The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-08 00:00:00

REFORM BILL.

On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the House went
into Committee on the Reform Bill.

The question having been put, that South Shields, Dur.
ham, stand part of schedule D,

Mr. CHOKER said, that by the return of every place
not returning Members to Parliament, and possessing a po-
pulation which exceeded 5,000 inhabitants, it appeared
that the chapelry of South Shields contained 9,074 inhabi•
tants, and paid the enormous sum in assessed taxes of
9001. a year. The position of this town was this. It
was six or seven miles from Gateshead, seven or eight miles
from Newcastle, one furlong from the new borough of
North Shields, and five miles from the new borough of
Sunderland. Thus within a circle, the radius of which
was five miles, there were six boroughs. It might well
be asked, why was not this town joined to one of these
boroughs ? and at all events it could not help being de-
manded why should the two towns of North and South
Shields be separated as to their representation ? He had
so frequently endeavoured to invite the attention of the
House to the monstrous anomalies, and inconsistencies,
and absurdities, in which the present Bill abounded, that
he felt an unwillingness to detain the Committee long on
the monstrous inconsistency, on every principle in which
Ministers professed to base their measure, of bestowing
Representatives on South Shields, while towns far exceed-
ing it in commercial importance, in wealth, and popula-
tiim, were left wholly unrepresented. This was a propo-
sition which facts placed beyond the reach of controversy,
and to these facts he earnestly invited the attention of the
consistent supporters of Reform. Ministers told them
that in bestowing the franchise on towns at present not
enjoying the privilege of returning Members to that House,
they were guided by the average of population and assessed
taxes. Agreed. Then what was the population of South
Shields, and what the amount of assessed taxes collected
in it? Answer, 9,074 inhabitants; assessed taxes, 900/.
It followed that, on their own principles, every town not
now possessing the right of franchise which exceeded South
Shields in population, and contributed more towards the
assessed taxes, was, a fortiori, entitled to the privilege of
sending Members to that House.—(Hear.) Now, without
scouring the country for cases in point, he need only state
the population and assessed taxes of thirteen towns wholly
neglected in the present Bill, to show that South Shields
could not be invested with the franchise right without
gross injustice to these places, and still grosser inconsis-
tency on the part of the framers of the Bill. The Right
Hon. Gentleman then read a statement to the effect of
the following table:—

South Shields
Stourbridge
Warminster
Alnwick
Congleton
Mansfield
Trowbridge
Barminster
Loughborough
Ramsgate
Tunbridge
Gosport
Doncaster
Margate
Croydon

Population. Assessed Taxes.

900
1,500
1,560
1,400

Average assessed
taxes, three times
more than that of
I South Shields.

Now he would ask the supporters of the Bill on what prin-
ciple of consistency could they vote for the present clause,
which invested South Shields, the least important place in
the foregoing list, with the right of returning a Member,
while the other important towns were not to bare a single
Representative among them ?—(Hear.) It should be re.
collected, besides, that South Shields was within a stone's
throw of a place returning a Member, and in the neigh-
bourhood of boroughs, while the above-named towns were
most of them separated by a large distance from any city or
borough.—(Hear.) But, indeed, after the case of Merthyr
Tydvil, with its 24,000 inhabitants, and separated by 26
miles from any place returning a Member, and Toxteth
Park, with its 25,000 unrepresented inhabitants, he almost
despaired of succeeding in establishing a case for Croydon
or Margate. He was aware that Ministers had endea-
voured to bolster up South Shields by annexing to it
Weston, so as to make the aggregate population 18,600
—(Hear)--but had they acted in the same way towards
the places he had just named, he was confident that the dis-
proportion, and thence the injustice and inconsistency,
would appear the greater.—(Hear.) In conclusion the
gUititi fields be omitted in this schedule, and that North
and South Shields be united wii h Tynemouth and given
one Member." The Member thus saved might be given to
some other borough at the future discretion of the Com-
mittee.
Lord ALTHORP thought South Shields entitled to be
considered a separate borough, as constituting a part of
the shipping interest.
Mr. CROKER rt joined, that it formed part and parcel
of Newcastle, and insisted that Government were treating
the rest of the shipping interest unequally as compared
with the coal !shipping connected with the Tyne. (Cheers.)
Mr. HODGSON questioned the accuracy of the Right
Hon. Gentleman's statement relative to the distances of
places anti other important particulars.
Mr. CROKER referred to the reports of the Commis-
sioners in corroboration of what he had said. " And,"
concluded the Right Hon. Gentleman, "now that I have
confuted Government out of their own documents, does
the Hon. Member dare to repeat his contradiction ?"
(Cherry and laughter.)
Mr. HODGSON answered, that he would never so far
violate the rules of the House as to notice the expression of
the Right Hon. Gentleman in the language it deserved,
but he would tell him, in all Parliamentary courtesy, that he
flung him back his offensive term with indignation-- (Hear,
hear)--and should he venture to repeat it elsewhere, he
could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that it would
elicit from him a very different kind of reply —(Cheers.)
Mr. CROKER explained, that he did not mean to cast
any imputation on the Hon. Member, but surely he ought
not to have flatly contradicted him when he was only stat-
ing what he had found in those sources of information
which Government themselves had supplied him.—(Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN contended that Government were
dealing partially by South Shields, judging of the case
merely on their own principles of representation.
Mr. S. WORTLEY complained that a different prin-
ciple was applied to Sunderland and Bishop Wearmouth,
and South and North Shields, although in each case the
two places were divided by a river, and in population,
number of houses, and taxation, they were circumstanced
alike.

Lord ALTHORP (as far as we could understand) said,
that the two Shields were more completely separated by
the Tyne than Sunderland and Bishop Wearmouth by
the Wear.

Sir C. WETHERELL said that this wis a flagrant
i violation of the principle laid down by the Noble Lord.
It had been understood as one of the principles upon which
this new Constitution was to be framed, that the place,
having Representatives should be at a reasonable distance
from each other. Now, in the county of Durham, there
were nine Members in the short space of 13 miles.
Lord G. 'SOMERSET wished that the Noble Lord had
looted to pristol and the river Severn, as well as to the
north-east coast of .England and the river Tyne. The
trade of the Severn was becoming enormous, and deserved
more regard.
Mr. CROKER observed that Darlington had 2,000
inhabitants more than South Shields, yet it had no Member.
The Oble Lord had not been so ready to give weight to
the shipping interest in'the case of Dartmouth, though the
eighth port in' England, whilst the shipping interests of
Shields was represented by Newcastle.
Mr. TREVOR said that .his was' only one of the ano-
malies of the Bill, which would be handed down to pos-
terity as the greatest concatenation of folly ever known.
Mr. CROKER thought it unnecessary to divide the
Committee. Bad as this case was, he supposed they
would meet with a worse ; for, as Shakspeare stid, " Each
seems rg.onstiotig till ite fellovi canes to match it."—(A
laugh )
South Shields was then agreed to, as part of the
schedule ; as was Tynemouth, without objection.
The question was then put that Wakefield (Yorkshire)
stand part of schedule D.
Mr. CROKER wished to know the reason why the
boundaries .;:f ttit: bereuph were made so narrow.
• Mr. LITTLEiON said that nothing vet. 4 t. Le gained
by extending them.
• Mr. CROKER desired to know what the Hon. Member
raeant by Saying that nothing was to be s" gained" by ex-
lenditig the limits;
hero LjTTLETQT asked tirbut were the croik3 F/1413
the Hon. Member would propose ? .t
Mr. CROKER, said that it was not his business to
settle the litnits. He was not a hired Commissioner.._
(Hear, bear.)
Lord ALTHORP thought that there could be no doubt
this th., Hon. Member for Staffordshire meant by saving, '
" that'nOthitig would be ii„-eined Ly extending the
that no 'constituency of any importance would thereby be
added to the borough.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman

(Mr. Croker) was also mistaken in supposing that the
Honourable Member for Staffordshire received any salary
as a Commissioner. His services in that capacity were
entirely gratuitous.—(Hear.)
Mr. CROKER said that he was not aware of that cir-
cumstance.—(" Hear," from the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. LITTLETON imagined that no omen could doubt
what his meaning was, when he said that nothing could be
gained by extending the limits of the borough—(Hear)—
and he put it to the Hon. Gentleman what be would have
said if any Hon. Member had spoken of him as being hired
to discharge his duty in that House ?—(Hear.)
The question was then carried.
Lord ALTHORP said he should now propose that the
Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again on
Friday next. He also gave notice of his intention to move
that the House sit on Saturday next.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CROKER was perfectly ready to agree to sit on
Saturday, provided Hon. Members would attend. All he
objected to was, doing important business in a thin House.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked leave
to sit again on Friday next.
The House went into a Committee on the Dublin Coal
Rill.

Mr. LEFROY objected to proceeding with the Bill at so
late an hour, and desired that the House be counted.
The SPEArcaa accordingly counted the House, and there
not being 40 Members present, the House adjourned at
Half-past One o'clock.