The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-02 00:00:00

borough should be divided into any number of wards which
his Majesty in Council thought proper ; secondly, on what
principle his Majesty's advisers intended to propose to fix
the boundaries of these wards ; and thirdly, whether it was
intended for the future to give his Majesty, or rather his ad-
visers, the power of fixiens the number of constituents in each
individual ward. If the first point was conceded, it would
be almost unnecessary for him to submit to the Committee
the amendment which he intended to propose. He trusted,
however, with reference to the last two points, his Noble
Friend would give to the House some explanation, and would
state would course he and his colleagues intended to advise the
Crown to pursue with respect to the limits of these wards.
Did his Noble Friend intend to propose that the number of
wards should be governed by the local circumstances of the
place, or by the boundaries of the parishes in a borough ? He
did not believe that they intended to propose that a borough
should be divided into wards solely with reference to the po-
pulation. Surely his Noble Friend did not mean to say that
because a ward contained a certain population that it should
return a certain number of councilmen, witliok reference to
the wealth of the different wards or the portion each contri-
buted to the common burdens of the place. if his Hon.
Friend did so hea.vould depart from the principle he had laid
down in the Reform Bill, and would give more power and in-
fluence to the mere population of certain wards than to those
in other wards who might contribute mainly towards defraying
the exigent expenses of the borough.—( Hear, hear.) It this
point was to be acted upon, it was only right and proper
that Parliament should be made acquainted with it. His
amendment, however, only went to the extent that certain
towns, not divided into wards by the Bill, should be divided
into them. To a certain degree his Majesty's Government
agreed with him, but did not go thb extent which he proposed.
If his amendment, or something founded on the same principle,
was not carried, he was satisfied that in several comparatively
large towns, an important minority would not be represented
in the council, and a combination of a certain portion of
persons might exclude a great portion of the wealth of the
place from the slightest influence or control. Another and a
stronger objection was, that in those towns not proposed to be
divided into wards the number of councillors would be so large,
that the electors would not exercise their choice from a know-
ledge of the parties, but would be guided by popular preju-
dices. There would be one or two lists, for instance, the
Yellow and the Blue lists ; the electors would not be guided
by their opinion or knowledge of the persons they had to elect,
but by political prejudices. If they divided a borough into
wards he thought that there was the best chance of the voters
of a town only electing such persons as they were well ac-
quainted with, and whom they thought best able to represent
them. He thought that the mode proposed in the Bill of di-
viding boroughs into wards was too arbitrary. The amendment
he intended to propose was, that it should be left to the Crown
to fix certain bounds to the wards, but that some rule should be
laid down as to the principle by which they should be guided
in dividing a place into wards. His Majesty's Government
proposed that only towsis containing 25,000 inhabitants should
be divided into wards—it appeared that they took this as the
basis of the population and wealth of a place ; bus places also
might be divided into any number of wards at the pleasure of
the Crown. Now there were several places of great import-
ance which it was desirable to divide into wards which con-
tained a population of less than 25,000 persons; for instance,
Leicester, Chester, Cambridge, Derby, Ipswich, Carlisle, Ox-
ford, Wigan, and other places he could mention. In these
towns the rule laid down was, that they should return the
whole number of thirty-six councillors. There would be almost
necessarily two parties, arid a most powerful minority. might be
entirely excluded from any share in the representation in the
council. What he intended to propose was, that towns with
less than '25,000 inhabitants should be divided into wards. Ile
did not propose this vexatiously, but he thought that the
adoption of his suggestion would improve the measure. He
intended to propose in the preamble of the clause that the
words, " Whereas by reason of the great number of the inha-
bitants of boroughs named in the schedule annexed to this Act,
it is desirable that such boroughs should be divided into wards,"
&c., should be struck out, and that they should adopt some
principle with reference to the number of wards a town should
be divided into, containing a certain population. What he in-
tended to propose to be inserted was to this effect, " That it
was expedient, if it should appear to his Majesty in Council
that the population of a borough according to the last Parlia-
mentary census, exceeded the number of 10,000, that it should
be divided into a certain number of wards not exceeding three;
if the population of a borough exceeded 18,000 that it should
not be divided into more than six wards; and if it should ex-
ceed 25,000, that it might be divided into any number of wards
which his Majesty might think fit." He did not wish to ad-
here very closely to what he had laid down, but was willing to
leave the matter to his Majesty's Government, if his Noble
Friend would promise to carry out the principle which he had
partially acted upon, and divide towns containing 10,000 in-
habitants into wards. If the principle were adopted; he would
leave the details to his Noble Friend.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that there was no doubt
that the principle was of great practical importance on the
working of the Bill. It was a question of practical detail
rather than one involving a principle. He was disposed to
go to the extent of stating, that he was willing to consider
whether the plan of dividing towns into wards containing a
less population than 25,000 inhabitants could be adopted.
His Noble Friend asked what principle his Majesty's Go-
vernment intended to adopt with reference to dividing a bo-
rough into wards ? In the first place it would depend on the
wealth andpopulation of a place. Undoubtedly they would to
a considerable extent adopt the principle of population in
making a ward—that was, they would not do so unless it con-
tained a certain extent of population. The course, however,
they would adopt would depend to a
.great degree on the cir-
cumstances of different places. For instance, if a place were
now divided into three or four parishes, it would depend upon
the circumstances of the case whether that division would be
continued. if this arrangement could be continued advanta-
geously, there could be no reason why this should not be done.
He should be sorry to divide a borough into wards, when the
the number of voters we so few that they were likely to be
influenced. If this were The case, it would produce a jealous
feeling which would be most pernicious. As the case now
stood, his Majesty's Ministers would be guided by the circum-
stances of each town, and the wealth and population of it.
He was not now prepared to adopt the suggestion of his Noble
Friend ; but if he would postpone his amendment, he (Lord
John Russell) would propose to take it into his consideration,
and the decision on it would be taken on the Report.
Mr. BARLOW HO's!, had intended to propose an amend-
ment, that all towns containing 15,000 inhabitants should be
divided into wards; but the amendment of the Noble Lord
fully met his views on the subject.
Mr. HUME hoped that the Noble Lord would not agree
to the proposition that had been made.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the principle of the clause being a division of the• popular
boroughs into wards, he did not see that there could be any
reasonable objection to the proposition being taken into con-
sideration. •
Mr. KE A RSLE Y hoped the Noble Lord would not for
one moment -listen to the Hon. Member for Middlesex—( A
laugh)—or to any Hon. Member on that (the Ministerial)
bench—(Laughter)—he trusted that he would rather allow
himself to be led by the good sense of the Noble Lord who
had moved the amendment, havingin view the good of the
He feared, however,
country. that if the Noble Lord relied
on the Noble Secretary of State, he would depend on a
broken reed; he had no hesitation in saying that he believed
the Noble Lord would fin that he Ne Secreta of State
for the Home Departmentd t was weako inbl his kneesr.—y (Shots
of laughter.)
The amendment was then postponed, and the clause was
agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 were also agreed to.
Clause 33 having been moved,
Mr. GOULBURN moved an amendment, to give to in.
dividuals in the different wards the power of voting for an;
property they might have in any of such wards.
After a conversation, in which several Honourable Mem-
bers took part,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the adopt an of
such a principle would cause the Bill to become exceedingly
unpopular.
Mr. KEARSLEY and Mr. BLACKBURNE rose at the same time
to address the Committee. There were loud and repeated
cries for Mr. Kearsley, amidst roars of laughter. Mr. Bernal
having repeatedly called " Order," to no effect, sat down.
Neither of the two Hon. Gentlemen seemed disposed to give
way to the other, and at last both began, and for some mi-
nutes continued to address the Committee at the same time.
Whatever they uttered, however, was completely drowned in
the uproar and general confusion that prevailed. Mr. Bernal
again rose, and having called upon Mr. Blackburne, Mr.
Kearsley at last reluctantly resumed his scat.
Mr. BLACKBURNE then said he was sorry to interfere
with the amusement of the Committee, but lie would not de-
tain them for more than a few seconds. The Hon. Gentleman
was proceeding to remark upon the amendment, when
Mr. BERN AL said it was withdrawn.—(Laughter.)
Clause 33 was then agreed to.
Mr. KE AR SLE Y again rose, amidst shouts of laughter.
On finding that the clause had been passed, he again sat down.
Clause 34 having been moved,
Mr. DENNISON moved, as an amendment, that no elec-
tion should be held to supply any vacancy or vacancies in the
council so long as four-fifths of the members of the council
who were originally appointed should remain in office.•
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was'ainderstood to say that if the
Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his amendment, he had a
proposition to bring forward which would accomplish the ob-
ject he had in view.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.
Clause 35 was agreed to.
Clause 36 was agreed to ; when the House resumed, the
Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
EXPENSES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
In consequence of some objection made to this'Bill, as hav-
ing provisions in it, with respect to the qualification of Mem-
bers, that were considered to go beyond its ostensible object,
Mr. HUME withdrew it for the present.
ROYAL BURGHS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. OLIPHANT obtained leave to bring in a Bill to abo-
lish the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland. The Bill
was afterwards brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time on Wednesday next.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a quarter after one o'clock.

During the late oppressive weather several instances
of illness, and even death, were the result of the sudden
change. A coachman in the service of the Marquis of Down-
shire, in returning from the races, dropped 'suddenly dead in
the stables. Every effort was used to restore him, but life
was quite extinct.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER

LYDE V. BARNARD.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 9991. from
the defendant, a banker, for falsely concealing that there were
incumbrances upn the marriage settlement of Lord Edward
Thynne, whereby the plaintiff had been induced to lend that
sum upon a security which was valueless.
Mr. SERJEANT Bomrass (with whom was Mr. CLARK)
stated, on the marriage of his Lordship to Miss Mellish, a
sum of money was settled upon him yielding 1500/. per annum.
He soon raised money upon it by way of annuity to the
amount of the whole fund, and being very much in
difficulty, his father, the Marquis of Bath, agreed to take up
three of the annuities, and his father-in-law agreed to do the
same by the other three, but at the same time they prudently
determined that his Lordship should not have the power of
ruining himself again. Accordingly, Mr. Mellish had the as-
nuities regularly assigned to himself, and the Marquis of Bath
raised a suns of money to the amount of 2,000/., with which
i.e paid off the annuities ; but, in order to make all safe, he
took a mortgage to the same amount upon the marriage
settlement, notice of which was given to the trustees, one
of whom was the defendant. When the plaintiff was
applied to for the advance in question, his Solicitor Mr. Miller
went to the defendant, in order to see whether there were
any other incumbrances upon the security than the three an-
nuities held by Mr. Mellish. The defendant assured him that
there was not any more, and that therefore the security was
good enough. On the faith of that assurance the money was
advanced, and the plaintiff now claimed to recover against the
defendant for the loss lie had sustained by the false represen-
tations of a man of business habits in money matters, who
ought to have known better. It was admitted by himself in
Chancery, that he had received notice of the mortgage.—
He called
Mr. Hunter, a solicitor, was applied to by Lord E. Thynne,
to raise a large sum of money. Witness was in negotiation
with the Globe office upon the matter, when one day in Feb.,
1834, at the house of Mr. Duncombe, M.P., Lord E. Thynne
said he was much pressed for 1,000/., could he not get it soon
from some one? The money was to be raised upon his mar-
riage settlement of 1,5001 , which he represented as totally
unencumbered. Witness applied to Mr. Barnard, as the
trustee, in March 1834, when he said there were no other in-
cumbrances upon the fund of the marriage settlement than
three annuities purchased by Ms. Mellish. He told him that
there had been other three annuities, but that they
were paid off by the Marquis of Bath. The money
was advanced upon these representations. First heard
of the mortgage for 20,0001. to the Marquis of Bath some
months after the 9991. was advanced.
Cross-examined—Was introduced to Lord E. Thynne by
Mr. Duncombe, for whom be had been solicitor for a long
time. Mr. Duncombe paid witness either 701. or 801. for his
services in the transaction and the preparation of the deeds.
Could not say what part of the money Mr. D. had, for he and
Lord Edward Thynne went out immediately on the money be-
ing paid. Witness made no inquiries on the subject of these
incumbrances from either the solicitor of the Marquis of Bath
or that of Mr. Mellish.
The witness underwent a long cross-examination as to per-
sonal transactions, which did not place him in a favourable light.
Mr. Braithwaite, a silversmith, went with Mr. Hunter to
see Mr. Barnard in May 1834. Mr. B. then said there were
no other incumbrances on the marriage settlement than, Mr.
Mellish's and Mr. Lyde's.
Cross-examined—Had not given any orders to Mr. Hunter
to sue out any writ against Mr. Barnard. Had never heard his
partner say that he had given such orders. He made the in-
quiries because they were going to lend Lord Edward Thynne
2,0001. The money was given to Hunter for the discount of a
bill for 1,000/. 700/. was given in cash, and 3001. in goods.
When the bill was becoming due, he gave another 1,000/. in
the same manner to a person named Welsh, on behalf of Mr.
Duncombe. Had never seen Lord E. Thynne at all, and did
not know how Mr. Duncombe was mixed in the matter.
Mr. Hunter examined by Sir WM. FOLLETT—Had issued
a writ in the name of Braithwaite and Jones, against Mr.
Barnard. Had not taken any other steps upon the writ, and
had the authority of Mr. Jones for doing it. Mr. Jones was
not present.
This closed the case for the plaintiff. •
Sir Wat. FOLLETT objected that the- representation ought
to have been in writing, according to the provisions of the 9th
George IV., which was passed for the purpose of meeting
such a case as the present.
His Loewe's, ugreed with the Learned Gentleman, and
nonsuited the plaintiff.

MEMOIRS OF THE LANDED GENTRY.—The
Tenth Part of Mr. Burke's very interesting account of the
Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, which has just ap-
peared, contains, among numerous other eminent families, the
following i—Pigot of Edgmond—Childe of Kinlet—Riddell
of Felton Park—Lowndes—Stone of Brightwell Park—Jones
of Bealanamore—Bigland of Bigland—Close of Drumba-
nagher—Plowden of Plowden—Wallace of Kelly—Biddulph
of Biddulph—Long-Wellesley of Draycot—Leigh of Stone-
leigh—Morrice of Belshanger—Brisco of Coghurst—Dennis-
town of Dennistown—Eyre of Wiltshire—Fraser of Lovat---
Hutton of Marske—Dixon of Gledhon--Flarington of Shaw.
Hall—Hereford of Lufton—Court Lloyd of Aston—Brock-
man of Beachhorough—Scott of Harden—Bethune of Bal.
four—Brockholes of Claughton—Scudamore of Rentchurch
—Canning of Foxcote.
KElTll.—Banffshire is about to follow the example
set by the Reformers of London, and institute an Association
to promote the registration of those entitled to the elective
franchise. Hitherto impediments of a nature ynthought of at
the passing of the Reform Bill have operated as a partial
check in the working of that measure, but which are now gra-
dually disappearing, as the people become more enlightened
and capable of appreciating those immunities which have been
conceded to them, and to which they are justly entitled.--
Aberdeen Herald.
- - - - -

The I'russian State Gazette of the 22d inst. an-
nounces that on the 15th the ancient palace at Wirrwitz (in
the circle of Breslaw) was entirely burnt to the ground. On
the 16th a fire broke out in the town of Schurgart (in the
circle of Oppeln), which in a few hours consumed the Catho-
lic church and twenty-eight houses, with several stables and
barnes.
-

CORTES ; OR THE FALL OF MEXlCO.—Bentley.
--" The success of Dr. Bird's former work has, we are happy
to find, encouraged him to produce this second Romance.
The scene of this new work is laid in Mexico in the old pic-
turesque times of the discoverers ; and we have the haughty
nobles of Spain, and the natives of the new world brought
into contrast in its pages. There are powerful scenes in the
work, and we regret that the one in which Villafamt's treachery
is detected and punished, is too long for extract. " Cortes'
is the hero of the tale ; Don Juan Lerna is the lover ; his
dog, Befo, is almost as gallant a quadruped as Bevis in
" Woodstock ;" Zelahualla is a creature so beautiful, simple,
and innocent, that we regret not to know more of her. All
the characters of the story, even those which are subordinate,
are skilfully drawn, and with sufficient variety to recommend
the work."—Athencru

BIRTHS.
On the Ist inst., the wife of Mr. E. M. Van Butchell, of
Broad-street, Golden-square, surgeon, of a son.
On the 30th ult., in Brook-street, Mrs. J. Alexander Hankey,
of a daughter.
On the Ist inst., at Knots Green, Le ton the wife of James
Reeves, Esq., of a daughter.
On the Ist inst., in Portland-place, the lady of Arthur Currie,
Esq., of a daughter.
On the 30th ult., the lady of P. C. Moore, Esq., of Doctors''
commons, of a son.
On the ?oth ult., at Cheltenham, the lady of John Henri
Howard, Esq., of a son.
On the `3Bth ult., at St. Mary's, Bedford, Mrs. T. John Greco,
ly I of a daughter.

- .
MARRIED.
On the 30th ult., at St. Mary's, Bryanston-square, the Rey. 11',
Reel!, to Maria Adriana, daughter of the late John Smee, Esq., O'
the Hon. East India Company's Civil Service at Bombay.
On the :20th ult., by special license, at the house of the Counteog
of Llandaff, Merrion-square, Dublin, Edward Symes Bally, Es4.'
of Ballyarthur, county Wicklow, to Catharine, youngest daughter
of the Right Hen. M. Fitzgerald, Knight of Kerry.
On the 30th ult., at the parish church of St. James, Garlick
Hythe, Thomas James Marriott, Esq., of Gibson-square, to.EIIO
Mary, seventh daughter of the late Abraham Mann, Esq., of oar
ham, Surrey.
On the 30th ult., at St. James's Church, Sir Harry Calvert, to
Eliza, daughter of the late Admiral Sir George Hope and of the
Hon. Lady Hope, sister of the late Lord Kinnard.

D IE D.
On the 30th ult., at Worthing, in her 74th year,' Anne, relict of
\the Rev. Joseph Dixon, late Rector of Sullington, Sussex.
On the 30th ult., at Wimbledon Lodge, Mrs. Jeanne Madeleine
Sunier.
On the 28th ult., at Peckham, Surrey, Phoebe, youngest ("BAJO'
ter of the late Rear-Admiral Samuel Wittewronge Clayton. ,7'
On the 28th ult., Richard Marston, Esq., of Ely-place, aged 7,.'"
On the 27th ult., Mr. John Griffin, of Bishopsgate-street-witP
out, in his 634 year.
On the 224 ult., at Liverpool, Peter Gilfillan, Esq., of Giese'
aged 49.
On the 29th ult., at Maida-hill, in his 70th year, Mr. Jose
pb
Manton. of
On the 29th ult., Ellen, the infant daughter of Mr. Gibbing,

.Mornington-crescent, aged two months.
On the 25th ult., in Hampshire, in his 33d year, Mr. Daniel P'
Le On
late o
2f Newgate-market. London. el
the 6th of May, at Malta, Lady Hankev, wife of Colo'
Sir Federick Hankey, '
Onr the 29th ult., at Cheltenham, William Thomason StepW'
eldest son of else late Captain W. G. Stephen, of the Bengal fle
gneers.
On the 24th ult., at Castle-street, Budge-row, Mr. James &I
don, youngest son of the late JaMes Gordon, Esq., of Upper Co'.
min,,-s.treet, Pennvie.
On the 29th ultot., at Witchingham-hall, near Norwich, Charl‘.
Thompson, Esq.
On the Ist of May, on his passage to Jamaica, Thomas Del 4
Hall, Esq., of Worctster and Roundhill Estates in that 1010
aged 57. Wit
On the 26th ult., at Stepney, Mary Ann, wife of Captain
Barclay of the ship Planet. of
On the 27th ult., Mary, the wife of Mr. Daniel White,
Thames Ditton, Surrey, aged 63. e, cf
On the 24th ult., in Isis 69th year, Mr. Anderson, of Park-P'
9'
91
Ealing.
On the 27th ult., at Portsmouth, William Spencer, Egq"
years Ordnance Storekeeper at that place, aged 77. lilt.
On the 29th ult., in Bath-place, New-road, Ann, relict of
Robert. Giles, late of Oxford-seet. O{
On the 28th ult. at Parsonage, Hants; Frances 0
, Strattongiana Dallas, daughter of the late Robert Charles Dallas, EA'
the Island of Jamaica, and of Ste. Adresse, in Normandy.

London : Printed and Published by MURDO .YOUNG, of oil
112, Strand, at The Sun Ofrice, No. 112, SUand, b the Co
of Middlvil x.