The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-11 00:00:00

THE CUNARD COMPANY, &c.

Mr. GREGORY gave notice that in the event of his hon.
and gallant friend (Colonel French) not bringing forward
the motion of which he had give notice, for a return of
the failures of contract on the part of the Cunard company
and other companies for a period of two years, and for in-
formation as to the enforcement of the penalties for the
same, that he would bring forward a motion to the same
effect.

CIIINA—MR. PARKE'S REPORT.
Col. SYKES asked the Secretary of State for Foreign,
Affairs, whether the report from Mr. Parkes of his four
interviews with the Taeping authorities at Nankin, to
which reference was made in Commander Aplin's letter,
dated the 2d of April, 1861, in the China correspondence,
respecting the opening of the Yang-tze-Kiang river, would
be laid upon the table of the house ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that whatever :papers had been
received on the subject had been already on the table.
DEPORTATION OF MR. MOSS FROM JAPAN.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Secretary of
State• for Foreign Affairs, if any decision had been come to
in the case of Mr. Moss, sentenced by Mr. Alcock to fine,
deportation from Japan, and imprisonment at Hong Kong ;
and if he is prepared to lay any papers on that subject
upon the table of the house ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would not be proper to
lay such papers befoze the house, considering that there
were law proceedings pending at Hong Kong in reference
to the subject.

APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND

ST. ALBANS) BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Earl JERMYN moved that the house resolve itself into
such committee this day six months. The noble lord, who
was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that
Sudbury was not deserving of the sweeping condemnation
which had been passed on it by depriving it of Parliamen-
tary representation, and referred to the cases of other
boroughs which from time to time had been proved to have
been guilty of offences quite as bad as those committed by
this borough. He complained that the Government had
not dealt explicitly with him in regard to the question he
had put shortly before the Easter vacation, as to whether
it was intended to deal with the other delinquent boroughs
with the same severity as St. Albans and Sudbury had been
treated, and he was left uninformed on this subject.
He said the question in regard to this borough was not one
of abstract political morality or immorality, but one of rela-
tive or comparative merit; and applying this proposition to
the present case, he thought it most unjust to visit the
borough of Sudbury with the heavy penalty which had been
inflicted on it. He said that it was not his intention to
oppose this bill further than to elicit a discussion as to what
should be the practise in future with regard to constituencies
convicted of gross and systematic corruption.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he thought the proper oc-
casion on which the subject of dealing with boroughs con-
victed of corruption would be when the Corrupt Practice at
Elections Bill was brought forward. The object of the
noble lord was in fact to resuscitate a defunct borough, and
a borough remarkable for its corruption. In the work of
Mr. May, who sat at that table, it had been shown that
Sudbury had been famous in the annals of political abase-
ment. He referred also to the overwhelming mass of evi-
dence before the select committee confirmatory of the bad
reputation which that borough had acquired. With regard
to the boroughs of Gloucester and Wakefield, it was not
necessarily the function of Government to bring in a bill
to disfranchise these boroughs, but it was competent for
any private member to do so, and if that d td
Government would give
=cum ill every due were adopted,
He trusted, under these cstacesthe noble lord (Earl
Jeruiyn) would not press his motion.
Major PARKER, who had seconded the amendment,
trusted that the house would reject the bill.
Mr. SCULLY also opposed the bill, which he denounced
as a miserable substitute on the part of the Government for
the Reform Bill which they had promised the country, and
on the faith of which they had been placed in power.
Mr. STIRLING supported the bill as being a step in
the right direction. He thought that on the distribution
of the seats, it was a fallacy to regard them as being only
English seats, and that one of them should be given to
Scotland and another to Ireland. When they went into
committee he would move that one of the vacant seats should
be given to the Scotch University.
Col. DUNNE gave notice that in committee he would
move that two of the vacant seats should be given to Ire-
land. His hon. and learned friend the member for Dun-
garvan had a motion to the same effect, but he specified
Cork and Dublin as being the parts of Ireland to whom the
additional members should be appropriated, and to that mo-
tion he had no objection. He contended that Ireland was
not adequately represented in that house, and that the
present was a fitting opportunity for the Parlia-
ment to do justice, though in a very small
degree. He would move that Cork should be substituted
for Lancashire in the bill, or if it was more agreeable to
Scotch members to make a similar motion in relation to
the Scotch University, he would move that Cork be sub-
stituted for Chelsea.
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY deprecated the introduction of
the subject of the boroughs of St. Albans and Sudbury into
the introduction of the bill. He thonght that Government
should
who we re be allowed to make the selection of the boroughs
to get the additional members.
Mr. WARNER believed the house ;as not prepared to
go the entire length Which
the noble lord who proposed the
amendment appeared to
suggest, which was that the writs
should actually be restored to those martyred boroughs of
Sudbury and St. Albans. The house was p?edged to extend I
considerably the representation of the peop4 e, and, in endea-

vouring to fulfil that pledge, the Government would act
wisely if they left the exact mode of settling the question in
the hands of the house itself ; and, if they did not, treat it
as a party question. They could all see the rapid disin-
tegration of parties which was going on in the country.
It was said that the Liberal constituencies had no
confidence in the Liberal members, and that the Liberal
members had no confidence in their chief. The Liberal
party, which was once strong, was now thoroughly dis-
organised ; the once great leader of that party was para-
lysed, and the Reform Bill, which once occupied a place in
the deliberations of the country, was made the plaything
and the spert of irresponsible parties.
_ _

The house divided—
For going into committee 338
Against
Majority
The house then went into committee on the bill.
Mr. COLLINS moved to insert in clause 1, line 4, that
Yorkshire should be entitled to return four Knights of the
Shire to serve in Parliament, and should be divided into
two divisions, according to the form in Schedule (A) to the
act annexed. He contended that it was the bounden duty
of the house to declare that three of the vacant seats should
be extended to counties. In 1832 the noble lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs gave four members each to 26
counties, and he did so upon the ground that these coun-
ties were entitled to that number of representatives in right
of taxation, number of electors, geographical area, and
population. For the same reasons the West Riding of
Yorkshire was entitled to four members, and ought to have
had that number assigned to it by the noble lord at the time
he introduced his Reform Bill. He maintained that in
population, as well as in geographical area, the West Riding
of Yorkshire was well entitled to further representation.
The country of the West Riding had, in 1859, 36,000 voters.
He denied that the inequality of the representation was
made up by borough members, and, on the contrary, he
thought that the proportion of borough members to rural
members was unjustly large. Ho proposed to take the
same boundary as had been proposed by the Government:of
Lord Aberdeen, for it was always advisable to take, as far
as possible, the ancient landmarks of the country. He re-
gretted that there were no more seats to be disposed of, but
in the interest of the West Riding, he felt bound to advo-
cate its just claim to further representation. He did not
wish to do anything hostile to her Majesty's Government,
but he felt himself bound to move the postponement of the
clause, in order at once to decide upon the question whether
Chelsea should have a member or not. The hon. member
ooaolucloa by rnnving the pngkr..--•,n•nt nf the clause.
Sir G. C. LEWIS supported the amendment. The hon.
member had shown no reason for departing from the usual
practice of taking the clause seriatim. The proposal of the
hon. member to give an additional member to Yorkshire
was one which he was entitled to make, but which he might
more properly make in committee. The present bill, unlike
former Reform Bills, was limited to the disfranchisement of
only four seats. If the Government had not brought the
question forward some member would have done so. The
proposol of the Government was to give two of the seats to
counties and two to boroughs. Thu hon. gentleman proposed
to give three to counties, and one to a borough. That
was one objection which he had to,the proposal. He could
assure the house that the proposal of the Government had
been made without any party motive. He hoped the corn•
mittee would negative the amendment.
Lord J. MANNERS did not think the right hon. gentle-
man had said anything on the point at issue. The question
was whether they should, for the first time since the Reform
Bill, adopt that anomalous kind of representation known as
the unicorn system. The evil that met them in dealing
with the overgrown constituencies of towns was the diffi-
culty of finding gentlemen of education and position to
undergo the expense, and worry of brain and body, to re-
present large masses of electors. As regarded Yorkshire,
the practical remedy would be to diminish the area so as to
divide it, and place it in the power of country gentlemen,
of ordinary means, to represent a division. He hoped the
Government would reconsider the proposal.
Mr. THOMPSON opposed the amendment. There was
a strong feeling in the West Riding against accepting an
additional member if that should involve the necessity of
dividing the Riding. It was felt that the decision of a large
constituency had a far greater weight in the country than
the decision of two or more small constituencies. He did
not say that it was desirable that all the constituencies
should be large. On the contrary, he thought that there
should be both large and small constituencies.
Colonel SMYTH believed that the general feeling in
the West Riding was in favour of dividing it, and that if the
committee decided on dividing it, that that would be ap-
proved of in the Riding. He believed that the hon. member
who last spoke was chairman of the Liberal Association of
the West Riding, and he could understand why he objected
to a division of the Riding.
Mr. BAINES said it was quite true that the hon. mem-

ber for Whitby was chairman of the Liberal Association in
the West Riding, and it was also true that the Liberal party
in the Riding were opposed to a division of it. He thought
the proposition of the Government was a fair and equitable
one. Now the country was intersected with railways and
telegraphs, and the number of polling-places was increased
so that the facilities for voting and knowing the state of the
poll throughout the country were greatly increased. He
thought the proposition to give to the counties the votes
taken from the boroughs was unreasonable, and therefore,
he should oppose the motion of his hon. friend:
Mr. W. E. DUNCOMBE maintained that the West

Riding was fairly entitled to two additional members, and
he thought that the Riding might with advantage be
divided. Notwithstanding the increase of facilities, there
was still great expense in bringing voters from long dis-
tances. In 1806, the expense of an election for the county of
York was almost fabulous, amounting, in fact, to £20,000.
Mr. DENT thought that the influence of the towns was
already too predominant, and without regarding it as a party
question, be thought that all interests ought to be fairly re-
presented in this house. The West Riding had grown ex-
cessively—in fact, was overgrown, and ought to be divided.
Mr. BEECROFT also advocated the division of the
West Riding.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that, when Government last
year introduced a Reform Bill, in which it was proposed
to give two extra seats to the West Riding, without divid-
ing it, they received a large number of memorials, from
which it appeared that there was a great division of opinion
in the Riding upon that point, and that this division was
not conterminous with the political parties. Some persons
of both the Liberal and the Conservative party were found
upon each side. Any gentleman who gave his vote in
favour of the division of the West Riding, under the im-
pression that it will be acceptable to the majority of the
people of the West Riding, would be labouring under a great
mistakes

Mr. NEWDEGATE observed that the house was not
bound by the views of the electors, for though they ought
to have due weight, yet the great and principal point was to
secure the return of fit and proper persons to the house. He
represented a large constituency, and had some means of

judging of the probable inconveniences of a still larger con
stituency. He was not in favour of very small constituen-
cies either, for the excess in that direction was as bad as the
other; but the effect of a very large constituency was to
place the power in the hands of a small number of persons.
It was impossible in an overgrown constituency to do with-
out organisation, and the effect of that organisation was that
a small number, no doubt of intelligent persons, formed an
extempore organisation, and got all the power into their own
hands. There were but 159 county members in the house,
though they represented a majority of the people, and by
far the largest number of householders. He should cor-
dially support the amendment.
Mr. COLLINS hoped Government would not press to a
divisions, for he could not conceive the embarrassing posi-
tion in which they would be placed if the 3d clause were
rejected after this were passed. If his amendment were
agreed to, then it was easy to give the two seats to York-
shire; but if Chelsea were rejected after a third member
had been given to Yorkshire they could not give a fourth.
He was not proposing to give to the counties what bad been
taken from the boroughs, but to restore a seat to a similar
source to that from which it had been taken.
Mr. HADFIELD thought that Lancashire was more
entitled to two Extra members than Yorkshire.
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes (for postponing the clause) .. 81
Noes

Majority against postponing the clause —37

Mr. COLLINS moved to substitute in the first line of
this clause the words after the "passing of this Act," for
the words "on and after the Ist November." The new re-
gister could not be made out till the Ist December, so that,
in point of fact, there would be no register in existence on
the Ist December. It would be a great advantage to have
the voters entered on the existing register, and it would
then be competent to any member to move the issue of a
new writ in the present session.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the Bth section of the clause pro-
vided that the new writs should not be issued till the new
register was in force. That provided for the boroughs. As
to the counties he would explain why the Ist November
had been fixed. The date fixed in the bill had been selected
as a more convenient period for the election than during
the time of harvest.

The amendment was withdrawn.
Colonel DUNNE moved as an amendment that one seat
should be apportioned to Ireland. There was nothing un-
reasonable in this request, and both the present and late
Government were of opinion that Ireland was not suffi-
ciently represented. If increase of population were to be
considered as a test for guidance in the distribution of seats
then upon that ground Ireland had a very strong claim.
There were four members for a county of 31,000 electors, or
one member to less than 3,000, and it could not be disputed
for a moment that the thirteen towns as well as the county
were adequately represented. He contended that there
was no force in the argument that one of the vacant seats
ought net to be given to Ireland, because it was an Eng-
lish seat. If that principle were to be accepted by the
house, it would afford a strong argument in favour of the
repeal of the Union ; and it was absurd to treat Ireland as
a separate country, so long as it was really an integral part
of the United h ingdom. No Government had yet done
justice to Ireland,' and he contended that the Irish mem-
bers were justified in uniting together for the purpose of
opposing any Government until their claims were recog-
nised. At present Ireland contributed to the revenue
of the country far more than she reosiyed. The represents.