The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-31 00:00:00

meeting of the freeholders of that county. Both of th
above petitions were ordered to lie on the tible.

SLAVERY.

The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition, most
numerously, and he believed most respectably signed,
front Edinburgh, praying their Lordships to take into
imm.diate consideration measures for the abolition or
slavery in the Clonies, as soon as it could be done with
safety. The petition was most moderate and tempe-
rate in its language, and was, therefore, highly de.
serving of their Lordships' attention. He united
with the citizens of Edinburgh, in their abhorrence of
sl +very, but thought that if Parliament were at once to
introduce a measure for the instantaneous abolition of
slavery, it would probably lead to results most injurious,
if not calamitous, to the slaves themselves, as well as to
the security of the lives and property of the white in-
habitants.—Laid upon the table.

BOROUGH OF HELSTON.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from
certain inhabitants of Helston, praying that the
assessed taxes which were remitted to the yi omanry
cavllry of that town might be taken into calculation in
estima•ing the comparative value of Hi-Iston, with regard
to other bi.rouhs in schedule A. His Lordship thought
it very bald that the loyalty of the inhabitants of lid-
s:on should subject them to disfranchisement.
Lord KENYON and the Duke of BUCKINGHAM sup-
ported the prayer of the petition, which was laid on the
table.

was a rotten borough, but knew no more of it than he
had heard from the Noble Marquess. Of the character
of the freemen he knew nothing; but taking them to be
worthy of the high eulogiurn pronounced upon them by the
Noble Marquess, one could not help being sorry that per
sons whose character had been lauded in such magnificent
terms should be disfranchised. If they had exercised
their franchise in such a spirited and excellent manner,
and d-served to be characterized in such such high and
magnificent terms, was it not a pity that they should be
disfranchised ? H., who thought that nomination bo-
roughs were good for something, was glad that the Nob!.
Marquess bail found reason to eulogise to highly, at least,
this one nomination borough.
The Marquess of CLEVELAND repeated that the
freemen of Camelford had acted in a most noble and most
disinterested manner.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—Suppose it to be so, that
was a reason why they should not be disfranchised.
It was agreed that Camelford should stand in schedule
A, and that Castle Rising, Norfolk ; Fowt y, Cornwall ;
East Looe, Cornwall ; West Looe, Cornwall ; Heeler',
Yorkshire ; Hindon, Wilts; Highatn Ferrers, Northamp-
ton ; Newport, Cornwall ; Newton, Lancashire ; New-
ton, Isle of Wight; Plympton, Devonshire ; Queen-
borough, Kent; New Romney, Kent; Old Sarum,
Wilts; Seaford, Sussex ; Tregony, Cornwall; Wen-
dover, Bucks ; Wootto❑ Basset, Wilts ; Yarmouth, Is'e
of Wight; Whitechurch, Hants; and Winchelsea, Sussex;
should also stand part of the schedule.
On the question being put as to whether Ilchester
should stand part of the schedule,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked whether the Noble
Marquess had not a word to say in favour of Ilchester?
It had been consolatory to him to hear the Noble Mar-
quess speak in such terms of the freemen of the nomina-•
tio❑ borough of Camelford; and were not the freemen of
Ilchester, with whom the Noble Marquess had likewise an
intimate connexion, equally honourable? He would be
glad to hear the Noble Marquess speak in equally high
terms of the nomination borough of Ilchester.
The Marquess of CLEVELAND had not intended to
say a word on the subject, had he not been thus called
upon. He had to say then of Ilchester, that it was not
pi operly a nomination borough. He did mean to say that
his recommendation would have no weight there ; but he
knew he had no power to nominate the Members for that
borough, and if he had recommended an Anti- Reform
Candidate, he was persuaded the freemen would have re-
jected him. Besides, Ilchester was a place of considerable
importance. It was reckoned the chief town of the county
of Somerset, and it was the place where the county gaol
was situate, and where the sentences on criminals were ex-
ecuted ; and he had at one time thought that if the neigh•
bourine parish had been joined to it, the place might have
been kept out of the sche rule, and held entitled to return
at least one Member. But it was not a great manu'ac-
turing place, and perhaps wanted other requisites to entitle
it to retain the franchise. It haul a population of six
thousand, and paid 1,4001. of assessed taxes ; and if some
places in the neighbourhood had been added, it would be
a place of considerable trade ; hut he did not mean to
object to its remaining in the clause.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—What the Noble Marquess
said was of considerable importance. He said that this
was not a nomination borough, so that it appeared that all
the places in schedule A were not nomination boroughs.
This and some other places inserted in the schedule were
c tpable of extension. and might be placed in schedule 13.
He did not know what importance ought to be ascribed
to the circumstance of criminals being executed in the
town, but he thought that it might be proper to postpone
the question as to this town till after further inquiry.
It was agreed that Ilchester, it, Somersetshire, should
stand part.of the schedule; and also East Grinste id, Sussex.
On the question being put as to whether Minehead
should stand part of the schedule,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that on the rigid
principle laid down by Ministers, Minehead, in Somerset-
shire, was properly laid dawn in schedule A; and yet this
rigid adherence to the principle sometimes produced great
injustice; for some places were in schedule B, which, for
rn my reasons, ought to be in schedule A rather than Mine-
head. His Lordship also observed, that the country of
Somerset had by far too few Members, in proportion to the
counties of Devon, Wilts, and Dorset.
Lord KlNG—Minehead was completely a decayed town.
A great proportion of it had been burnt, and it was alto-
gether a nomination borough.
After a few words from the Lord Chancellor, the Mar-
quess of Lansdowne, and the Ein of Malmesbury, it was
agreed that Minehead should stand part of the schedule.
On the question being put as to whether Appleby, i❑
Westmorland, should stand part of the schedule,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH contended that it was for
eve, atuultl retain the fran-
chise in preference to Westbury. Indeed he considered
that Appleby hid a better right to one Member than any
place in schedule B.
The LORD CHANCELLOR remarked, it was neces-
sary to draw the line somewhere even at the expense of
apparent partiality ; and at all events, he could not see
what right Appleby had to a Member when it was evi-
dent, from the Returns, that it could not form a constitu-
ency of 300 ten-pound voters.
After a conversation, in which the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Durham, and Lord Ellenborough took a part, Ap-
pleby was ordered to stand part of the clause; as were
also Lostwithiel and Fligham Ferrets.
On the motion that Atnersham stand part of the clause,
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM observed, that the
Commissioners had omitted two of the principal houses in
the town—the Rectory and the Manor-house. If they
had been inserted, Amersham, according to the principle
of the Bill, would be entitled to one Member.
Lord DURHAM defended the fidelity and impartiality
of the Commissioners; and observed that the Rectory was
halt a mile out of the town, and had never been entitled
to a vote, and that the Manor-house was, in fact, part of
the Rectory.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM had been given to un-
derstand that the Rectory was not at the alleged dist Ince
from the town ; and Lord BOSTON said that it was no-
thing like the eighth of a mile.
The Earl of RADNOR produced the map of the Ord-
nance Survey, to show that; it was half a mile.
Amerahom was then ordered to stand part of the clause.
The whole of schedule A having thus been gone through,
the clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY proceeded to read the
second clause, viz.:—
" And be it enacted, that each of the Boroughs enume-
rated in Schedule B to this Act annexed, shall, from and
after the end of this present Paliament, return one Mem-
ber, and no more, to serve in Parliament."
The Earl of HADDINGTON said, that he knew there
was no practical use in opposing the clause, and therefore
that his only object in rising was to satisfy his own mind
by entering his protest against its adoption. It had been
argued that, when they went a considerable way in en-
franchising, they should go a considt r tble way in dis-
franchising ; but surely it was a question in what manner
that disfranchisement should take place. Perhaps the
rule of combining population and the assessed taxes might
as a general rule be satisfactory; and yet, in particular
instances, it might be very unsatisfactory ; as, for ex-
ample, in the case of the borough to which the Noble
Duke bad recently adverted; in which it appeared that
the exclusion of a single house might determine the
question whether or not a borough should return a Mem-
ber. The same might be the case with many of the
boroughs in schedule B. Some of them were sepa
rated from the boroughs in schedule A by such a
narrow line of distinction, that when the subject came
to be calmly investigated, it would be difficult to say
why there should be any difference in their treatment.
A considerable proportion of the boroughs in schedule
B deserved a place in schedule A, as much as many
of the boroughs in that schedule, and had been
saved only by an arbitrary and unsatisfactory rule. But
he had greater objection than that to schedule B. Some
of the boroughs which it contained might with propriety
(according to the principle of the Bill) have been inserted
in schedule A; but there were others which were treated
very harshly by being placed in schedule B, and which
had a right to two Members. If the principle of disfran-
chisement which the Bill applied to the boroughs in sche-
dule A were applied to the boroughs in schedule B, all
those boroughs should be added to schedule A, and there
should be no schedule B. Were the boroughs in schedule
B nomination boroughs or not ? If they were nomination
boroughs, why were they left with one Member? If they
were not nomination boroughs, why was one Member taken
Irons them ? Concurring with his Noble Friend that sche•
Jule B was the weakest part of the Bill, he should say—
❑ot content to its adoption.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that there
must be some criterion,—some line drawn ; and that no
criterion,—no line could be better than those adopted in
the Bill.
The Earl of MALMESBURY maintained, that the
principle of confining boroughs to the return of a single
Member was objectionable, as leading to contests which
weal(' be avoided if there were two Members.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE concurred in the opinion which
had just been expressed by his Noble Friend.
The Committee then proceeded with schedule B; and
Peteistield, Ashburton, St. Ives, Westbury, 'Wareham,
Woohtock, Malmc.bury, LiJskeard, Reignite, Hythe)