, as a trespass on the time of the House,
and as calculated to be of no good to their discussions.
With regard to the course which the Noble Earl had inti-
mated it to be his intention to pursue, he (Earl Grey) re-
membered a time when the Noble Eael left that House with
a declaration that he would never again return to take a
part in their deliberations.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The
Noble Earl had, however, returned ; and he (Earl Grey,)
notwithstanding the differences of opinion of the present
hour, looked forward to the time when the Noble Etrl
would be found discharging tile important duties of his
station with credit to himself, with advantage to his coun-
try, and with that sincere and honest desire to act up-
rightly and conscientiously, which he believed actuated all
the Noble Earl's movements and declarations. With
reference now to what had fallen from the Noble B iron,
(Lind Ellenborough) on the subject of the importance of
the duties which now devolved on that House, compared
with the Commons, in the consideration of this schedule,
he would ask the Noble Baron how that declaration was to
be reconciled with the argument of the Noble Baron and
his friends, that the alteration in the placing of the clauses
was merely formal, and of no possible importance.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) He bad contended, and be
thought justly, that the vote which bound him to take the
enfranchisement clause before the disfranchisement, was a
departure from the principle of the Bill, although he had
been taunted by the Noble Baron's friends, as attaching
unnecessary importance to a decision, which was so trivial
and unimportant, that it could not throw any difficulties
in the way of their future proceedings.—(Hear, hear.)
The declaration of the Noble Baron had, however, shown
them the importance of that vote, and convinced the house
of the propriety of adhering to the arrangement of the
House of Cotnnions for the preservation of the principle
of the Bill. Applying himself to the question of the
Noble Earl (Winchilsea), he could only say that he should
feel happy to hear the arguments of the Noble Eat!, when
they came to the decision of the question of voting for
cc unties and towns; and if he was convinced by them, he
certainly should not hesitate to give his support to the
Noble Earl's amendments. He was not so much wedded
to any particular clause as to be unable to see the ad-
vantage of judicious amendments if they were offered; but
at present his prejudices were in favour of the Bill as it
stood.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA, from these observation,'
saw plainly that there was nothing to hope from the Noble
Earl with respect to recommendations for the improve-
ment of the Bill, and he thought, therefore, it would be
much better for the clerk to read the clauses over, and let
their Lordships pass it at ouce.—(llear, hear, and a
laugh.) Reference had been made to his conduct during
the discussions on another question ; but that measure,
much as he objected to it, was not carried by any unwar-
rantable and unconstitutional exercise of power, such as
that which was exercised now ; for it made no difference
whether one hundred new Peers walked in at one door, or
one hundred old Peers walked out at the other, the inde-
pendence of that House was equally destroyed. (The
Noble Earl was proceeding to vindicate the vote he gave
on the Catholic Bill, when a Peer cried " Question.")
Question !—(exclaimed the Noble Earl)—Let the indi-
vidual speak out and show himself who calls question.—
(Loud calls to order).
Lord LITTLETON, as the individual alluded to, said
that he, sitting as he did beside the Earl Marshal, the
Premier Peer of England, felt himself
justified in calling
Question ! when he thought the Noble Earl was alluding
in terms sufficiently strong to matters not connected with
the sub.), et before the House,
Lord KENYON was of opinion, that the Noble E trl
had not violated order in attempting to vindicate his con-
duct from the allusions of the Noble Earl (Grey).
Ea.! GREY said, the Noble Baron (Kenyon) who ruse
to order had a little infringed the order of the House him-
self. Nothing could be further from his intention than
any offensive allusion to the conduct of the Noble Earl.
The Earl of WINCHILSE said, that his feelings had
been strong on the question, and they were not changed ;
for religion was, in his opinion, a question of no slight im-
ce. put tan
• He would be ready to the last hour of his ex-
istence to justify the course which 1e pursued on the
passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill. He had de-
terniined on that occasion never again to set foot in that
House ; but he had since been induced to depart from that

resolution by the advice of friends to whose opinions L.
felt bound to defer.

Lord LITTLETON begged to apologize to their Lord-
ships for his, perhaps, irregular interruption of the Noblt
Earl's (Winchilsea) speech. But if the irrelevancy of th.
Noble Lord's arguments was not a sufficient excuse for tl e
interruption, the manner in which those arguments wet,
delivered would be, he hoped, taken by the House as his
apology.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord SUFFIELD wished to remind Noble Lords that
the real question before the House was, that Oldham stand
part of the clause.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE denied that the proposition of
the Noble Lord near him was an interference with the dis-
franchisement part of the Bill; neither was that question
upon which some days ago the Noble Lords opposite were
left in a minority an interference, as bad been pretended,
with that part of the Bill.—(Hear.)
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY must say, that
he entirely concurred in the observations of a Noble Duke
upon that (Opposition) side of the House, that it would be
better to pass the Bill at once without discussion.—
(Hear, and a laugh.) But he had still some hope that
their Lordships might by assiduity effect some mitigatio❑
of the mischievous tendency of the Bill—he did not mean
that he should put Ministers to the necessity of a journey
to Windsor.—(Hear, and a laugh.) As the Noble Earl
opposite at present stood, be (Lord Londonderry) did not
envy him, and would rather have (as we understood) the
little honour which he himself possessed, than the power
of the Noble Earl.—(Laughter. )
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the question
before the House was simply this, whether the word
" Oldham" should be inserted in the part of the clause to
which they had arrived?—(Hear, hear.) With respect
to that borough, it was to be considered, that indepen-
dently of the country parts which were to be included
with it, there was a large town, of which:the population
could not be less than 20,000; and the inhabitant house-
holders of the suburb were for the most part engaged in
the same trade with those of the town.—(Hear.)
Lord KENYON said that if their Lordships would ex-
amine schedule C, they would find that the cotton trade,
which was the trade of Oldham, would be sufficiently re.
presented without giving Members to that place. The
schedule already contained Manchester, Bolton, Salford,
and Blackburn, of all which the staple trade was the cotton
manufacture.

Earl GREY was understood to say that the principal
trade of Blackburn was not the cotton trade.

Lord KENYON begged that the Noble Earl would not
interrupt him.—(Hear, hear ; Order, order.) He should
not permit the Noble Earl to interrupt him.— (Cheers,
and cries of " Order.") He was an independent Member
of that House, and he would not allow herself to be in-
terrupted. If he could allow any Noble Lord to interrupt,
it should not be the Noble Lord who had endeavoured to
subvert and destroy the privileges of that House.—(Hear.)
Eail GREY rose merely to say, that he bad not in-
tended to interrupt the Noble Lord, but only to set him
right by stating that the trade of Blackburn was not as the
Noble Baron supposed—the cotton-trade.—(Hear.)
Lord KENYON :was satisfied with the explanation of
the Noble Earl, and he was sorry he bad mistaken the
Noble Earl's intention.—(Hear, hear.) When be saw
that, by the enfranchisement of Manchester, and the other
places which he had mentioned, sufficient representation
was given to the particular interests with which those
places were connected, he could not admit that there was
any reason for giving Members to Oldham, which, com-
pared to the other towns, was au insignificant place.—
(Hear.) The consequence of the Bill would be the de-
struction of the Monarchy.—(Hear, bear, hear.) By
forcing that measure upon their reluctant Sovereign, the
Noble Earl, pposite had placed the King in a situation in
which he could make no choice of a Minister; and the
advice the Noble Earl had given his Sovereign to exercise
his prerogative in so unconstitutional a manner as to de-
stroy the independence of that House, was abandoned and
roost atrocious—

Earl GREY—Atrocious, my Lords !--(Vehement
cheering.) I put it to your Lordships, is it consistent
with the usages of this House, or with ordinary propriety,
that the Noble Lord should apply such words to me ?
For my part, I can only reject the words with contempt
and scorn.—( Hear, hear, awl Order.)
Lord KENYON—In the words of the Noble Lord, I
say, that I repel this attack upon me with contempt and
scorn.—(Hear, hear.) I repeat, that I think the conduct
of a Minister of the Crown, in advising the most unconsti-
tutional exercise of the King's highest privilege, fur the
purpose of destroying the independence of this House, was
abandoned and atrocious.—(Vehement cries of Order, and
Hear, hear.) Whether the Noble Earl be pleased or not
with my using the word atrocious, the privileges of this
House have not yet been abrogated to such an extent—
(Cheers)—that the Noble Earl can prevent me from saying
that I thall always feel, that it was a most atrocious act of
the Minister to give such advice to the King.—(Cheers,
and cries of Order.)

Earl GREY—Anything more unparliamentary, disor.
derly, and atrocious—(Cheers, and loud cries of Order)
—than the applying of such words to me, I never heard
in this House.—(Cheers ) It is for the House to act as
may seem befitting its own dignity ; but for me, all that
remains to me is to throw back those words with the
utmost scorn, contempt, and indignation.—(Hear, hear,
order.) When, on a question having no relation to such
a topic, the Noble Baron thought proper to arraign my
conduct, I can only say, let the Noble Baron arraign me
in a regular mariner, and I am ready to vindicate my con-
duct. —(Cheers. ) On this occasion I shall say no more than
that I have never done anything inconsistent with my duty
to my Sovereign, to my country, or with that debt of
gratitude which I owe his Majesty, from whom I have
on all occasions received as great kindness as any Minister
of the Crown ever received at the hands of his Sovereign.
—(Hear, hear.) I repeat, then, that I throw back with
scorn and contempt the charge that my conduct has been
abandoned and atrocious.—(Repeated cries of Order, and
hear.) But, my Lords, this is not the time to argue
those topics ; and I shall therefore say no more than this,
that if his Majesty was left alone, that was done by my
fault.—(Cheers from both sides.) I resigned my situation
when I found that I could not fill it with honour to
myself, or with advantage to the :country—(Hear, hear)
—and I returned to office when I found that my services
could be useful to the King and to my country, and not
derogatory to my own honour.—(Much cheering.) The
Noble Lord has thought proper to make upon me an at-
tack which was improper and indecent.—(Cheers, and
cries of Order.) My Lords, as the Noble Baron has made
this attack upon me at a time when the question before
the House is whether the word Oldham shall be inserted
in the clause—if the Noble Lord does not think proper to
retract the expressions which he has used, my only answer
to the attack made upon me is, that I repel it with scorn
and contempt.—(Cheers, and cries of Order.)
The Earl of WINCHILSEA thought that the Noble
Err! was exceedingly sensitive to-night.—(Cheers, arid
Order, order.) On a former occ ision the same words had
been used by a Noble Earl on that (the Opposition) side
of the House—not once, but twice.—(Hear, bear.) ,
Addressee to the Crown had been, he might say, in a
degree sanctioned by the Noble Earl, which were se-
ditious, unparliamentary, and treasonable.—(Order.)
Eirl GREY asked, did the Noble Earl charge him
with bringing forward or encouraging treasonable addresses
to his Majesty?—(Hear, hear.)

The E;rl of WINCHILSEN did not accuse the Noble
Earl of directly sanctioning and encouraging those attacks
upon the Sovereign ; but he said that the most seditious
calumnies and treasonable publications had been put forth
in every part of the country under the name of Addresses
to the Crown, and the Government of the Noble Earl had
done nothing to check them. In that way it was (as the
Noble Earl was understood) that he had accused the Earl
of sactiuning those publications.—(Hear.)
The Duke of CUMBERLAND assured the House that
he did not intend to occupy much of their Lordships' time,
and be trusted and hoped that no Peer would suppose
that anything which he should say was intended to irri-
tate the House more than it seemed to be irritated at
present.--(Hear, hear.) His only object in rising was to
implore Noble Lords to tranquillize themselves, and to
carry on their debates temperately in the present state of
the country.—(Hear, hear.) Surely the way in which
the debate was conducted that evening was not the way
either to oppose the Bill or carry it—(Hear, hear)
and with neither the opposing or the carrying of the Bill
would he have any thing to do, if the course adopted that
evening should be persevered in. He trusted that any op-
position which any of their Lordships might think proper
to give to the Bill would be pursued calmly, and that
their Lordships would not allow their passion to get the
better of their sense.—(Hear. )
The question was then put, and Oldham was voted
part of the clause.
Stockton, Stoke-upon Trent, and Stroud, were then
severally voted part of the clause.

. .
The question was then put upon the fourth clause, which
respects the places included in schedule D.
Lord WYNFORD sail, that the clause differed from
the corresponding one in the two former Reform Bills, and
wished an amendment to be made which would restore it
to the same form. His objection was, that the clause, as
it now stood, rendered the operation of the Reform Bill
dependent upon the passing of another, the Boundaries'
Bill, which might not pass that Session or the next, so
that if a dissolution should take place in the mean time,
the Bill would be inoperative as respected the place in that

chose. If the r turns were perfect, the House could
settle the boundaries, and send back the Bill perfect to tfii
other House. There was no precedent for making th,
operation of one Bill dependent upon another to be pa,st
at a future time. Such a proceeding was contrary to ever
principle of legislation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Act cf.
Union furnished a precedent for the clause to which the
Noble and Learned Lord objected.
The Earl of RADNOR could not concur in the appre-
hension of the Noble and Learned Lord that there was
any danger that Parliament would stultify itself so far as
not to pass the Boundaries' Bill. The Noble and Learned
Lord said, that in case of a dissolution taking place be-
fore the Boundaries' Bill should have been passed, then
the places contained in the schedule would not be able to
send Members to Parliament. But the fact was that even
supposing that the Boundaries Bill should never pass, there
was in the Reform Bill itself a schedule L, which provided
for the boundaries of those towns.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble and Learned Lord, therefore, had found a mare's
nest.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the clause to
which his Noble Friend (Lord Radnor) had alluded was a
temporary provision, guarding against the inconvenience
which might arise if a dissolution should take place after
the passing of the Reform Bill, and before the passing of
the Boundaries' Bill.
Lord HOWARD of EFFINGHAM thought that two
much stress was laid upon the importance of precedent.
He would ask them to look to the state of the country,
and to say whether they were not bound to do the best they
could for their country, whether they could find precedents
for their measures or not.—(Cheers.)
Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked, did the Noble Lord
know, that, until after the passing of the Boundaries' Bill,
all the boroughs in schedule B should remain untouched?
He thought that the most convenient course would be to
carry the Boundaries' Bill, and the Reform Bill through
Parliament pani passu.—(Questiun, question.)
The clause was then agreed to.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that nothing which
be had heard tended to diminish his objections to the
schedule (D).
On the question that Ashton•under-Lyne stand part of
the schedule,

Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected to the enfranchise-
ment of that place. It had not appeared on the first or
second Bill, and he had heard no reason wherefore it ap-
peared now in that Schedule. He knew that the people of
Staley-bridge did not wish to be enfranchised as a part of
the constituency of Agit ; but there was no reason why
2V.hton should not be united to Oldham, with which it
was connected.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said. that Ashton-under-
Lyne was a place of considerable importance, containing
fourteen thousand inhabitants. Its interests were quite
distinct from those of Oldham, and he saw no reason why
the latter place should be swamped.—(A laugh.) The
objection on the part of the people of Staley-bridge to be
enfranchised was not so much that they did not wish to be
represented, but they did not wish to be united with
Ashton. The affections of the two places were not in
direct proportion with their proximity.—(A laugh.) The
objection of the parties themselves to the union was a
sufficient reason why they should not be united.—(A
laugh.) As to the difference between this clause and the
former Bill, be (the Lord Chancellor) considered it an
improvement.

Ashton-under-Lyne was then voted part of the schedule.
The question that Bury stand part of the schedule
was agreed to without opposition.
On the question that Chatham stand part of the
schedule,

Lord ELLENBOROUGH could see no reason why
this place should be united to Rochester, on the principle
on which such large additions had been made to the con-
stituency of Bristol, Liverpool, and other places. By this
Bill Chatharn would become like Greenwich, a Govern-
ment nomination borough.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it hail been
found that Rochester itself could furnish an adequate con-
stituency, and Chatham was of sufficent importance to
be represented.
After a few words from the Marquess of LANSDOWN,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, and the Earl of DARNLEY, Chat-
ham was voted part of the clause.
On the question that Cheltenham be included in the
schedule,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH intimated that he would not
oppose the enfranchisement of this place, as it would
furnish a most respectable constituency.
The question having been agreed to, the CHAIRMAN
reported progress, and the House adjourned at Twelve,
to Wednesday, Ten o'clock.