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

REFORM BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved the reeding of the
Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on
the Reform Bill, when
Mr. BARING rose for the purpose of giving notice o'
his intention, on the 14th of February, to move for leave
to bring in a Bill to do away with the privilege of arree!
for Members of that House under execution.

Sir JOHN BRIDGES wished to take that opportunity
of declaring that whether it was or not the intention of
Ministers to create a sufficient number of Peers to carry
the Reform Bill through the House of Lords ; as long as
that measure remained in the House in which he had
the honour of a seat, it should meet with his most de-
termined opposition at every step.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the
English Reform Bill. Mr. 13E14Nat. in the Chair.
The CIIIIRMAN then read clause 14,—" And be it
enacted, that each of the counties in the schedule marked
F," &c.

Mr. CROKER viewing this clause as part of the ge-
neral machinery of the Bill would object to it altogether,
but as he had a particular objection, which depended
on infos motion not in the possession of the House, pre-
suming that the Noble Lord would postpone the sche-
dule, he (Mr. C.) would not enter more at large upon the
subject at present.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had a suggestion on the subject
of this clause to offer to the Noble Lord which he was
afraid would not be adopted, but which he could not help
thinking would be a great improvement to the Bill. He
had voted last year for a division of the counties, and if the
provisions of the Bill with respect to the right of voting re-
mained unaltered, he would still support his former vote for
the continued division of the counties. He thought,
however, that the division of the counties might be
obviated to the general satisfaction of the House,
by introducing an alteration in the right of voting
fur townships, which would i eve the effect of slin-
plif)ing the operation of the Jill. His proposal was
the same with that which he made last year, namely, that
wherever -. right of voting arose from the possession of pro-
perty, of whatever nature, in any place, city, or borough en-
titled is return Members to Parliament, that right should be
exercised in the city or borough, and not for the counts.
Having made this provision he would then restore the in-
tegrity of the counties, and he would allow each to return
four Members. Of course all towns and boroughs which
had not a right to return Members, should be permitted to
vote for the counties. He entreated Ministers to consider
the effect that this would have in simplifying the opera-
tions of the Bill—he would state a case to illustrate the com-
plicated questions that might arise as to the same property,
whether it should be considered as being a freehold property,
and situate in a city or borough, as conferring a vote in the
city or county. Suppose he were possessed of a freehold
garden in the city of Litchfield, of the yearly value of five
pounds; as the Bill stood, the possession of that freehold
would give a right to vote for the county. If he built a
house on it, and inhabited that house himself, it might be
doubtful whether the house was worth 101. per year ; the
barrister for the county of Stafford thought it was worth
more, but a barrister for the town of Litchfield thought
it was not worth 101. In that case, from that difference of
opinion, he should have no vote at all. The county bar-
rister thought it worth more, and would not bet him vete
for the county, while the town barrister thought it not
worth 10/., and lie should have no vote for the city,
and the very next year, from the barrister's taking a dif-
ferent course, be might have two votes. A great many
other questions would arise, and all this complexity would
be avoided by confining the freehold right of voting to the
city or borough in which it was contained. It would
be said, however, that in this way the line of demarcation
between the manufacturing and agricultural interests was
made more divided than otherwise. He felt the
force of that objection, but what he dreaded was the
creation of an illegitimate influence in manufacturing
towns over the counties. He should therefore snake a
double proposition to the Noble Lord ; it would be palat-
able both to Reformers and Anti-Reformers, namely,
that counties should not be divided, that their integrity
should be preserved, but that in order to prevent the
large towns in those counties, already entitled to send
Members, from exercising too great an influence over the
counties, that the right of voting, from whatever
cause it might arise, should he confined to town.
or boroughs.—(Hear, hear.) This would introduce
simplicity with the measure, was a fit compromise, and
would give great satisfaction to the country. He trusted
the Noble Lord would attend to this suggestion, which
be really made bona fide.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave full credit to the Right
Hon. Gentleman fir his motive in bringing forward this
proposition ; at the s ime time if he did not say that the
question would be taken into immediate consideration, it
was not for want of respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman.
The main feature of the proposition was, that the free-
holders residing in cities and boroughs would vote, not for
the counties, but for the cities and boroughs which sent
citizens and burgesses to Parliament. The first objection
to this proposition was, that it tended to produce a sepa-
ration between the inhabitants of the towns and the in-
habitants of boroughs. The freeholders of cities, towns.
and boroughs, when they elected a person belonging to the
county, who had landed property in the county, were
proud of being freeholders of that county. They con-
sidered they had an interest in the county represen-
tation.—(Hear, hear.) They looked upon the landed
gentlemen, and the interest which they represented, z
in a certain degree blended with their own interests and
commercial views—the effect of which was that the
Member who came to Parliament had neither in his con-
duct, nor the way in which he was regarded, so exclusive
an interest, nor was he such an advocate of a single
class of the county, as he would become, if the free-
holders and electors from towns were entirely separated
from him. This was one great objection to the course
proposed. And he (the Noble Lord) was confirmed in
this opinion by the frequent testim:nies he received, of
the dread there was on the part of the freeholders residing
in the great towns, of being deprived of their votes
for the counties. They had a great pride in being
able to vote in the county representations ; and as this was
a just pride, Government would be unwilling to take it
wholly front them. There were other objections. A Man
might at present exercise the right of voting, whether
a resident or non-resident freeholder. If the House
gave those the right of voting only who resided in towns an
cities, they would displace the right of many to vote,
who had freeholds in towns and cities, but who resided in
the country. On the other hand, if they did not enact
such a clause, there would be a new source of expense cre-
ated, attending elections for cities or boroughs. There
was a still stionger objection to making this pro-
position general, and which he, (the Noble Lord),
had stated to the House last sessions, when the Hon.
Member for Worcester had made a proposition extremei
similar to the present. A great number of borough,
were now retained of great size, say of 6 or 7,000
inhabi-
tants. Then if the House preserved those boroughs, aril
gave the freeholders, not resident in those boroughs, the right
of voting, they gave a right which might completely pre-
dominate over the hopes and voices of the electors resident
in the boroughs. This might be exemplified by takieg
the town of Tavistock, which had been taken as ai.
instance on a former occasion, and where his Grave
the Duke of Bedford had bought almost all the interests.
On every view in which he was able to consider this pi
position, he did not think it calcula►ted to forward he
ends of the present Bill—though there might be coo.
veniences and inconvasiences attending its rejection.
The Noble Lord had a decided objection to the election ol
four Members at one time and place, because where there
were six or seven candidates, the freeholders bad v. ry
great difficulty to select the four who were best fitted to I e
present them, but where there were only to he two Monte: rs
elected, and there were three or four candidate', it to as

easy for the majority of freeholders to return the two Alcm-
hers of their choice.

Mr. CRESSET PELFIAM made a few Oservatioi,s,
which were inaudildo in the gallery.
Colonel SIBTHORPE was decidedly of spini,n
tliat the discussion upon the clause, and c,e clause
ought to be postponed.
Mr. GORE LANGTON opposed the postponement,
although it was his anxious desire that every dance
should rec,ive the most ample cord& ratirn. A large
majority of t'o, people were grateful to his Majesty's Mi-
nisters for what they proposed to do.
Sir ROBERT PEEL expLinel
Lord MILTON thought the division of counties was en
evil ; hut he was afr,,ih it was an evil inseparable from
the Bill proposed by Mlnis!ers. In fact. if an additi,n of
Members was given to counties, it wou'd be n,cessary to
divide them. The evils of electing four M,lnheis at mica
would he great, as had been strati; by the No!de Laid.
Cansidering the division of counties legs an evil than
turning them undivided, he should oppose the amendment.
Mr. GOULBURN was ofopiuion that it was necessary
that the Government would lay a plan for the division of
counties on the table, before the Commitee could vote con-
cerning the clause.

Mr: C. FERGUSSON objected to the division of
counties ; and with those views he shoulil feel it his duty.
to vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Somer.-
set‘hire.

Lord ALTHORP slid, that in respect of the division
of counties, the House mood in a situation equally advae-
tageous as when the matter was first brought under their
consideration, but yet the situation leas sotnewlint dif-
ferent, for under the former Bill t,ie division must have
been effected in conformity with the Report of the Com-
missioners—which, as the Weise would reruerolvr, was to
bechme final on an address from the [louse to the Crown.
Now, however, the case was different, te this ex:eoft—
that which before was to be effected by means of a report
from Commissioners, would he made the subject of a die-
that Act of Parliament. The information which those
intended to fill the office of Commissioners had col:ected
was now :accessible to Parliatnent, and so far, et 'east, a
considerable advantage—an advantage quite euffieient to
compensate for any inconvenience peculiar to the new Bill.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down
expressed his intention on now voting differently- from
what he had done on the former occasion ; but he (Lord
A.) found it impossible to appreciate the value of the ar-
guments which appeared to have wrought nit. conversion
neither could lie see what connection there was betive,n
depriving the voters for towns of their rights et election,
and the maintenance of that principle open which the di-
vision of the counties rested. There was one fact which
he presumed no one would be disposed to deny—namely,
the effect which that division would have in improving the
situation of the voters in the towns. There .7oolif but no sent
of question that the number of town voters would be as
much increased by an arrangement of that rewire as the
number of those under the influence of counties; and time
the relative position of the two interests weird remain
unaltered. There was another consideration, which he
confessed had much weight with him—namely, that the
proposed division of counties would have the effect of
greatly diminishing the expences of contested elections.
There was no gentleman who had any experience in tlecs
toasters would contradict him, when he said that the ex-
pences very much depended upon the area: of the canvas.
In opposition to the proposed division, it bad mote than
once been contended, that it would have the effect of des-
!roying the natural and proper influence of small proprie-
tors of land, and give to the great proprietors an undue
preponderance. He believed that the divisiout would in
many instances break up large properties in such a way as
to have an effect directly the reverse. To quote the in-
stance of the county with which he was himself more par-
ticularly connected, there its division would completely di-
vide whatever influence his family were supposed to derive
from their lauded possessions. Finally he wonld repeat his
former assertion, that to retain the divisions, would be a
great advantage to the measure—to reject it would have
"an effect directly the reverse.
Mr. PRAED supported the division of counties.
Mr. WILBRAHAM said, that the op:ration of tho
clause would be to destroy all old aesociations, and to put
an end to the dignity of county representation.
Mr. W. PEEL could not but regret that a proposition
so reasonable and fair as that of his Right Hon. Relative
had not been acceded to.

Mr. J. CAMPBELL would support the amendment.
He was decidedly opposed to any interference with bound-
aries so ancient as those which now marked the limN of
counties ; there were no where to be found local divisions
more ancient.

Sir G. MURRAY was not averse from preserving the
influence which great families so fortunately possessed, and
so wisely exercised in this country ; quite the contrary.
He fully approved of the principle of keeping the elective
privileges as distinct as possible from those enjoys I by
persons resident in rural districts ; and he concluded by
expressing a strong apprehension that the division of coun-
ties thus proposed would be drawn into a precedent for
Scotland.

Sir E. STANLEY opposed the clause, as tending to
diminish the expellees of county elections. If they vlimi-
Dished the expense of county elections, they would leave
counties more completely in the hands of the oligarchy
than at present.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that his opinion on this point
had been considerably modified, and that it was now hit
opinion that the division of counties would diminish the
oligarchical influence. Popular power was decreased by
division, and he believed that oligarchical power would
be so also. It would be a great anomaly if in one county
a voter should have four votes, and in another only two.
Mr. EWART argued for the continu:nce of the exiet-
ing state of the representation.

Mr. CROKER said, that when the 13111 was first
brought in, the Noble Lord stated that certain great
counties having a larger population than 150,000 inhabi-
tants were to have four Members; and that, as a corol-
lary with that arithmetical proportion, there was to be a
second clause, giving to all counties leaving a large popu-
lation than 100,000 inhabitants three Member,; leaving
to six or seven inferior counties, having a smaller popula-
tion than 100,000 inhabitants, two Membets. Now cer-
tainly, if they were to alter the Constitution at al!, and if
in doing so they were to proceed by ar,thrnetrical propor-
tion, nothing could be fairer than these proportions. So _—
far the Bill was perfect in its operation and just in its
principle. But his Majesty's Ministers had since been in-
duced to make an alteration with regard to the first class
of voters, and instead of having twenty-five counties of
large size., each returning four Members, had determined
on having fifty countie, of a smaller sit-, each returning
two Members.

Lord ALTIIORP stated across the table, that it had
from the first been the intention of Alinisrers to propose
a division of the large counties. The addition of a single
Member ti some of the counties was not originally in
the Bill.

Mr. CIIOKER had not supposed that such was the ori-
ginal intention of the framers of the Bill. Let them see
how their proposition would act. Four Memhers were t o
be given to large counties on account of their population ;
but it ludicrously happened that by this arrangement
small counties would return a greater number than large
ones. The county of Cumberland wis to return four
Members. Whether the county was to be divided or left
entire, seemed at first sight to be a ntatttr of no impor-
tance. But it was highly important. Th't population of
Cumberland was 169,000 inhabitants. Supposing it to
he fairly divided, each division would have about 84,000
inhabitants. But Devonshire, which contained a popul.,-
tion of 495,000 inhabitants, was also to to.? divided into
two counties, each containing 247,000 inhabitants ; being
more than double the amount of the whole nuinber of in-
dividuals in the county of Cumberland. It w..s the same
thing with Kent and Northamptonshire. Kent, contain-
ing a population of 478,000 inhabitants, was to be divi,cd,
no doubt, into East and West Kent, each containing
239,000 inhabitants. While Northamptonshire, which
was also to be divided, had, before its division, only
179,000 inhabitants ! lie could not conceive on what
principle this argument, apparently so absurd, proceeded.
In his opinion, it would be infinitely better to leave the
ancient landmarks of the Constitution ; but if they were to
be removed, and a scale of population were to be adopted,
at least let that scale be fair and impartial. It was now
necessary for hint to refer to the other clause. Devonshire
was to have four Members, being divided into two counties,
each division containing 247,000 individuals. But when He-
refordshire and Montgomeryshire came to be considered,
then all of a sudden was first heard the proposition of
giviity, any counties in England three Members. Th,se
counties contained, the one 110,000, the other 99,000.
So East and West Devon were to have each two Members,
with a population of 247,000 inhabitants, while Berkshire,
Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Herefordshire, Mont-
gomeryshire, &c. were all to have three Members, with
about half the population. Why ? He did not intend to
make any motion upon the subject for the purpose of iin-
proving the Bill; but he confessed that he was totally at
a loss to understand the meaning of this arrangement.
Why was Monmouthshire,
one of the smallest coiiti,s in
England,
containing only 98,000 inhabitants, to have
three Members? Why were 98,000 nat:abit:lnts in Mon-
tnotifkhire to be more extensively represented than
'47,0t10 in Devonshire, or than 450,600 in Scotland, or
than 800,000 in Ireltind ? There was a claim fact re.