The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-28 00:00:00

specting the county of Cork. The county of Cork con..
twined as nearly as possible the same number of inhabitants
as the whn'e principality of Wales. Yet Cork was to
have only five or six Members, while Wales was to have
2 Members. Now nn one would say that Wales Was so
far advanced beyond Cork in civilitation and wealth as to
'warrant such a disparity. He d4d not say that too much
I:ad been done for Wales, but that too little had been done
for Cork. It was impossible, in his opinion to recoecilti.
these discrepancies. He trusted that the Noble Lord
vzoiriii accede to the motion of the Him. Member for
Notnersetshire, in order to men those alterations in the
measure which were so

-Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman seemed to have taken up a notion that this
BM was founded upon some regular arithmetical propor-
tim► of population. It had never teen so laid down by
aNnse who supported it ; so that the whole of the arctt-
anent founded by the R;ght Hon. Gentleman on that hypo-
thesis fell to the ground. The reason why he (Lord John
Russell) supported the clause for the division of counties
was this ;—Our county representation was, generally
s-yeaking, excellent; but it had this defect, that in certain
cases the expence of the election was so intolerable, that
men of small fortunes could not venture to become candi-
dates; and by that means the electors bad not the freedom
of 'choice which they would otherwise have. Those ex-
pences resulted from, first, agency, then the conveyance of
voters to the poll, and lastly (though illegal, yet in some
cases absolutely necessary), refreshment. If the counties
were left entire, the agencies would he doubled, the dis-
tance of travelling would b lengthened, and the necessity
far refreshment increased. By dividing the counties, those
evils would he diminished ; and men of small fortunes
might be able to go to the poll.
Mr. CROKER explained.

Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN argue] in favour of divid-
ing the counties.

Mr. STRICKLAND said his opinion had been eirAtied
on this subject. As to the large counties he had no objec-
tion wha►ever to the division, which must work well. The
only difficulty was ovith reference to the smaller counties.
He was persuaded that the greet advantage of these divi-
sions would be to prevent contests and unsatisfactory torn -
promises.

Mr. C. WYNN thought that this giving of four Mem-
bers to one county, while another hail but two, would be
a cause of jealousy to the Inhabitants of the parish in the
county where only two Members were returned. lie
thought that the evil of that system was likely to be some-
what diminished by the present clause, which went to di-
vide the large counties, and he should therefore vote for it.
Mr. SHELL referred to the Irish Reform Bill, which
he was glad to find contained one el iuse which was a great
improvement on the former Reform Bill for Ireland. In
the new Bill, the certificate of the registration of tht free-
holder, when supported by an affidavit of the freeholder
himself, was conclusive, to all intents and purposes, on
the question of the right of voting. The production of it
was sufficient to establish his right; and what would be
the consequence ? why, the delay and expense of elections
would be much reduced. That was an improvement which
be much hoped to see introduced into the English Reform
Bill.

Lord ALTHORP did not mean to deny that there might
he something ulvantagenus in the proposition of the Hon.
And Learned Member ; but be did not well tee how it
could he adopteil at the present moment ; and as tl e
clause for the division of the counties had a general ten-
dency to diminish the expenses of elections, he trusted
that it would have the support of tl-e Hon. and 1-,arned
Member, whose object in saving expense would be so far
answered.

Mr. CRESSET PELI-TAM spoke amidst manifest signs
of impatience on the part of the Members. He was on.
iderstood to say the Ministers had failed to shew any suffi-
cient grounds for what they were now recommending to
the House.

Mr. HUNI' had before voted with the Ministers on this
clause, and should vote with them again now, for no ar-
eumeots he had yet heard had had the effect of changing
his opinion on the subject.

Mr. J. WEYLANi) intended to support the clause for
the division of counties. The Hon. Member went on to
make some further observations, but the cries of " Ques-
tion" became so vehement, that none of his remarks could
be distinctly heard in the gallery.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 213
Against it g9

Majority

-M

On our re-admission we found the House on the 15th
clause, and Lord ALTHORP proposing to fill up the blank
by the word " three," so as to Rive to certain counties
therein named three Members each.

Lord MILTON urged that this plan of giving three
Members to some counties would be attended with in-
convenience, and would ensure contests. He had a still
stronger objeetion to the monstrous selection that had been
made of counties to be so privileged. He alit not intend
ieae tne sense of the House; but he felt bound to enter
his protest against the amendment.

Colot..el SIETHORPE rejoiced at anything like the ap-
pearance of discord on the other aide of the House, and
was therefore happy to find the Noble Lord opposed to his
colleague (Lord Althorp) regarding one clause of this de-
testable Bill. He contended that the selection of counties
for additional Members was most unjust and unequal.
Mr. WORTLEY said, that there was no instance of
what might be termed treble representation, and single re-
presentation was of comraratively modern date. In his
opinion it would have been much better to have given
quadruple representation to a greater number of counties,
than to allow three Members to any. Besides, the whole
oystent was so unjust : while the West Riding of York-
shire, with a population of about a million, sent only two
Members, the county of Buckingham, with 100,000 in-
habitants, was allowed three. The fifteenth clause con-
tained the names of the counties to be so favoured, so that
it was a clause and a schedule in one; yet Ministers bad
agreed to postpone the schedules, and this ought to have
been deferred with the rest.

Lord ALTHORP agreed that the last criticism of the
Hon. Gentleman upon the clause was just it did include
the names of the counties, and they ought to be postponed,
and added to the Rill in a schedule. The question was,
whether, what he might call second-rate counties ought
to have three Members ? and it was to he recollected, that
if f.ur Members were to be allowed to them, the districts
would be inconveniently small. He could not see any
solid objection to three Members. Political opinion was
usually divided, and among the voters was also usually a
number of moderate men, belonging to no party, and
they would be ready to vote for the third candidate. Com-
promise might then be prevented ; but, on the whole, the
effect would be advantageous. The franchise in counties
possessing three Members might be more valuable, but the
House ought not to regard the interests of particular
voters, but of the class of interests to be represented. He
admitted that the practice was new, but it would not be
injurious.

Colonel WOOD maintained that an opportunity of
compromise in counties was desirable, and that contest
would be ensured and unavoidable where there were to be
three representatives.

Mr. ADEANE was of opinion, that the agricultural
in►erest had not been sufficiently attended to, and in this
Bill more neglected than in the last. Cambridge was an
agricultural county, and was entitled to an additional
Member.

Sir J. WALSH concurred with those who thought
that the effect of this clause would be to increase the
expence of county elections, and to occasion perpetual
contests

Mr. PRAED did not think that contests would be in-
creased by the clause, but be objected to the increase of
the power and influence of the individual voters.
Mr. CROKER would postpone the observations he had
to make on this question until it was again before the
House; but he must say now he conceived two would be
a much safer number to fill up the blank with than three.
He proposed an atnendment to that effect.

Mr. GOULBURN also objected to the filling up the
blank with the word " Three." He agreed with the
Noble Lord in the propriety of preserving the agricultural
interests as much as possible in the counties; fur the pur-
pose of balancing the representation of the towns; but be
apprehended that after the Bill came into operation, the
con►tests in the counties would be solely carried on by the
town and the country parties, for the purpose of securing
the third Member.

Mr. F. PALMER had been much is Berkshire since
this triple representation was first proposed, and he had
not found a single person who did not approve of it.
Lord PALMERSTON recommended the Right lion.
Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) to look at the list of coun-
ties which were to have three Members, and he would
find that they were counties the most agricultural of any
in England, that they bad the smallest number of large
ti‘wris, arid that those towns were of a description the most
under the influence of the great landed proprietors.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to
think that the number of contest* would be increased by
having three Members instead of two; but he (Lord Pal-
merston) thought there were obvious reasons why the pos-
session of the right to return three Members would dimi-
nish contests.—(oh, oh! and laughter.) It would be
seen that there were always three parties, and where there
.
was a third Member, they would naturally settle the dm.
pute by a compromise.
Mr. GOULBURN denied the statement of the Noble