The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-06 00:00:00

REFORM BILL (ENGLAND).

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL the Order of the
Day was read for the Adjourned Committee on the English
Deform Bill.

The SPEAKER having left the Chair,
Mr. BERNAL, the Chairman of the Committee, was
proceeding to read the clause referring to schedule 11, when
Mr. A. TREVOR rose to move, pursuant to notice,
that Stockton-upon-Tees should be inserted in that
schedule. He contended that Stockton had as strong a
claim to be represented as either Gateshead or Chelten-
ham. It was a town of almost daily increasing importance.
Its revenue and customs amounted, in 1811, to no more
than 40,000/. ; but in 1831 the amount was 46,0001.,
deducting the duty on sea-borne coals ; showing an increase
of more than 40,000/. in twenty years. In 1811 the num-
ber of ships outward-bound was 1,262, and inwards 316.
But in 1831, the number of ships outward-bound bad

•ese eeq Cl eels la Ani eeseni tew etereen
increased to *,104, aid LIP/tails to 4541.. Under thou
circumstances he insisted that the claims of Stockton to
be represented were equal to those of other boroughs
in schedule D, and he should, therefore, take the sense of
the Committee upon this motion that it be inserted in that
schedule.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if Stoekton-npon-Tees
were to have a Member, in consequence of its growing
importance, the same claim would be set up, and with
more justice, in favour of many other places.
Sir C. WETHERELL was of opinion that Stockton
! was of much more importance than Brighton. Brighton
was enfranchised on the assessed taxes principle ; but if
the window tax should he taken off—or the powder tax
(though, by-the-bye, he did not know whether any one
paid that now)—their whole principle might break duten.
Lord ALTHORP said that the Government had taken
the principle of population and not of assessed taxes for
the guide in the enfranchising clauses. He was surprised
to hear the Hon. and Learned Gentleman doubt whether
any body paid the powder tax, for it sounded a little as if
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was in the habit of de-
frauding the revenue—(A laugh).-for he (Lord Althorp)
had often seen the Hon. and Learned Gentleman with
some token of his powder privileges about his person.
Mr. CROKER would sooner give a vote to Stockton
than South Shields. The other night, when lie had al-
luded to the case of Toxteth Park, he received two an-
swers—one, that S Ilford was a separate jurisdiction from
Manchester, while Toxteth Palk and Liverpool were the
same ; and the oar, that Salford had expressed a desire
to have the franchise; -but that a similar desire had never
been expressed by Toxteth Par}. Now he begged to say
that he had received a letter frl;triqpxteth Park, in which
it was stated that Toxteth Park waineiAnqer the borough
magistrates of Liverpool, and that as 6ing agci as May
the inhabitants had forwarded a memorial to Lord Vie-
count Melbourne, asking for representation. He was
sorry that he could not vote for the amendment of the
Honourable Gentleman; but it was against his feeling,
because he bad a most decided objection to the giving ano-
ther Member to Durham, which had already much
more
than its share,
Mr. TREVOR, on the suggestion of Sir C. WETIIER.•
ELL, consented not to divide the House on the question.
Motion negatived without a division.
Ashton-under-Line, Lancashire.—Agreed to.
Bury, Lancashire.—Agreed to.
Chatham, Kent.
Mr. CROKER wished to know why Gillingham was
not within the boundary of the borough of Chatham ?
Lord ALTHORP said that Gillingham was a mile off.
Mr. CROKER said it was not more than a furlong.
After a conversation, in which the principle on which
Dartmouth was disfranchised was discussed, the vote was
agreed to.
Mr. CROKER—The House, I beg to say, has now
come unanimously to a resolution, which, last year, was
rejected by a large majority.
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought that Pittsfield ought to
be added to Cheltenham.
Lord J. RUSSELL 'had never before heard that any
part of the town of Cheltenhatn was excluded.
Mr. ESTCOURT informed the House that the hotel
and assembly rooms were at Pittsfield.
Sir C. WETHERELL thought it would be better to
postpone Cheltenham..,..(Loud cries of " No, no !" and
laughter.)

Mr. CROKER presumed that the returning officer
would be appointed by the Master of the Ceremonies.
Vote agreed to.
Dudley, Worcestershire.
Mr. CROKER had many objections to this vote; but
as he thought that they might be more judiciously intro-
duoed under the head of Staffordshire, he would post-
pone them until they came to the vote upon Walsall.—
Vote agreed to.
Frome, Somersetshire.
Mr. CROKER wanted to know why the whole parish
of Frame was not included within the franchise?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the parish o fFrorne was
fifty or sixty miles in circumference.
Frome was then agreed to; and the question having
been put on Gateshead—

Colonel WOOD rose, for the purpose of moving, as art
amendment, that Gateshead be omitted, and that, instead
thereof, Merthyr Tydvil be inserted. Though the House
was very thinly attended, he would no longer delay bring-
ing forward the case of Merthyr Tydvil. It was a place
which contained 674 qualified tenements—it had within
its limits four large iron works, thirty-three blast fur-
naces; it, in fact, contained one-third of the whole of the
iron manufacture of the kingdom. It was the centre of a
district which contained a population of 100,000 soula,
and he thought the people of that town had a right to
complain when they found so many smaller places enfran-
chised. Even taking the assessed taxes upon the principle
which governed Mr. Drummond's calculations, he should
say that Merthyr was better entitled to representation than
were Bury, Kidderminster, South Shields, Kendal,
Whitby, and many other places that might be named. On
the ground of population, too, its claims were of a high
order, for even taking it within the narrowest limits that
could be assigned to the town, it reckoned no fewer than
22,000 persons; and, including the adjacent hamlet, it
would amount to 24,000. The people of Merthyr Tydvil
put in their claim, and be thought with perfect justice,
to he considered as well entitled to representation as Wol-
verhampton or Walsall, and he should propose that one or
other of those places be left out, were he not apprehensive
that suoh a proposition might be supposed to originate in
a spirit of rivalry on the part of the inhabitants of the
place whose claims he was urging. The iron district of
Stafford had seven Members within a circle, the radius of
which did not exceed thirteen miles. Gateshead was also
the centre of a very large body of representation—there
were belonging to its immediate vicinity, the Members
for Newcastle, for North and South Shields, for Sunder-
land, and the county Members for Durham ; all within a
circle, the radius of which did not amount to twelve miles ;
while if a semicircle were drawn around Merthyr Tydvil,
it would net include a single place that sent a Member to
Parliament. He felt bound to add, that a petition haul
been some time ago presented to the House, setting forth
the feelings of the people of Merthyr Tydvil upon the sub-
ject, and expressing their unwillingness to be united
with Cardiff, Llantrissent, and Cowbridge, and their
desire rather to retain their votes for the county
than to have them merged in any community of
representation such as that proposed.
Sir JAMES STUART, though generally a supporter
of Ministers, could not refrain from saying, that on the
present occasion they had been guilty of some partiality.
Were he to judge of the relative importance of the places
under consideration according to the principle laid down
by Mr. Drummond, be would sty the number which
denoted the value of Cardiff would be 5,025, or Cardiff
with the two other places proposed to be included, 6,682.
Now Morpeth would send two Members to Parliament,
while the number which denoted its relative importance
would be 4,774. On that ground, then, be would contend
that Merthyr should be represented without any union with
Cardiff, and would, therefore, support the amendment.
Mr. HODGSON said if they deprived Gateshead of
its representation, the county of Durham and the places
contained therein would nut have their due share of repre-
sentation. The average throughout the kingdom was one
Member to 26,500 inhabitants. As it now stood, it was
in that county in the proportion of one to 25,000 ; but if
Gateshead were left without any, the proportion would be
one to 28,000.

Mr. K. DOUGLAS supported the claims of Merthyr
Tydvil, and contended that Gateshead was but amiserable
suburb to Newcastle.

Mr. JEPHSON thought there ought to be no union be-
tween Merthyr and any other place, and that it, as well
as Gateshead, ought to be represented.
Mr. RIGBY WASON adverted to his former opinions
on this subject, and contended that, as there were now no
Members to spare, Gateshead had not, ehher on account
of population, wealth, or respectability, a claim fur a
Member.

isvt e giving
Member,a Memberwewhen
tt shvehycounty town of Westmoreland, was disfran-
chised. Gateshead, which was only a suburb of Newcastle. He
Colonel DALGRaYtesAhlePaLdEviawsastoa
against
knew Apple
Appleby,
The object of the Bill was to break down old in-
terests and set up new.
Sir HEDWORTHI WILLIAMSON said that Gates-
head was very properly separated from Newcastle, because
its interests had been sacrificed to that of Newcastle. He
opposed the motion.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that the Mi-
nisters were wholly inconsistent in their principles and
arguments. They defended one anomaly by another, and
laid down principles in an arbitrary manner to which they
asked the assent of the House as arbitrarily. In no case,
except that of Merthyr Tydvil, had they refused so large a
separate population as 22,000 one Member. There was
no county in England so much favoured as Durham, nn-
less it was Cumberland, and he therefore objected to giv-
ing a Member to Gateshead. He claimed particularly a
Member for Merthyr Tydvil, became Glamorganshire was
less represented by one-third than the county of Durham.
Eves if his Hon. Friend's preposition were carried, Gla-
morgan would not be equally represented with Durham.
Glamorgan also was increasing in population faster than
Durham. It was increasing at the
.rate of twenty-four
per cent., while Durham was only increasing at the
rate of 22 by the last census. By the census of 1521,