The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-24 00:00:00

GLOVE TRADE.

The Bishop of WORCESTER, in presenting a petition
from the glove manufacturers of the city of Worcester
against the imporration of foreign gloves, could not refrain
from expressing his gratification that so large a number of
respectable persons had entrusted him, although the sub-
ject might be thought not to be within his province, with
the representation of their grievances. The Right Rev.
Prelate recapitulated at considerable length the statements
of the petition, and concluded by stating that, living as he
did a great part of the year at Worcester, however he felt
his incompetency to do justice to the subject, he could not
help expressing his sympathy with the distress which pre-
♦ailed among his neighbours. He hoped, hovirever, the
subject would be taken out of his hands by some of the
Noble Lords opposite, who were better qualified to deal
with it.

The petition was then laid on the table.
LEGAL PROCESS.

Lord LYNDHURST, in the absence of his Noble and
Learned Friend, the Chief Justice of tie Court of King's
Bench, would wove their Lordships to give a first
to a Bill which the Noble and Learned Lord had prepared
in pursuance of th:, recommendation of the Commissioners
of Common Law Inquiry. The object of this Bill was to
assimilate the process at the commencement of suits in the
three Courts of Common Law in Westminster Hall.—The
Bill was then read a first rime.

Several Bills were advanced a stage, on the motion of
the Earl of SIIAFTESBUItY.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY slid that to-morrow
being her Majesty's birthday, he moved their Lordships
that this House do now adjourn until Monday.—Agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 23.
MISCELLANEOUS.

Colonel EVANS present. d a petition from certain me-
dical practitioners residing in the metropolis, praying for
an inquiry into the nature of the disease called cholera
inorbus.—Ordered to be printed.

Mr. HUNT pre>en•ed a petition from Macclesfield,
praying for an inquiry into the tran•actiuns which took
e n Slaucf,es<<•r in 1819. Also a similar petition front
Oldham —Olll,-red to be laid on the table.

Mr. LAWLEY presented a petition from Bedworth, in
Buckinghamshire, complaining of the distress of the silk
manufacture, and praying for inquiry into the causes.
Also I:rur other similar petition 'role other parishes, and
one from the Mayor and Bailiffof Coventry.
Mr. JEPHSON presented a petition from certain mail
coach proprietors and others on the Holyhead road, com-
plaining of some Post-office regulations.
Sir R. BATESON took that opportunity of complain-
ing of the inefficient means of communication between
Donaghadee and Portpatrick. The two vessels employed
were only of 20-horse power, and were frequently unable
to stern the tide. Upon a recent occasion oneot them was
thus driven upon the rocks, and the lives of the Whole
crew exposed to imminent danger. Representations had
been made by the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast to
the Noble Doke at the head of the Post-office upon the
,object ; and the courteous answer they received was that
the vesse:s bad before plied between Dover and Calais, and
that consequently they must be quite good enough for the
passage between Dorrighadee and Portpattick.
Colonel CONOLLY confirmed the statement that these
communications were frequently interrupted, and con-
demned the poor economy which, for the sake of saving a
few pounds. would thus expose the public to such incon-
venience, and expose their lives to danger.
After a few words from Mr. HuarE and Mr. O'CON-
NELL, the petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. M. CrFERRALL obtained the appointment of a
Select Committee to inquire into the state of the roads
and turnpike trusts in Ireland.

Mr. FRINGLE moved for returns relating to the Court
of Exchcqui.r in Scotland.—Ordered.

Lord IiIUGENT moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
provide for the General Registration of Births. His object
was to establish a Civil Registry of Births, and that at-
tested certificates of that Registry be received as evidence
in Courts of Justice•
Mr. O'CONNELL said that some such measure as this
would be most th-sirable in Ireland.

Mr. CROKER approved of the object of the Noble
Lord.—The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DAWSON presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Chelmsford, praying that they might be allowed
to send representatives to Patliainent. The petitioners
stated, in support of their prayer, that formerly Chelms-
ford had the privilege of returning Members. They also
stated that as Essex would be divided by the Reform Bill,
one division would return right Members, whereas the
other, in which Chelmsford, Saffron Walden, and Romney
were situated, would return only two Members. The
population of the division which would return eight Mein-
bers was inferior to that of the one which would return
two Members. The petitioners also stated that Chelms-
ford was the county town, and had a population of 5,800
souls. The petition was not agreed to at a public meet-
ing, but it was signed by between 200 and 300 of the
most respectable inhabitants of Chelmsford, A public
meeting had been held in the town, but the professed Re-
formers were adverse to the extension of the franchise to
Chelmsford, and on the question being put the " Noes"
were by the Chairman of the meeting considered to be
!pal. The petition might not be palatable to the ma-
jority of the House, because it came from Anti. Reformers,
but ha appealed to the Hun. Member for Essex as to the
respectability of the names affixed to the petition.
Mr. WESTERN bore testimony to the respectability of
the petitioners, but of a public meeting lie had heard nothing.
After a few words trona Mr. WELLESLEY and another
HON. MEMBER, the petition. was brought up and ordered
to be printed.

CHOLERA.
Colonel EVANS called the attention of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to a petition which he had presented in
the early part of the evening respecting the alarm concern-
ing. cholera morhus. He urged the importance of inquiry.
After a few words from Mr. CrtoKEtt,
Mr. P. THOMSON considered the conduct of the
Hou. Member fur Rye as extremely injudicious. Many
ennwrit medical men is ho had examined cases of the Ohs-
ease attroad declared it to be contagious, while the Hon.
and Gallant Member and his seventy-three medical friends
declared it nut to be contagious. All, theretore, lie could
admit was, that the question, as to the nature of the dis-
ease, was disputed, and a matter of doubt. No good,
therefore, could he effected by
the spread of the opiniott
of the Hon. and Gallant Member. No good could result
flour it, but much mischief might. Even if this disease
Was arid not to be contagious in this country, foreign cow..
trits would not be satisfied to adopt that notion. Every
facility was at present given to our home commerce, and
the inquiry wished would not relieve our foreign commerce.
After a few remarks from Colonel EvAlis, Sir

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that in consequence of what
had been said on a former evening by the Right It n.
Gentleman opposite, the Member for Aldborougb, respect-
ing the borough of Ashburton, the Commissioner had been
requested to make further -inquiries, and he had accord-
ingly done so, and had since reported that there were nine-
teen houses and 191. taxes which might have been included
in the estimates respecting that borough. But he (Lord
J. Russell) did not think it now of any importance to
alter the position of Ashburton in the schedule ; and the
additional houses and taxes were not sufficient to take it
out of the schedule.

Mr. CROKER also bad made inquiries, and found,
that although a more extensive boundary might have been
taken for Ashburton, yet even that boundary would not
suffice to remove it from schedule B.

The following boroughs, Ashburton, Eye, and West-
bury, were then severally voted Nits of schedule B.
Mr. CROKER said, that Westbury was inferior to
Amersham, which had been voted part of schedule A.
lie did not mean, however, to vote now that Westbury
should be transferred to the first schedule.

Mr. BERNAL said, that it was now toe late for the
Right Hon. Gentleman to d►scuss the case of Westbury,
as the question had been put and carried that it should
stand part of schedule B.—(A laugh.)
Wareham (Gloucestershire) was next voted part of sche-
dule B.

The question having been put that Alidhurst stand part
of the schedule—

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that in consequence of a ques-
tion put to him on a former night by a Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite, he had made inquiries respecting the
boundaries of the borough of Midhurst, and, from the in-
formation which be had received, lie believed that the
Commissioners had done rightly in including the liberty
of St. John within the boundary of the new borough.
He had further ascertained that if the Commissioner had
taken a boundary which would exclude that part of the
town, the place of Miolhurst, in the schedule, would be
changed, but it would not be removed from the schedule, or
reduced to the level of the boroughs of schedule A.

Mr. CROKER said that the Noble Lord had mistaken
the nature of his objection.

Mr. CAMPBELL contended that the same principle
had been applied to Appleby as to Alidhurst.

Mr. HUNT believed Mitihutst to be one of the most
contemptible places, and one of the rottenest boroughs is
the kingdom. It was not common justice that such a
place should send a Member to Parliament, when Croy-
don, which contained 12,000 inhabitants, was unrepre-
sented. He should move, therefore, that Midhurst be
transferred to schedule A.

Mr. BERNAL said, that it was now too late for tha
Hon. Alembtr to take that course. His onl) course now
would be to negative the motion that Midhurst stand part
of schedule B.

Mr. M. T. SMITH wished to bring the attention of
the llouse to this fact, that the five boroughs which had
been taken out of schedule A, and placed in the schedule
(B) now under consideration, returned Metnbers
distin-
guished fur their uncompromising opposition to the Re-
lot m Bill. He thought that fact was enough to disprove
the charge of partiality, so oiten asserted, or instituted
against the Ministers.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for
Preston had said that Midnurst was as rotten as any bo-
rough i❑ schedule A. Now he (Mr. Smith) could nut
conceive any possible extension of boundary which would
give Old Sarum or Gatton an adequate constituency, or
.iit:eed dny constitutney at all ; w,ereas by enlarging the
boundary o. Midhuist, a constituency was obtaimd as fit
to exercise the franchise as any other in the kingdom. When
he went there first to cane .s the electors for their votes,
lie was requested by them to support the Reform Bill, al-
Couliga at. tuat rime men borough was set down in bele-
(lnk, A, and walked out fur distranchiseinent—(Hear,
Bear)—and he believed that the spirit of independence and
the de,ire for Reform which prevailed in Multiunit, was
no less prevalent in the other small boroughs included in
this schedule.

Mr. CROKER said, how did Midhurst stand in respect
to population, when compared with boroughs in schedule
A ? It had a population only of 1478, whereas Oakhamp-
ton had 1500 and upwards ; the disfranchised Aldborough
kai 1530, that is 100 mere than the preserved Alidliurst;
Fuwty, a large town, with an extensive harbour and a
causid. ,able commerce, had 1580 ; Saltash, 1637; Do •. ri-
t,in, 1657 ; M•nehead, even though curtailed of its natural
limits, had a population of 1682. Amersharn, with a
population of 1870, and Bradsley, with a population of
2001, were butt, disfranchised, althougn one of them had
600 inhabitants more than the preserved borough of Mid-
burst; and iNewton, with a population of 800 more than
slidhurst, was also to be sacrificed. Taking the book
then before them as their guide, he would ask, was it
possible for them to see that there was anything so pe-
culiar in the case of Midhurst as to take it out of the ge-
ne, al rule ? It aas nut its wealth or its population
that formed the ground ot the exception ; but they
were told that Miiiburst possessed the groundwork
of a good and new constituency; but surely there was no
man making a pretension to common sense who would not
say that the greater the population the better was the
gi ound, ork for a good and newconstituency. The promoters
of the Bill, if they proceeded upon any principle whatever,
appeared to adopt three elements—the population as pre-
sumed from toe number of houses, the ten-pound houses,
and the amount of assessed taxes. He had in some in-
stances taken the sum of population, of 101. houses, and
of assessed taxes, and he compared Midburst with Newton,
and the result of that comparison was anything but fa-
vourable to the views of the Noble Lords opposite. He
had taken the elements which the promoters of the Bill
recognised, and applying them to the case of Midhurst,
he found they would be represented by the number of
2,509; but Newton was represented by a sum ot 2,797.
These where facts which no man could deny, and he alto-
gether differed from the Hon. Gentleman opposite in the
conclusion which he drew from those facts.

Lord J. RUSSELL would not reply at much length to
the speakers on the other side, for he had no desire to make
it necessary that the House should sit on Saturday. The
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down attacked
Alidhurst on the ground of population, but there was
little consistency in that, for the cry of him and his friends
during the discussion on the former Bill was, th.it wealth
was the only true criterion, and that boroughs were to be
adjudicated for, not according to the number of inhabi-
tants which they contained, but according to the amount
of assexed taxes. In fact, the retention of Midhurst was
in consequence of the cry which had been raised about
assessed taxes.

Mr. CHOKER denied that he bad ever insisted unon
the unimportance of population, but argued that, as they
had admitted Midhurst, they had opened the door to
twelve other places. He complained that their rule was
arbitary, and that they bad not applied their own principle
accurately.
Sir C. WETHERELL complained, that whenever
Hon. Members at his side of the House applied themselves
closely to discuss the merits of any particular borough, the
Noble Lord opposite was accustomed to get up and threaten
them with the gloomy day of Saturday. —(A laugh.) He
contended that there could not be a greater discrepancy
than between the cases of Midhurst and Appleby. Tie
announcement that there was to be a liberty added to the
borough of Midhurst, was proof positive that even its advo-
cates knew it was too small to answer their purpose. It
was well known that there was scarcely any borough more
limited in its borgage tenures than was Midhurst.
Lord ALTHOHY disclaimed any wish to prevent the
full and fair discussion of the case of any borough by a
threat of sitting on Saturday. As to the question then bis,-
fore the Com.hittee, he should, without the slightest ale.
prehension of successful contradiction, affirm that ti er.
was ho one win, took nhe trouble to examine the question,
could for a moment doubt that Altuhutst was proper')
pl iced ; they estimated its population by its houses, ens
its wealth by the amount of the assessed taxes paid.
Mr. CHOKER observed, that the conversation of that
evening afforded another evidence, if any were wanted,
that " the school-master was abroad ;" for whenever in
that House they proved unruly boys, they were threatened
that Saturday should be no holiday.
Colonel COOLLY said, that when the unjust deat-
sion, which he tuiesaw the H ills,- woo d coin, to on ih t
question, went forth to the public, it would excite nutting
but unmi ogled indisnation.
The question was then put on the borough of Midhurst,
and Agreed to; plc? upon, Weecletock, Wiltola,llalsuesbury,

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY complained of the vote on
this borough being taken, when the papers relative to it
had only been laid before the House that very evening.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The papers did not appear to
him to make any difference as to Dartmouth ; and he, .
therefore, did not think tbat it was necessary to postpone
the vote.

Mr. CROKER—The papers in question had not yet
reached him ; and therefore he certainly was not yet ready
to give his vote on the subject.
s_

Mr. BARlNG—Without at all• knowing what might '
he contained in these further returns, he would take on
himself to say, that this case of Dartmouth was one of
those which showed the unfairness of the principle on
which they were proceeding. Dartmouth was one of the '
old sea-ports of the country ; it had a fine harbour in the
Channel ; and, therefore, there were very important inte-
rests.connected with it : so that it appeared to him to be
precisely a place which no real friend of the country would
dream of disfranchising. Besides which, he would say
that there were dozens of places, now exempt from cor-
ruption, which, by the operation of this 8.11, would he
made perfect nests of corruption. In illustration of this
opinion, he might cite,the often-quoted case of Alidhofit.
Mr. HOULDSWORTH—He and the Iton. Baronet;
who had alluded to the recent appearance of the papers
relative to Dartmouth bad always been opposed to each
other on this Bill; but, nevertheless, he was quite ready to
support that Honourable Baronet in the view that be
took of the case of Dartmouth, for he believed it
was a place, as regarded its trade and labour, which
deserved to be supported. One point worthy of no-
tice was, that a great defalcation in the taxes of
the place had occurred, owing to a man having
run away ; and these very papers related to that fact.
What they contained he did not know ; for it was only
since he had come to that House that evening that they
had reached him ; but be cert ►inly bad been told that the"
defalcation was sufficient to bring up the borough to the
standard which the Noble Lord had set up as adequate for
the preservation of the elective right of a borough. With
these few words of explanation, he would leave it to the
Noble Lord to say whether the borough of Dartmouth ought
a it for the present to be postponed ?—(Hear, bear.)
Captain BASTARD begged to say, as representing the
borough of Dartmouth, that be had not yet seen the pa-
pers to which allusion had been made: and he trusted that
that might be deemed a sufficient reason for requesting the
postponement of the question.

Lord J. RUSSELL—As he had already stated in nu-
merous other instances, if there was anything in these
papers to alter the complexion of the case, it would be com-
petent to the Hon. Gentleman to re-introduce the subject
on the bringing up of the report of the Committee; but
he certainly must say, that he had keard nothing to in-
duce him to think that they were acting with any un-
fairness or injustice towards Dartmouth. The only
paint that had been stated was, that the tax-collector
of the place had run away and not accounted for his re-
ceipts. Now, if these had been the proper assessed
taxes for the place, and that person had persuaded tke
tax office that a smaller amount of taxes was correct,
there might be something in the objection. But be had
been informed from the Tax-office that it was the Sur-
veyor of Taxes, who had made out the assessment for
Dartmouth; and that the collector had taken on himself
unduly to increase that assessment; therefore, though this
was proof of great dishonesty on the part of the collector,
it in no tvise proved that the assessment returned in the
lists was a wrong assessment. Since this discovery had
been made a fresh levy for half-a-year had taken place, the
amount of which was 3701., which, for the year, would
give 7401., to which adding supplementary to the amount
of 271., the total result would be 7671., and this was the
sum stated in the Commissioner's report. It was true that
gentleman had received various statements from Dart-
mouth, but each of these statements differed from the
other, and he therefore thought that they could not be
very safely relied on. On the 26th January an account
had been rendered, which made the number of houses
728 ; and now, from a more recent survey, the number
was said to be 767. It was true that, according to the
Coininissioner's report, the number of 101. houses
amounted to 400; but he understood that this in a great
measure arose from several persons living together iu one
!louse, the effect of which generally was, that the lent tar►
higher than when occupied by only one family or person.
For these reasons he did not see why the borough of Dart-
mouth should be postponed, more especially as its trade
was far from being flourishing, a large portion of it having
been taken from it by the other places in the neighbour-
hood.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said, the Government had
thought proper to lay down a rule as a guide for the pro-
ceediugs of the House with respect to distranchisement.
With this he by no means found fault ; on the contrary,
he thought that it was prudent, for they by that means
avoided all suspicion of favouritism or partiality ; but what
he contended was, that the borough of Dartmouth did not
fall within the scale that had been laid down . Besides
which, it was worthy of retnatk that a few months ago,
when Dartmouth was not included in the schedules, no
invidious allusion bad ever been made to that place as to
C tine, and Tavistock, and others, for the purpose of con-
tending that Dartmouth bad been inq miserly favoured.
Dartmouth was a sea-port, with one of the nuest harbours
io the country attached to it, into which every year came
thousands of tons of shipping ; in addition to this, it was
the centre of a considerable district of maritime jurisdic
non ; and there were actually belonging to the place up-
wards of thirty thousand tons of shipping. The report
of the Commissioners placed the population at 4 600 ;
but he was told that taking into the account the
number of seamen belonging to the place, who were
constantly on the move, the population might fairly
be reckoned at above five thousand ; in which case it
exceeded in population thirty-four of the boroughs that
under this Bill were still to retain their two-fold repre-
sentation. Take for instance the borough of L.smington :
there the number of inhabitants was but 2,720; so that
Dartmouth nearly doubled it in population. He had no•
thing to say against the calculations of Lieutenant Drum-
, monad, neither was he going to mike a mathematical
-.speech to the Committee: but he could not help d.tyuting
the data of that gentleman, and he could not help thinking
that Dartmouth was being hardly dealt with. According
to the first list, the number of houses that it contained
was 537—according to the second list, 634 ; and when
the returning officer was asked the same question, his reply
was " 662." These different statements having been made,
the inhabitants of Dartmouth had deemed it advisable to
employ a surveyor. He bad been sworn to the accuracy
of his statement, and, according to him, the nninber of
whichhouses
o u wasc 767—(Hear, hear)--exclusive of all those
ld not he strictly termed tenements. Then, if
this latter statement was correct, and applying, in Lieut.
Drummond's mule, to 767 houses, and 768!. of Assessed
Taxes, the product would be sufficiently just to take the
borough out of schedule B. But he thought that he
could take the matter still further, by examining into the
question of the assessed taxes ; though that would be
somewhat more complicated. Inquiry had been made re-
specting the assessed taxes, and these facts had been as•
certained. The Commissioners of the Taxes found
out, towards the end of 1830, that a fraud had been
committed by the collector ; and in a letter which
they had addressed to the Tax-office, they had
stated, that on inquiry they had found that a fraud had
taken place on the revenue to the amount of 200/. and up
wards ; that they had already discovered 103 cases of
rand, and that they knew that many more existed. And
here he would observe, that the Noble Lord had not been
quite correct in his statement ; fur it was the collector that
tad made the assessment; and the way that he committed
,he fraud was, by charging the lull assessment, and then,
Instead of returning the full amount to the Tax-office, be
only returned a smaller sum; or, in other cases, returning
a house as empty, which was full ; by which he was
en-
abled to pocket the difference. He (Sir H. Willoughby)
had been given to understand, that it could be proved.ha)!lat
n 1829-30, at least 901!. had been paid by the
ants of Dartmouth ; and though it was true that
m
as
o 1831 32 that the Noble Lord took fits station, he
lion_ mit that 1630 31 was some entecion ; besides which,
' at a similar amount could be
,
ie had reit,n to believe
shown during the last year, for there Will a letter from the
surveyor of lases, which stated that the accounts Were not
so
even complete as on the previous year, and that tin t:fattr