The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-08 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuNE 7.

At a Quarter to Four o'cloAt the SrEAKEIL took the
Chair, shortly after which the Deputy Usher of the Black
Rod entered and summoned the House to the Bar of the
House of Lords, to hear the Royal assent give❑ by Com -
mission to the Reform Bill. The Speaker and all the
Members present, we suppose about fifty in number, pro-
ceeded to the House of Peers. On their return, the
Speaker informed the House that the Royal assent had been
given to a Bill for improving the representation of England.
Mr. BLACKNEY presented three petitions from va-
rious parishes in the county of Carlow, praying for the
total abolition of tithes and church-rates. The Hon.
Member fully concurred in the prayer of the petitions, and
said that he was happy that his prophecy, that the people
of Carlow would preserve the public peace, had been fully
verified.
Mr. C. PELHAM presented a petition from Colefield
against the Registry Bill.
Mr. PAGET presented a petition from Hinckley, in Lei-
cestershire, against the punishment of death in cases of
forgery. The Hon. Member took that opportunity of
complaining of the partial exercise of the discretion
vested in the Privy Council, in selecting objects
who were to suffer capital punishment. The Hon. Mem-
ber passed a high eulogium on Mr. Jeremy Bentham, and
considered that the country had met with a great loss in
his death.
Mr. CAMPBELL thought the complaint made by the
Hon. Member, of the partial exercise of the discretion
vested in the Privy Council, was wholly unfounded.
Sir C. WETHERELL, though he differed in many
respects with his Majesty's Government, must confess that
the discretion vested in the Privy Council had never been
more fairly exercised than during the time Ministers bad
been in office. . _

Mr. PAGET hoped that the dissatisfaction which at
present existed in the mind of the people with respect to
the Criminal Code, would not be decreased till that code
was amended.
Mr. BRISCOE supported the prayer of the petition,
considering the Criminal Code of this country, as it at
present existed, equally at variance with sound policy and
justice.
Mr. SADLER presented a petition from Carlisle, Bury,
and Shadweil, in favour of the Factories Bill.
Mr. BRISCOE felt great regret that the Report of the
Committee on this subject, which had now been sitting up-
wards of 3 months, had not yet been brought to that House.
If it was not brought forward soon, he trusted the Hon.
Member would not let the present session pass without
bringing forward resolutions on the subject for the adop-
tion of the House. He considered the slavery of children
in manufactories worse than that of slaves in the colonies.
Mr. DIXON stated that the evidence which had been
brought before the Committee was of the most disgusting
description, and had satisfied them that the slavery of
children in factories was of the most atrocious description.
Mr. SADLER, in moving that the petitions be
printed, said he considered he had fully made out a case
for the interference of the House ; but they had sent him
to a Select Committee, where by evidence he had proved
that the statements which he bad made, so far from be-
ing exaggerated, were much short of the reality.._
He would certainly take some steps in order to arrive at
the opinion of the House on this subject.
Lord ALTHORP said, though the Hon. Member
might have made out some cases of cruelty, he must deny
that it was the general custom of the manufacturers of this
country.
Colonel EVANS hoped that if the Hon. Member could
not make out his evidence before the Committee before
the end of the Session, he would persevere in his inten-
tions of proposing resolutions, in order to take the sense of
the House on the question.•
After a few words from Sir R. PHILLIPS, Sir R.
BATESON, and Mr. SHELL, the petitions were ordered
to be printed.
After a few words from Mr. SADLER, and Mr. HuME,
the petition was ordered to be printed.
A message from the Lords brought up the British Mu-
seum Bill, the Vice-Admiralty Courts Bill, and several
private Biils, to which their Lordships had agreed.
Lord HOWICK, in moving for leave to bring in a
Bill for extending the authority of the Government and
Council of New South Wales, made the motion in conse-
quence of the numerous atrocities committed in New Z,a-
land, and other islands in the South Seas, by convicts from
New South Wales.

•
To a question put by Mr. Hums, the Noble Lord stated
that at present New Zealand and the other islands, not being

.40
~ Pe11.?„....1\
. eft
(
7 „„,...„,
.„,
in the King's dominions evereAritiout the jurildietiou of
the authorities of New South Wales.
Colonel DAVIES asked if the Noble Lord was de-
sirous of legislating on other dominions than the British.
Mr. DIXON said the most atrocious offences were com-
mitted in the South Sea Islands, which it was absolutely
necessary should be repressed.
The subject gave rise to a desultory discussion, in which
Mr. Burge, Lord Howick, Mr. Croker, and Mr. Home
took part, after which leave was given to bring in the i'.ill.
Mr. S. RICE suggested the propriety of entering into
the discussion on the second reading.
Mr. CROKER objected to the introduction of the Bill,
founded on the cases stated by the Noble Lord, in which
he saw no necessity for such a measure.
After some observations from Mr. LAMB and Mr.
BuuciE, leave was given to bring in the Bill.

MILITIA.
On the motion of Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, a Select
Committee was appointed to prepare the Estimates for the
Disembodied Militia in England and Ireland for 1832.
Lord HO WICK then moved for leave to bring in a Bill
for the purpose of amending certain Acts relative to New-
foundland.—Leave granted.
DIVISION OF COUNTIES BILL.

On the Order of the Day being read,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the Bill be re-
committed.

Mr. CROKER intimated his intention of deferring his
observations till the bringing up of the Report.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. C. WYNN approved the principle of the Bill,
but thought it had not been carried far enough. The
plovisions of the Bill ought to extend to the mode of ad-
mtinistering justice, and the assessments of the county rate.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Bill, combined with
the Reform Bill, to which the Royal Ascent had that day
been given, would in point of fact make but one measure,
regulating the election of Members of Parliament. It
was, therefore, advisable not to keep that object separate
And distinct from any other. He was not aware of the
Hon. Gentleman's object before that day, but he very
much approved of it ; and he thought it would be better
to let this Bill pass, and bring in a distinct Bill for that
purpose. _

Mr. CRESSETT PELEIASI said a few words; and
Mr. C. WYNN agreed with the Noble Lord, that it would
be better to confine the Bill upon their table to the wig
object which it had in view.
The House then resolved itself into the Committee, and
some conversation having passed between Mr. CROKER aud
Lord Joint RUSSELL across the table,
Mr. CROKER said, that the Noble Lord opposite (Lend
John Russell) had not exactly understood him ; he did
not expect there would be any alteration in the principle
of the Bill, nor should he oppose the principle. He could
not comprehend the rule on which the Commissioners
proceeded. In the case of Exeter, a very large place with
a numerous population, they had enlarged the boundaries
of the town, while in the case of Abingdon, a small place,
they had confined themselves strictly to the limits of the
town. The extension of the boundaries of the boroughs
in schedule B was the severest reflection that could be cast
on the whole measure of the Government, for there was
scarcely a borough in A which might not have been saved
from disfranchisement, and afforded a more respectable
constituency than the boroughs in B, if they had been
able to call in the inhabitants of the surrounding neigh-
bourhocl.—(Hear, hear.) The Boundaries Bill present
ed, in fact, the severest sarcasm on the whole principle
pursued in effecting the disfranchisement. There was no
place of which they had heard more than Old Sarum. It
had been the common byword of corruption for half a
century, and yet—would the House believe it ?-01d
Sarum was preserved.—(Hear, hear, hear.) By the
Boundary Bill now before the House, it was found
necessary to add certain parishes to Wilton, in order
to give it a sufficient constituency ; and among these
he found that very Old Sarum, with its burgage tenures,
of which he had heard so much from the Noble Lot d
opposite. It was true Old Sarum was preserved under
another name, but then Old Sarum had just as good a
title, from the number of its houses and its population, to
have bad Wilton added to it, as Wilton had to swallow up
Old Sarum. He bad, in all these discussions, heard of
three most scandalous blots on the representative system—
Old Sarum, Midhurst, and Gatton. Old Sarum was pre-
served, Mimthurst was preserved, and Gatton had escaped
by a kind of miracle.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The
borough of Reigate, which was preserved in schedule B,
although it had only 270 ten-pound houses, is a depar-
ture, and a strange one, from the principle of Ministers,
which required 300 to assure a constituency. The bo-
rough of Reigate was in the immediate vicinity of Gatton,
and if any additions had been made to the constituency of
Reigate, even Gatton, the third scandalous blot, would
have been preserved—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He
would now take leave to draw the attention of the House
to some of the inconsistencies of tlit Bill now before it.—
Atnersham in the first Bill was placed in schedule B, and
Midhurst in schedule A. In the last Bill they changed
places—for Midhurst, by that process of manipulation—
(A laugh)—for which the gentlemen were famous, was
placed in B, and Arnersham transferred to A. Now how
did the case stand with regard to those places making up
a constituency under the Boundary Bili ? If Amersham,
with double the number of the inhabitants of Midhurst,
had been permitted to remain in schedule B, five of
the neighbouring parishes would have given a consti-
tuency of 12,500 persons; while in attempting to get
a constituency for Midhurst, the Commissioners had been
obliged to take in 17 parishes, and yet they had only ob-
tained a population of about 5,000 persons. The case,
therefore, was this :—Arnersham at the beginning had
double the number of the inhabitants of Midhurst, and
at the close bad a neighbourhood producing double the
amount of the constituency of the neighbourhood of Mid-
hunt, and for those reasons it had been disfranchised. If
this was not gross injustice, he knew not what it was
deserved that name. He would now call their attention
to the parallel case of Bedwin and Wilton. Bedwin had
a population of 2,191, and Wilton 1,997; and yet Bed-
win was disfranchised, and Wilton permitted to retain
one Member. Now, how many parishes did the House
suppose were required by the Boundary Bill to make a
constituency for Wilton ? Eighteen--(Hear)--and
among them Old Sarum—the dead and buried Old Sa-
rum—which was now again to be brought to life, and to
a certain extent galvanised by the hand of his Majesty's
Ministers.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Old Sarum would, as
he said before, have formed as populous a centre for ad-
ditions under the Boundary Bill as Wilton ; but his Ma-
jesty's Ministers thought otherwise. Shakspeare some-
where observes, " that a rose, by any other name, would
smell as sweet ;" and one would have thought that a rotten
borough, under any other name, would smell as ill. He
mentioned the fact as it was, however—Old Sarum was
preserved. He would mention but one other case of the
same kind. Droitwich had 11 parishes added to it, to
make a population of 5,900, while Wendover, which was
disfranchised, could have made a population of 6,600 per-
sons out of five parishes. Some there were, he hoped,
who would agree with him in thinking that this was not
quite right, and that the Boundary 13111 was like the Re-
form Bill—a mass of anomalies.—(Hear, hear.) There
were no less than twenty-seven of
smttahonerceen:ewhwahnbenolrcsiot,uosg%o.haoss
acres
sr
otfh the
surface. Bill, which
awhno,,ubl
yc,o nftoari ni
n.
taken up by the framers of the Bill, contained within the
limits of the borough about 130 acres. It was now to
have two and twenty thousand.—(Hear, hear.) Marlow,
which in the same manner contained about 200 acres,
was now to include a constituency spread over a surface of
12,000 acres; and Morpeth, which had only 270 acres
when the Government began to dial with it, was now to
comprise within its limits upwards of 11,000. These
were not, in fact, boroughs ; they were small counties,
aud, as it was said of some superfluously adorned females,
that their person formed the least part of themselves, so
it might be said in the present instance, that the borough
was the smallest part of itself.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He
could not, however, pass wholly over the case of Tam-
worth, for it was a curious one, and gave rise to some re-
flections. Tamworth, which, before the House began to
meddle with the boroughs, had a surface of 83 acres (the
borough and town being in the same limits), was now to
have
,a population spread over 11,000 acres. Now,
the borough and town being within the same limits, and
the population being fully equal to that required for two
Memhers, it became a question of some importance why
its boundaries were to be enlarged at all.—(Hear.)—The
Commissioners in the outset bad decided, that as the rat-
ing was in many cases a very imperfect criterion of the
number of ten-pound houses, they would not abide by that
coining to a decision on the claims of a borough. This
was, undoubtedly, quite right; but it so happened that
Tamworth was almost the only borough among the small
towns which, having a number of rated houses beyond the
limit of 300—namely, 326—had yet teen thought by
tie Commissioners a borough which required its limits
ti be extended. Including the toa n and borough, it had
ighty-three acres, with au adequate constituency, for there
were 326 ten-pound houses rated already, and yet the
Commissioners had endeavoured to swamp the inhabitants
of these 83 acres by adding to them 11,500 frotn the sur-
(minding neighbourhood.—(Hear, hear.) Now he would
..ontrast this with the course pursued towards Stafford.
In that borough, which was placed in almost the same eir-
-1 limstances 118 Tamworth, the rural district was somewhat

rger, for it extended to 370 acres. The Commissioner 4,
finding a email suburb beyond the river, joined it to the

A •

I"9"gh of Staffoo, and gave 200 acres in addition t,
the 370. In the same manner they added a suburb on
the opposite side of the river to the borough of Tamworth;
but not content with the 90 acres which would have been
given if they had adopted the same course as at Safford,
they added, as he had before observed, upeeea„i
11,000. This proceeding, to say the least of it, was
very extraordinary.—(Hear, bear, hear.) Whet had the
Commissioners done with respect to Bridport? They had
not added to it one parish, but they had added to it a nice
little boundary—parts of three parishes, making a total
of a,BOO inhabitants, and 380 voters. Now, between the
town of Bridport and the harbour of Bridport there was
only a mile of space, containing. two parishes. But that
mile the Commissioners did not add to Bridport. They
went from Arundel to Littlehampton, a distance of five
miles ; but they would not go a mile from Bridport to
Bridport harbour. Then there was Stroud ; a moot ex-
traordinary borough—twelve miles long) by 4e'ven broad ;
being substantially, according, to the new word which la id
been coined by an Hon. Gentlemen behind, a " ecattere-
tion."—(A laugh.) What; indeed he complained of Was,
that the country had thus been scattered efeent at the
pleasure of a set of Commissioners ; and that there had
been no master-mind to bring the whole under one prin-
ciple, and to apply to the whole one general rule. Ber-
wick -uponeTweed one Commissioner recommended should
be united to the town of Tweedmoutle because the union
would be satisfactory to the inhabitants of Tweedmouth.
But when another Commissioner came to talk of Notting-
ham, he said that there were masses of buildings centigu-
ens to the town of Noringliam, but that he would not re-
commend their addition to Nottingham, because it would
not be agreeable to the inhabitants of that town. Now,
here was one Commissioner black, and another white, but
a third, to use a very popular word at present, was grey--e
(A laugh)—for, when speaking of Boston, he said that the
addition of A neighbouring district would gratify the feel-
ings of one party, but not those of the ether, and that it
was no part of his province to determine between them.
The schedules A and B were founded on the principle of
population, and on no ether principle could they be justly
founded. When the Noble Lords opposite altered the
principle of population to the principle of population and
taxes, they committed a great fault. The principle of pe-
pulation being, however, substantially adopted, would the
House believe that this Boundary Bill was about to Confer
the elective franchise in such a manner, that places having
a greater population would have a less amount of represen-
ta►tion ? The first place which he should mention was
Honiton. Honiton was to retain two Members. It had
3,509 inhabitants, 738 houses, and 318 101. houses; and
p &id 1,1001. in assessed taxes. Christchurch was to have
but one Member; and Christchurch had double the popu-
lation of Honiton, double the number of houses, and nearly
a hundred more electoral houses! It was the same with
Eye, it was the same with Morpeth, it was the same with
Clitheroe, it was the same with Wallingford. They had
all, almost all, double the population and double the houses
that Honiton bad ; and yet Honiton was to bare two
Members, while they were to have only one. Did lie re-
gret that Honiton was to keep two Members? No,
he rejoiced at it ; but when the principle was founded
lei population, houses, and taxation, he asked why
Menton was to have two Members, while
places doubling it in those respects were to have only one ?
Perhaps it might he said that this was an aces !ent. But
accidents of this kind were very frequent. Having made
these statements, the House must excuse him if he de-
e fined entering further into the details of this Boundary
Bill. With such anomalies in its principles, it was not
surprising that those principles should lead to results which
no labour could correct. The defects in it were, in truth,
enormous ; arising from a departure from the original
resolution, and empowering the Commissioners to exercise
their own discretion. If he had looked le the Reform
Bill with dissatisfaction and apprehension, that dissati,fac-
Lion and apprehension were greatly increased by its amal-
gamation with the Boundary Bill. Lively and vigorous as
the Noble Lords opposite might think the Reform Bill, be
(Mr. Croker) was convinced that, tied to such a mass of
inconsistency and absurdity as the Bribery Bill, it could
not last two Sessions. He was sorry fir this. The Re-
firm Bill was passed; anti he trusted to God it might be
allowed to operate calmly and quiety, and in such a manner
as might not produce one of those revolutions in which the
present times were so fertile. And here he begged to
observe, that at the very hour at which an eloquent
31ember of that House was the other evenin; eulo-
gizing the Revolution of Paris, on the ground of its
bloodless character, and of the tranquillity by which
it had been succeeded—blood was flowing in the
'streets of Paris, and the accounts received that day
flatly contradicted the praises given by the Hon. Member.
He had trusted that such a calamity would never befall
this country, and that the Reform Bill would be allowed
to work long enough to be assimilated with our habits,
and to associate itself with our pre-existing institutions.
But he solemnly assured the House, that he thought this
Boundary Bill was calculated to destroy all such hopes.
For, could it be believed that thirty boroughs would long
submit to return only thirty Members, while thirty other
boroughs, no better than them in any respect, and less in
population by 20,0000, were allowed to return double
that number ? The Reform Bill was a great moral and
political measure, on, which differences of opinion might
easily exist. Whether the qualification should be 101. or
510/. was a point susceptible of disputation. But in this
Boundary Bill, in this geographical, in this arithmetical,
in this numerical Bill, it was unpardonable to allow the
fugacious fancies of the Commissioners to interfere, and
prevent a perfect fairness of arrangement. When bakers,
having a quantity of dough to knead into loaves, did not
make those loaves of equal size and weight, they were in-
dictable for fraudulent practices A similar imputation
rested on the framers of this Bill. He thanked the House
fur the indulgence with which they bad listened to his
observations. It had given him great pain to make them.
They were perhaps the last that he should make on the
subject ; and it would give him more pleasure than he
had experienced during seven-and-twenty years of Par-
liamentary life, if the Noble Lord could convince him that
he was in error.—(Hear, hear.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought, now that no pur-
rise could be answered by the imputation, the Right
lion. Gentleman need not have returned to the charge that
certain boroughs had been treated with a view to the ad
vaneernent of particular interests. He would, however,
go through some of the objections which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had made to the Bill under consideration. It
appeared to him to be a very just principle, that whenever
villages surrounding a town were inhabited by persons
having occupation in the town, those villages might be
added to the town. He thought that small towns with
small rural districts around them might return that useful
class of Members who were now claimed as sanctifying the
nomination boroughs. The boroughs in schedule B were
of this kind. In reply to the Right Hon. Gentleman's as-
sertion, that Amersbam, which was in schedule A, was a
more considerable place than Midhurst, which was in
schedule B, he admitted that this was ti ue if population
were to be taken as the rule of enfranchisement; but
taking the new rule of judging by population and taxes
combined, the places these boroughs would have otherwise
held were changed. He contended too that in ache Jule
B they had retained the place itself, and not merely the
name of the place, as they would have been compelled to
do, bad they continued the franchise to the inconsiderable
places in schedule A by the addition of the neighbouring
rural districts to complete a constituency. With respect to
the places to which a large territory was added, be observed
that although a great number of acres were added, yet a
great number of 10/. voters were not necessarily added there-
by. He denied that there had been any partiality in the
arrangement of the boroughs, at Tamworth or elsewhere.
They had dealt with Tamworth precisely as they had done
with Tavistock and Horsham. The Comm issioners
were persons of the greatest respectability, many of them
professional men altogether unconnected with politics.
They made their survey, and decided to the best of their
ability ; and their decision was submitted to Mr. Littleton,
Captain Beaufort, and Lieutenant Drummond. Now,
it the charge of the Right Hon. Gentleman respecting
the unfairness in the case of Tamworth amounted to any-
thing, it amounted simply to a charge of base conspiracy
against these three Gentlemen—a charge nobody could sup-
pose well founded. In allusio❑ to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's observation, that there were certain boroughs re-
turning only one Member, who had a greater population
than others returning two, he remarked, first, that they
had never set up for themselves a standard of uniformity
in their proceedings, their only object was to secure a
proper constituency ; and, secondly, that there was no
comparison in importance between the towns on which
they conferred two Members and those who had only one.
For instance, although, as the Right Hon. Gentleman had
said, Christchurch, under the Boundary Bill, might have
a larger population than Honiton, yet nobody could dream
of comparing the respective importance of the towns.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had aliuded to some obseiva-
tions made by his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for
Ireland the other night, and appeared to have entirely mis-
apprehended him. His Right Hun. Friend had never al-
luded to the late French Revolution as other than a great
calamity ; but still he had contended, and all must allow,
that it was an inevitable calamity, unless the doctrine was
held that there was nothing for a nation except passive
obedience, even when a King had overthrown the law I.y

-.\

•.
4146
his ordinantte) antrielol4ecl iSia AA and charter, a
the late King of France had done.

Mr. C. WYNN asked which late King ?—(Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL raid the Right Hon. Gentleman
might reio'ce in the prospect of a new Revolution, an(
explained that he alluded to Charles X., and maintained
that the Revolution of July ivas inevitable.

Mr. CROKER explained that he had only alluded to
the strange coincidence of the Right Hon. Gentleman',
happening to talk of the tranquillity which prevailed in
France at the very moment when blood was flowing in the
streets of Paris. He denied that the Commissioners had
dealt with Tamworth as they had with Tavistock and Hor-
sham. For in Tamworth, as long ago as 1826, there were
upwards of 31:10 rated 101. houses, whereas in Tavistock;
there Were only about 200, and in Horsham only 160.
Mr. LITTLETON said, that a mistake had prevailed
,with respect to the Commissioners being restricted to find-
ing a constitttney of 300 101. voters. On the contrary,
they ft It that they had a discretionary power even in cases
*here there were originally more or less than 300 voters,
and might treat them on the same principle. It was not
to be disputed that in Stafford there were 438 ten-pound
houses, se that there was no reason whatever to warrant
the Commissioners in extending the limits of that borough.
When the case of Exeter was regularly brought forward,
he (Mr. Littleton) should be prepared to defend it, and
he would say the sante of Derby and Soho, the latter
being a single establishment, and entirely separate from
Birmingham. The comparison the Right -Hen. Gentle-
man had made between the population of boroughs would
have been much more in point if it had applied to the
electors in those barmiest; but in that case it would 'have
shown the very reVerse of the Right Hon. Gentleman's
argument. He hoped he might be allowed to say one
word for the Commissioners, of whom he was not one,
although he had been called in by Ministers, with others,
to aid in the preparation of the Report. The labours of
the Commissioners I:ad leen very great, and he was sure
that the credit they ought to receive would be equivalent
to their labours. Individuals more competent or more
zealous could not have been selected, nor any that would
have discharged their duty with greater industry, fidelity,
and discretion. For them and for himself he would assert,
upon his honour, that he did not know a single case
where the boundary had been carried a yard to the right or
to the left, for the sake of favouring a particular in-
terest.—(Cheers.)

Mr. CROKER made an inaudible remark in expla-
nation.

Mr. J. CAMPBELL expressed his entire approbation of
the course pursued by the Commissioners, as regarded the
borough of Stafford.
Sir C. WETHERELL contended that the same mea-
sure of justice had been dealt out to Tamworth as to Staf-
ford, and did not wonder, therefore, that the Hon. and
Loaned Member was satisfied. The other side had ob-
jected to the use of the word partiality ; their ears were
of a sudden excessively delicate—their feelings peculiarly
refined ; but he hoped that Ministers would be prepared
to hear and endure much stronger and coarser terms as
soon as the Reformed Parliament should have been con-
vened.—(Cheers and laughter.) He only meant to apply
the word in a parliamentary sense, and those who had over
and over again called the opponents of the Bill borough-
mcngers, corruptionists, and a factious oligarchy, ought
surely not to be the first to complain of the use of harsh
terms.—(Cheers.) Without imputing partiality, he must
venture to state that the distribution made by the Com-
missioners was either foutded upon ignorance, or depar-
ture from the principle, or accidental mistake ; and be
ar_ued that Ministers, in their measure, had employed
one principle to destroy, and another to enfranchi-e.
in order that the Radicals out of the House, and the
Reformers within it, might obtain a dirty triumph
over the prescriptive principle of the Constitution, as
far as regarded the ancient boroughs of the kingdom.
From this point the Honourable and Learned Gentle.
man went at once to the recent resignation of Mini-
sters, and to their deftat by a majority of forty one Peers.
As to the resignation, he insisted that Ministers had
gone out of office mere!) because they could not preserve
the due order of the alphabet ; and as to the majority, he
likened it (we could not catch exactly in what way) to the
protest of the forty-one Deputies in Paris, who were to
form a new programme of a constitution for France. He
afterwards advei ted to the case of Oxford, and complained
that the two parishes of St. Giles and St. Clement bad
been needlessly added, when both were out of the ancient
boundaties of the city, and one of them actually across
the river. In the instance of Arundel, the Commissioners
had taken a flight, only equalled by a carrier pigeon or a
wild-duck, in order to include . Littlehampton which was
five miles distant. He did not scruple to assert
that the reason for it was, that Littlebampton was the
property of the Duke of Norfolk. Here he must main-
tain, in the parliamentary sense of the word, that par-
tiality had been shown. He protested against all these
new experiments of representation—they had been ttied
three times in France—in 1792 ; under Louis XVIII. ;
and under the presedt King (if King he could he called),
and they had all failed. It seemed, nevertheless, likely
that the same experiment would be tried again, and the suc-
cess would be the same. These events ought to have acted
in this country as a warning rather than an incitement, for,
as he bad before said, the result was only a triumph by
Radicals and Reformers over the prescriptive principle of
the Constitution.

Lord ALTIIORP admitted that the use of the word par-
tiality might be parliamentary; but he denied that it had
been applied with any justice in the present case, the more
especially as it could not but bear, in that instance, a sig-
nification almost equivalent to dishonesty. He contended
that the promoters of the measure were compelled to take
some fixed boundary, and doubtless that might sometimes
seem to operate favourably to themselves, though he would
contend that it quite as often—niy much oftner—proved
more favourable to those opposed to them in politics. Allusion
had been made to the French Revolution ; but to his mind,
he owned that there did ❑ot appear any connexion between
that event and the provisions of the lioundary Bill, and,
therefore, he should abstain from any notice of that topic,
and apply himself to one better worthy of attention,
though admitting of a conclusive reply. It had been said
that two whole parishes were added to Oxford ; so far
from that being the fact, only St. Clement's had been
athled. Then, as to Arundel, it was made matter of com-
plaint that it had been so extended as to include Little-
hampton ; but, on that point, he begged the House to re•
member that all the immediate space was likewise in-
cluded, and that, therefore, all argument upon that branch
of the subject fell to the ground. The Noble Lord added,
that if any errors should hereafter be made apparent in any
of the provisions of the Bill, there would be found on this
side of the House every disposition to amend them ; but in
justice to himself, and those with vehein be acted, he felt
bound to say, that no feeling of a political or personal kind
had influenced the framing of the Bill.
Lord DUDLEY STUART, though acknowledging the
justice of much of what fell from the Noble Lord, could
not but say that many of the cases required explanation.
The motion was then put and agreed to.
. .

The clauses as to Cheshire, Eornwall, Cumberland,
Derbyshire, Devonshire, and Durham, were then severally
agreed to. _ .

The clause relating to Essex was agreed to.

On the clause relating to Gloucester,
Lord G. SOMERSET remarked that according to the
division for Gloucester it would be impossible for some of
the freeholders to attend on the day of nomination. The
Noble Lord recommended that Thornbury should be sub-
stituted instead of Wootton-under.Edge.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL consented to adopt the sug-
gestion of the Noble Lord.

The clause relating to Hampshire was agret d to.
The clause relating to Kent was agreed to.

On t:ie clause relating to Lancashire,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed to strike out Wigan,
and put in Newton as the place of nomination.
Mr. THICKNESSE thought that Wigan was the
better place of the two, and he therefore opposed the al-
teration.
The Committee then divided—
For striking out Wigan . 54
Against it
Majority —49
The clause referring Leicestershire was agreed to.
The clauses respecting Norfolk, Northampton, North-
umberland, Nottingham, Salop, Somerset, Stafford, Suf-
folk, Surrey, Sussex, Warwick, Wilts, and Worcester,
having been agreed to, the CHAIRMAN reported progress,
and asked leave to sit again to-morrow (this day).
The other Orders of the Day having been disposed of,
the House adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.

Our excellent contemporary, the Times, has
alluded in very mysterious language, to the proceedings
i❑ the Lords' Committee on the Gravesend Pier Bill. The
fact is, that Lords SALISBURY, BERESFORD, STRANG-
FORD, WICKLOW, and two other hereditary legislators,
went down to the Committee on the last day, after the
evidence had been closed on both sides, and voted that the
preamble had not been proved, although they bad not
heard one worn of that evidence. Lord RADNOR exposed
the job in his usual honest and straight-forward manner,
and the Bill was recommitted. We tike shame to our-
selves fur ❑ot having, in this instance, departed from our
4eneral rule, of not reporting discussions on private Bills.
Such conduct is most discreditable, and if repeated, must
render any application to Parliament for local improve-
ments quite useless,.—Morning Chronicle.

S

•

N • .
OVING INTELLIGENCE.

EPSOM RACES.-(YESTERDAY)

Our annual visits to this far-famed scene of excitement
have been so numerous, and the " moving accidents" of
the road and the race-course so frequently and so fully de-
scribed, that in an excursion yesterday we in vain sought
for some new features, to enable us to give our account
the recommenriation of novelty—the incidents of the day
were of a precisely similar character to what may have
been seen any Derby day these 2O years. So hackneyed,
in fact, has the subject become, that, without any violent
stretch of imagination, the history of Thursday's amuse-
mews at Epsom, saving only the race, might very easily
he concocted at home. The only difference observable yes-
terday was, that in the number of the visitors there was a
palpable falling off when compared with former years--
nor did we observe so strong a muster of the Aristocracy
as we have been accustomed to find on these occasions.—
This, however, may be fairly attributed to the late events
in the political world, which have fully engrossed the

attention of the higher classes, and ren,lered them some

what careless of matters postessing only a secondary im-
portance. On the Downs it would have been difficult for
a novice to detect any deficiency—the stands were appa-
rently crowded, and the sides of the Course lined with car-
riages; on casting our eyes over the ground, however, we
missed the immense number of anxious spectators that we
had been wont to see clustered round Tot'enham-corner,
that vital point in the race for the Derby. At the starting
and betting posts, if the people were fewer, the noise and
confusion were as Babel-like as ever. Notwithstanding all
this, the actual assemblage was very great, the ensemble of
the scene highly picturesque and animated.
In the Grand Stand, which we regret to find has not
real;zed the golden expectations of the shareholders, the
more stylish part of the company mustered in great force,
and the rooms appropriated to their use were patronized
by many of the most influential members of the Jockey
Club. The appearance of this superb edifice at the time
the Derby was being run, was truly magnificent, and of
itself a sight worth all the fatigues of the day. The wea-
ther was extremely favourable, with the exception of a
heavy shower about one o'clock, the unpleasant effects of
which were more than compensated for by its beneficial
consequence in other respects--the dust (before then dis-
agreeable enough) was effectually laid, and the air rendered
agreeably cool. The arrangements for keeping the ground
were admirable, and cannot be too highly commended.—
Without the slightest confusion the Course was cleared,
with a promptitude and precision that we have never seen
surpassed on this or any other course. Baron de Tessier,
in this and other matters connected with the race, has
shown himself one of the most competent stewards that
could possibly have been selected. The sport was very
good ; in short, every thing went off well, saving only a
few accidents, and not a few robberies, none of which were
of a nature serious enough to require further notice.
The following is a complete list of the company, nearly
the whole of whom were in the Grand Stand :—Duke of
Rutland, Duke of Richmond, Duke of Grafton, Marquess
and Marchioness of Worcester, Marquess of Taviatock,
Marquess Graham, Marquess and Marchioness of Cleve-
, land, Marquess of Exeter, Earl and Countess of Chester-
, field, Earl Mountcharles, Earl and Countess Wilton, Earl
and Countess Verulam, and the Ladies Grimston, Earl and
Countess of Jersey, Earl of Lichfield, Earl of Uxbridge,
Earl Stradbroke, Earl of Orford, Earl of Derby, Earl of
Coventry, Earl of -Errol, Count Matuschevitz, Count Ba-
thiany, Lord John Fitzroy, Lord G. H. Bentinck, Mar-
quess and Marchioness of Londonderry, Marquess of Aber-
corn, Lord Lowther, Lord Ranelagh, Lord W. Powlett,
Lord C. Manners, Lord Grimston, Lord Villiers, Lord T.
Cecil, Lord R. Grosvenor, Lord F. Fitzclarence, Lord A.
Conyngham, Lord tfullatuore, Lord Kennedy, Lord and
Lady Ingestrie, Lord Stormont, Lord Kinnaird, Lord Al-
vanley, Lord Hillsborough, Lord Sandwich, Lord F. So-
merset, Lord Sydney, Lord Fordwich, Lord Amesbury,
Lord Foley, Sir John Sebright, Sir F. Johnson, Sir F.
B ithurst, Sir J. Shelley, Sir L. Eiger, S r D. Baird, S;r
M. Wood, Sir V. Cotton, Sir G. and Lady Fieathcote,.
Sir G. Anson, Sir W. Abdy, Hon. General Grosvenor,
Hon. Colonel Anson, Hon. Captain Rous, Hon.W. Stanley,
Hon. B. Craven, Colonel Udny, General Upton, General
Blunden, Colonel Chaplin, Colonel Cosby, Colonel Chaloner,
Colonel Peel, Colonel Russel!, Ca?tain Byng, Captain Grant,
Captain Hornby, Mr. C. Greville, Mr. M. Stanley, Mr.
S. Stanley, Hon. E. Stanley, Hon. H. Stanley, Mr.
Houldsworth, Mr. Batson, Mr. Rush, Mr. Waddington,
Mr. J. Mills, Mr. F. Mills, Mr. Cooke, Mr. Roberts, Mr
Willem, Mr. A. Hunter, Mr. Worrall, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Osbaldeston, Mr. Holyoake, Mr. Stonehewer, Mr. Thorn-
hill, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. B. Wall, Mr. Wigram, Mr.
Vernon, Hon. F. Ponsonby, Mr. Baring, Mr. Rothschild,
Mr. G. Walker, Mr. Hawker, Mr. Irby, Mr. Shard, &c.
THE DERBY STAKES.

It is many years since there has been a Derby posKssing
so anomalous a character as the one under notice, or one
in which the public running of the horses engaged has
been so negatived and unintelligible. Throughout the
winter Lord Exeter's horses monopolized the greater por-
tion of the betting—Beiram, because he had run a good
horse ; Spencer, because he had incontestably proved him-
self a bad one (and, therefore,.safe to bet against) ; and
Folly, because he boasted of qualifications essentially
Derby-like. The Spring completely transposed this
" state of things." Spencer ran only to be beaten, and
was discarded from the betting; out of gratitude, however,
for having proved so useful in the cold weather, be was
permitted to accompany Beiram as a " looker on." Beiram
next got defeated, but there was too much money on him
to allow of his going back to any extent. Folly then went
amiss, and the hopes of the party were dissipated. Perion
then came up, spite of his cowardly running at Doncaster
last season ; the notion of his goodness was corroborated
by a race in the Craven Meeting, and neutralized by a
shameful defeat from Mixbury in the first Spring, on which
occasion he is stated to have been amiss. 111ixbury was
beaten cleverly fur the Column Stakes by a mare of the
Duke of Portland',;, that subsequently turned out a rank
jade; he came out in two races next meeting, and beat
the crack nags, Beiram and Perion, in a canter, several
other Derby horses sharing the same fate. Non Campos,
Messenger, Count Robinson, Rotterdam, &c., were at one
time great favourites, and ran quite as badly as the
" betters round" could have desired. Hargrave alone, of
all the lot, has maintained his ground in the betting, his
running being good per se, and supported by that of the
horses he had beaten. Eindiana was not placed for the
July Stakes, and beat Margrave in the Clearwell. The
Derby, therefore, was a very open race, presenting for a
long time the extraordinary feature of a " dark horse."
(Trustee) for first favourite !—Certainly never before did
horses for the Derby meet upon such fair terms.
The following are particulars of the race :
The Derby Stakes of 50 Says each, h ft. for 3.yr-old colts
Bst i lb, and fillies Bst 21b. The owner of the second
horse to receive 100 soya out of the Stakes, and the
owner of the winner to pay 100 soya towards the ex-
penses of keeping the Course. Mile-and-half.-101
Subscribers.
Mr. Itidsdale's St. Giles, by Tramp
Mr. Vansittart's Perion, by Whisker
Mr. Ridsdale's Trustee, by Catton

The following also started, but were not placed :----Mr.
Gully'. Margrave, by Mule), ; Lord Chesterfield's Non Corn.
pos ; Mr. Mills's Kate, by Lapdog ; Lord Exeter's Beiram, by
Sultan; Mr. Chifncy's Etniliana, by Whisker; Mr. Batson's
Mixbury, by Catton ; Lord Mountcharles's Minster, by Cat_
ton ; Mr. Shard's Revealer, by Reveller ; Mr. Forth's Gratis,
by Middleton; Lord Exeter's Spencer; Lord Worcester's
Haymaker, by Wrangler ; Lord Portarlington's Bedouin ; Lord
Lowther's Messenger ; Lord Lowther's Lazarone ; Mr. Hun-
ter's Peablossom colt ; Mr. Wreford's Wallace ; Mr. West's
c., by Claude Loraine ; Lord Orford's c. by Whisker, out of
Selina ; Sir G. Heathcote's Damascus, Emiliana carried 21b.
over weight.

In the ring last night betting was-3 to 1 against St. Giles
(taken) ; 5 to 1 against Perion (taken) ; Gto 1 against Mar-
grave (taken); 7 to 1 against Mixbury (taken) ; 12 to 1 agst
Kate ; and 25 to 1 against Gratis. A❑ the other horses are
considered "safe," and nothing was said about them.

The race was appointed for decision at two o'clock, and
a few minutes after that time the horses were mounted,
and at the post, but it was so far from an easy task to get
them off, that the event did not come off till nearly half-
past three. Not that there was any actual false starts, or
that the horses were unruly, hut simply because the
jockeys were so over-anxious to get good places at starting,
that every time they turned round to go, three or four
were sure to be found in advance of the post, nor was it
till the starter had repeatedly declared that he should not
give the signal till tligy were at their proper places, that
they could be prevailed upon to form into a toleralq cor-
rect line. We should especially notice the conduct of
Wallace's rider. The horse is entered in the name of Mr.
,Vreford, who, we believe, is not the real proprietor—who
he belongs to we could not ascertain, for nothing had been
cep
an, jaecyke (!)t was riding about with
a
heard of him till the morning of the race, and then, as early
as
sstaring six
or s
e coloured o
clock,c the jockey
which he retained all
day ; be came to the scale and rode nine stone six pounds
___only thirteen pounds over weight ! During nearly all
the efforts to make a start, the horse and his rider were
e'
immovable ; and when they did condescend to move, the
jockey seemed to imagine that he was taking a hunting
gallop, for he set to work and flogged directly the horses
got into their speed ; altogether it was a cock-tail turn-
out, and led many to put sinister constructions upon the
conduct of the party engaged in it. Before describing the
race we should state that Mr. Ridsdale declared to win with
St. Giles. About the time specified above the horses started,

. ,
\ .•
) :
a k

Trustee making play at a pace that we have not seen foi
the Derby some years; Kate laid second; Perion third,
and Beiram next, with St. Giles and Margrave at hand,
Non Compos and two or tbree others tolerably well up
This was the order of running till they came to Totten-
ham-corner, where George Edwards, who was on Trus-
tee, took a hasty glance of the race, and finding that St.
Giles was very forward, and going the pace well, he ac
tually laid the whip into his horse, and brought them into
,traight running at a pace that told terribly among the
outsiders ; the tailing was woful. When the horses got
round the corner, those mentioned as being next to Trus-
tee drew upon him, and we were as yet unable to form
any opinion of the race. About a distance and a half,
however, from the finish, St. Giles went by them all,
Perion going by Trustee at the same time, while Mar-
grave', Kate, Non Compos, and Beiram, closed with the
latter. At the Grand Stand, Perion, Kate, and two or
three others, attempted to get up, but died away one after
the other, St. Giles winning very easily by a length and
a half. Trustee ran a remarkably good horse, and has
certainly justified all that has been said of him ; he was
only half a length astern of Perion ; Mat grave was fourth,
Non Compos fifth, and Kate sixth; Beiram was not far
b,hind, but Mixbury and the rest cut a sad figure. Mes-
senger ran on had terms ; he cast himself in the stable on
Monday night, and was very much cut ; he was started
purely for the public satisfaction.
Previous to the race an objection was made by Mr.
Gully, Mr. John Mills, and Mr. Batson, that the Re-
vealer started is not the horse described as such in the
Derby ; as a set-off to which the Revealer party com-
pl►ined that Margrave was a jour-year old instead of a three
year. Beth were allowed to start, subject to the objec-
tions, both of which are believed to be groundless. The
winner was ridden by Scott, and Perion by Boyce. Mr.
Ridsdale nets 2,775/. by the stakes (after the customary
deductions,) and upwards of thirty thousand pounds by
bets—the largest stun that has been won on any race for
several years; and this St. Giles was for a long time out
of the betting, owing to a general belief that he was
wrongly described, and therefore disqualified. Mr. Gully,
whose horse Margrave was trained with Mr. Ridsdale's, is
a large winner. The great losers on the race are the
gentlemen.

The Croydon Plate of 501. ; three years, 7st. ; four years,
Bst. 41b. ; five years, fist. 111 b. ; six and aged, Bst. 21b.
Mile heats. The winner to be sold for 120 Boys., &c.
Mr. Gates's b. f. Runnimede, 4 yrs (Lad) 1 2
Mr. Roberts's Walter, 4 yrs '2 2
Mr. Dockeray's Mustard, colt, 3 yrs
Mr. Pearce's Parfait, 6 yrs 3 dr
Won easy. No betting.

The Denbies' Plate, of 501. ; three years, 7st. ; four years,
Bst. 71b. ; five years, 9st. ; six years and aged, 9st. 51b.
Heats, two miles.
Mr. Munroe's Crispin, 4 yrs (G. Edwaads) 3 1 1
Mr. Stanley's Keepsake, 4 yrs 1 3 2
Lord Ongley's Suffolk Punch, 3 yrs 4 4 3
Lord Lowther's Timekeeper, 4 yrs 2 2dr
Mr. Dockeray's Abel, 5 yrs 5 dr
Von easy.

BETTING IN ST. JAMES'S AT TWELVE LAST NIGHT.

OAKS.
5 to 2 agst Mr. Mills's Kate
7 to 2 agst Lord Exeter's Galata
10 to 1 agst Lord Lowther's Whimsey (taken)
12 to 1 agst Mr. Sadler's Eleanor taken)
12 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Olga (taken)
20 to 1 agst Mr. Chifney's Emiliana
40 to 1 agst Captain Byng's Dryad
No others mentioned.