The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-02 00:00:00

.31EETING OF LANCASHIRE REFORM
DEPUTIES'.

Yesterday afternoon an exceedingly large and
crowded meeting was held at the Assembly-room,
Free-trade Hall, Manchester, being a conference of
Reformers in Lancashire favourable to the general
principles of Mr. Bright's Bill. Mr. Bright, M.P.,
was present, and was received with most enthu-
siastic cheering. The following is a list of some of
the deputations present, but owing to the late hour
at which some of the appointments were made it is
not complete, and it is probable some few Mistakes
are made in names :
The following are the names of the deputations
and friends from the various towns named :
ACCRINGTON.—Messrs. Langbridge, Geo. Bury,
Thomas Haworth, James Barlow, R. Massey, E.
Bowker, Swaine Rhodes, Bridge (Church, Robt.
Westall (Church),
J. Tattersall.
AsTLEY.—Mr. Samuel Newton.
ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE.—Mr. William Hill.
BLACKBURN.—Mr. James Pilkington, M.P. ;
Aldermen Wm. Pilkington and R. R. Jackson ;
iNlessrs. W. H. Johnson, Adam Bullough, T. B.
Westall, Thomas Eccles, R. Shackleton, B. Abbott,
R. Webster, James Shaw, H. Cocks, F. Nichols.
BOLTON.—Messrs. Robert Heywood, Thomas
Thomason, P. R. Arrowsmith, T. Satterthwaite,
Henry Ashworth (the Oaks.)
BACUP.—Messrs. Chas. Stewart, Richard Smith,
Robert Smith, John Howarth.
BURY.—Messrs. Thomas L. Openshaw, Thomas
Pilkington, Thomas Grundy, James Kay, James
Chattwood, Richard Ward, Edwardßates
William
Farebrother, Thomas Crompton, Samuel Kay, John
Wood, John Ratcliffe, James Livsey, John Horrox,
John H. Tyson, Peter M. Cooper.
CHADDERTON.—Mr. Allen Mellor.
CHORLEY.—Messrs. William Lawrence, William
Gillibrand.
HASLINGDEN.—Rev. G. W. Clapham.
HELIISHORE.—Mr. James Whittaker.
KIRKIIA3L—Mr. Richard Bowdler.
LANCASTER.—Mr. James Thomson Wray, and
Mr. Alderman G. Jackson ; Messrs. George Cle-
minson, Verity, John Clark Hornby, Tennant
Kirkby, and W. Guiness, Bentham.
LIVERPOOL—Messrs. Robertson Gladstone, J.
R. Jeffery, Lawrence Heyworth, Charles Holland,
J. P. Denson, R. W. Ronald, Richard Wel, David
M'Clellan, R. Bennett, J. Steel, T. Cope, and K.
Liversedge.
LEEDS.—Messrs. George Atkins, Chas. Andrew,
John Holroyd, H. Atherton.
MIDDLETON.—Messrs. John Knox, Edward
Howarth, John Woolstencroft, Thos. Mills.
NEWCHURCIL—Messrs. John Kershaw, Whit-
taker, H. Law, Barcroft, George Hood.
PRESTON.—Messrs. Rolt, R. Charnley, J. Han-
kinson, J. J. Merriman, John Thompson, jun.
OLDHAM.—Mr. Councillor Dransfield, Messrs.
Leonard Haslop, John Bromley, John Swailes, E.
Ingham, Jos. Shaw, John Ashton, Edwd. Kirkby,
John Bradley. Adam Bradley, John Beswick, John
Green, John Swires, Edward Rye, Richard Peat,
Charles Mellor, J. Hulme Hill.
RoYToN.—Messrs. James Stott, Thos. Chadwick,
John Buckley, Jos. Harrop, Adam Whitworth,
John Mellor, Miles Taylor.
ROCHDALE.—Mr. Alderman Healey, and Mr.
Alderman Livsey ; Messrs. Jacob Bright, John Pe-
trie, George Ashworth, Robt. Kelsall, Henry King,
James King, T. B. Willans, J. F. Pagan, William
Shepherd, Abraham Greenwood, Sam Asquith,
John Clegg, Sam Casson.
SOUTHPORT.—Dr. Craven ; Messrs. Wood, Henry
Robinson, Robert Lloyd, John Jackson, Walter
Smith, Wm. Hodge, Boothroyd.
STALEYBRIDGE.—Messrs. W. Baxley (Mayor),
Randall Ridgway, John Summers, George Smith,
Hugh Marsland, Abraham Hilton, Jos. Shawcross,
E. Shipley, J. Kenworthy, W. Bayley, jun.
ST. HELEN'S.—Messrs. Samuel Gurney, Bernard,
Dromgoole.
STOCKPORT. Messrs. Alderman Chapman,
Hampson, and Walmsley Messrs. Forrester,
Blackett '(Stacksteads), Richard Ashworth, David
Bowles, James Longson, S. Maiden.
TODMORDEN.—Messrs. Abraham Ormrod, Robt.
Fielden, W. Fielden, L. H. Suthers, John Fielden,
Thos. Chambers, John Whitaker, James Nuttall,
Edward Lord, William Crabtree, Joseph Firth, W.
Haworth, J. Shepherd, Wm. Greenwood, Ashton
Stansfield, John Barker, jun., George Hinsliffe,
James Schofield, John Cockcroft. James Dawson,
John Brooke, Wm. Shackleton, Henry Duckworth,
J. H. Wilson, Barker Crabtree, James Ashworth,
John Veevers, L. Tapling.
WARRINGTON.—Rev. R. A. Mould ; Messrs.
Peter Rylands, Holbrook Gaskell, C. H. Cartwright,
Edward Robinson, John Burgess.
COWPEN.—Edward Ashworth.
The following letter had been received from le
Bazley, M.P. :

" Hayesleigh, Manchester, Jan. 26.
" My Dear Sir, —Having been long engaged to proceed
to London on Tuesday next, to fulfil an important engage-
ment, I cannot, I regret, have the honour of attending the
Reformers' Conference on the evening of that day.
" Again, I beg to assure you that I shall feel it to be my
duty to assist in obtaining as comprehensive and judicious
a reform in the representation of the people of this country
as the Legislature can be induced to yield.
" Allow me to ;take the opportunity of thanking my
Liberal friends for the honour of electing me a vice-presi-
dent of their Reform Association.—Believe me to remain,

" THOS. BAZLEY,

most faithfull3r,
" George -Wilson, Esq., &c."
On the motion of Mr. J. C. DYER, seconded by
Mr. HARVEY, Mayor of Salford, Mr. Geo. Wilson
was unanimously ♦oted to the chair, amid loud
cheers.

The CHAIRMAN regretted that, in the absence of
one of the most distinguished Liberals in the county,
he had been, at a few minutes' notice, called
to take the chair on this occasion. The object of this
meeting was to afford to the leading Reformers of
Lancashire an opportunity of expressing their
opinions on the great measure of his friend Mr.
Bright. (Cheers.) Speaking from his intimate ac-
quaintance with the past assemblages of Liberals
in this district, he was prepared to maintain that
the names which had been sent in as those of dele-
gates to this meeting offered a selection more re-
spectable and influential than he had ever seen in
the palmiest days of the League. (Cheers.) As this
was a meeting of delegates, he hoped no gentleman
would refrain from expressing his opinion, inas-
much as at great personal inconvenience Mr. Bright
was present. If they were to have a discussion on
Mr. Bright's measure, now was the time for it, and
now was the time to obtain any information re-
quired in reference to it, in order that, after due
and mature consideration, they might combine to-
gether strongly and with the requisite degree of
force, in order that that measure should have its dueinfluence in the House of Commons. (Cheers.)
die thouuht Mr. Brig ht had reason for peculiar
gratification at the reception of his proposals, not
only by the grematanmehe, meetings he had addressed at
Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Bradford, and Rochdale, but tmewvuehnheraver meetings of
importance had been held, when the parties
to them were advocates more extensin
measures than that of the hoe member for Bir-
mingham. He (the chairman) n.
therefore took it for
granted that we were not likely have the old
game played over again, but tlirat the working
classes for themselves were prepared to accept the
the leadership of Mr. Bright with reference to this
Reform Bill, and that we should see a combination
throughout the country in favour of this measure
such as was never presented in favour of a Reform
Bill on any former occasion. A good deal of unani-
mity had probably arisen from the fact that
Bright was not self-elected as a leader, because Mr.
he
had been chosen by the London ReformAssocia Association,
the first reform association in the country for the
talent of its members and for the attention it had
given to the cause it advocated during the last two
or three years. He took it for granted that the
members of that association, with their 50 or 60
members of Parliament on its council, would not
have made that selection unless they had come to
the conclusion that a measure of reform could be
safely intrusted to the hands of Mr. Bright.
(Cheers.) He considered that Lancashire had
especial reason for supporting this Reform Bill.
Long before 1832, and since that time, no county
intthe kingdom had received, in the acknowledg-
ment of population or property, such unfair treat-
ment as Lancashire. (Cheers.) They asked for no
exclusive privileges, but for fair-play. We should,
no doubt, hear from that ingenious advocate
of the landed interest, and probably the most
able, supporter of the present Government in the
onse of Commons, Mr. Disraeli, a great outcry
ti!
Rat the counties had not their fair share of repre-
sentation in proportion to their population and
their voters.
hionshire,'raking his own county of Bucking-
tcoould be found, however, that for
many years during
s Bthe contest for the Reform Bill
sat ii
Mr. Disraeli still,it knowing that Buckingham-
shire, with
000 voters (borough and county
included), its 104,00
population, and its property
rated to the income ofm considerably less than
£1,000,000, returned 11
a more
thano £10,000,000
returned 26
members to Parliament, and-that if the county of
Lancaster during that time had returneda
s of
in pro_
portion to the county of Buckingham,
DI, it would have had 130 members. (Cheers.)mtea Ho
d
would, however, not take the comparison with
Buckingham alone. At the present time there
were nine counties in England with less than
400,000 population, with assessment under schedule
Aof the property-tax of £700,000 less than that
of Lancashire, which returned 98 members to Par-