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

MENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY,)
The LOAD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
st 5 o'clock.

CHURCH RATES.

Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from a
place in Durham against the abolition of church rates.
Other petitions on this subject were presented.
IRELAND,

The Earl of LEITRIM presented a petition from Done-
gal, complaining of the disturbed state of the country, and
praying for the suppression of secret societies. He accom-
panied the petition with some observations in support of it.
In the course of his remarks he condemned some proceed-
ings of Lord Chief Justice Monaghan.
The LORD CHANCELLOR strongly animadverted
on the Earl of Leitrim's conduct in making charges against
the Lord Chief Justice Monaghan in their lordships'
house,

INDIAN PRIZE MONEY.
In answer to a question relating to the payment of Indian
prize money,
Earl DE GREY and RIPON stated that interest at
the rate of five per cent. would be allowed on prize money,
though not of course on jewels and other articles of value.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Tho following bills were read a second time :—The Lon-
don and North-Western Railway (Eccles, Tyldesley, and
Wigan), London and North-Western Railway (Chester
and Holyhead Railway), London and North-Western
Railway (Cheshire Lines), London and North-Western
Railway (Liverpool Lines), Birkenhead Railway, Darling-
ton Local Board of Health, London and North-Western
Railway (additional powers), Rhyl Bridge, the London
and North •Western, Lancaster and Carlisle, and Caledo-
nian Railways.
The following private bills were read a third time and
passed :—The Belfast and County Down Railway ; the
Mid-Wales Railway; London and North-Western, and
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Man-
chester London-road Station) ; Banbridge Extension Rail-
way ; Burton-upon-Trent Water ; and Llandidloes and
Newton Railway.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.'
Their lordships having gone into committee on this bill,
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that when it was
before the select committee certain alterations were intro-
duced into the measure, which, if not now modified, would
materially defeat the good working of the bill.
Lord CHELMSFORD said the noble and learned lord
had the other evening stated that the alterations were of
such a character that theycould not be called amendments.
He, however, believed that the measure left the select com-
mittee greatly improved, for it was the sincere desire of
every noble lord who sat on that committee to make the
measure as useful as possible. No one who had not deeply
considered the question could appreciate the difficulty, for
it was almost impossible to satisfy all the parties interested
in the question. For instance, the Mercantile Law Amend-
ment Society—an association of London merchants—wished
to have the office of chief judge maintained as the best part
of the bill, whereas the merchants of Manchester considered
the office would be at once useless and expensive. The great
blot, however, of the bill was that it would, if passed, intro-
duce, in regard to non-traders, a retrospective law. When
the bill was before the select committee, he attempted to in-
troduce the amendment which he now proposed for the ex-
clusion of the retrospective clauses, but was defeated by a
very narrow majority. If the bill passed in its present shape
the Court would have no power of punishing with imprison.
went non-traders for contracting debts under certain circum-
stances ; whereas, when he so contracted them, he was guilty
of no offence whatever. It was altogether impossible to do
away with the difference between trader and non-trader,
but as the bill blended the law of bankruptcy and insolvency,
he approved of its principle so far. However, if it passed in
its present form the non-trader would, from that moment,
become subject to certain disabilities and penalties with
respect to debts contracted before its passing, and which at
present attach to traders only. As the bill was originally
introduced into the House of Commons it contained the
exempting clause, which he now wished to see again em-
bodied in it, The fact of its having been originally in the bill
showed that it was a provision which had at first received
the sanction of her Majesty's Government ; and the mode in
which it came to be excluded from the measure was some-
what extraordinary. There was a time each evening when
the House of Commons fell into what he might call a state
of syncope—(laughter)—and one evening, while in that
state of general insensibility with a pressure on the brain,
which seemed to be shared in by the Attorney-General, the
house not having energy enough for a division, agreed to
the amendment of his learned friend, Mr. Matins, who
moved the omission of the clause. in asking their lordships
to replace it in the bill, he had he thought not only shown
that without some such provision the bill would operate
unjustly in reference to a large numberof persons who never,
when they incurred debts, contemplated that what he was
then doing would be made the subject of an ex post facto
enactment, that all such legislation was harsh and unjust,
and that the amendment which he proposed had originally
received the sanction of her Majesty's Government.
Tho LORD CHANCELLOR said he not only adhered
to the opinion to which h© had always given expression,
that some of the alterations made in the bill while before the
select committee were not amendments, but he would go
further and say they were many of them deteriorations.
Petitions in favour of the bill in its original form had been
presented, not only from the Mercantile Law Amendment
Society, but from the great mercantile body throughout
the kingdom, who attached the greatest importance to its
provisions. There was no proposition in it looked Rpm with
more favour by those persons than that for the appointment
of a chief judge, and it was a remarkable circumstance that
that clause did not meet with the slightest opposition in the
House of Commons. On the contrary, it had been hailed on
all sides with the greatest pleasure, and he believed the noble
earl opposite (Earl of Derby) was somewhat surprised when
the motion was made without any previous notice whatever,
public or private, to omit it from the bill. There was that
day a very small attendance of the committee, as his col-
leagues were for the most part absent in the discharge of
their public duties. A judge of appeal was a necessity of
the measure, for the judges of the Court of Chancery would
not have the time to devote to that business ; besides there
were functions for the chief judge to perform, for which a
fresh provision must necessarily be made. If the clause
now proposed to be inserted in the bill by the noble and
learned lord was agreed to, it would delay, for years to
come, the working of the bill. He denied that the House
of Commons was in such an unconscious state, when they
rejected the proposal, as the noble and learned lord had in-
sinuated, but it yielded to the solemn arguments of Mr.
Malins—)laughter)—and when Sir H. Cairns attempted to
upset the vote by a subsequent motion, they defeated that
motion by a majority of twenty-five. He denied, however,
that the bill was at all retrospective, for it in no single in-
stance made the non-trader liable for anything which he
may have done in respect to the contraction of the debts
prior to its receiving the royal assent.
The Earl of DERBY denied that either he or anv of his
political friends were liable for the exclusion of the clause
appointing a chief judge, as it was done on the motion of
ho noble and learned lord behind the Treasury bench
(Lord Cranworth). When the committee considered the
question, it was considered that there was no appeal busi-
ness connected with bankruptcy which could not be dis-
charged by the Lord Justices of Appeal, an therei could be
g
no doubt the appointment would be an exeeedinyepensive
ono, and add greatly to the expense of bankruptcy,
So much
was this felt to be the case, that when thequestion thoble
put in a committee of 17 members,there was not a
fin
up in opposition to the amendment. With respect to Lel!
amendment of his noble and learned friend, it was negatived
in a committee of 18 members by a majority of two. The
noble and learned lord, however denied that the bill would
create an ex post facto law, but it was clear from the 87th
clause, that persons now residing abroad on account of debts
contracted years ago, would be liable to be made bankrupts
in respect to those debts if, after notice given, they did not
return home. It was equally clear from the 164th clause
that these same persons would be exposed to the operation
pf the penal clauses of the bill.
Lord CRANWORTH denied that the bill was retro-
spective in the sense complained of, and there were both
precedent and authority in favour of it. For instance,
Lord Eldon's Bill in a similar way brought builders and
insurance-brokers under the operation of the bankruptcy
laws ; and, again, before the passing of Lord Hardwicke's
Aet, neither bankers nor brokers were amenable to those
laws, With respect to the rejection by the select committee
of the clause appointing a chief judge, he did not see how
his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could
fairly complain that no notice was given of the amendment,
for !when the bill was before their lordships on the occasion
o
f its second reading, he (Lord Cranworth) objected to the
proposal in queation, and stated his intention to move its
rejection.
Lord BROUGHAM approved of the conduct of theselect
committee in rejecting the proposal for theappointment of
a chief judge, who, with the rank of a patens at a
salary of £5,000, would have no to do. If theyg wanted
a competent person to superintend thegbusetzsof.thnecourt,
they should retain one of the existin
that
house.pur After the passing of the Banki ers for
ply
.Act,
which had the honour to get passed, the appea
in bankruptcy cases, which previously occupied anness
portion of the time of the Court of Chancery, so dwinadrlge
down, that the Court of Record being no longer necessaryed
fell into disuetude ; and that was what they might have to'
expect in reference to the court of the chief judge. He could
not understand the form of argument by which it was at-
tempted to prove the bill was not a retrospective one, for if
a non-trader at present residing at Calais or Boulogne to
avoid arrest for debts contracted before the bill was thought
of, continued to do so for six months after its passing, he
would expose himself to the penalties of this measure, and
his creditors might make him a bankrupt,
'and take posses-
anything mon of his property, without his Perhaps ever knowing
anything of their proceedings until it would be too late to
interfere. There was not anything he knew so opposed to
justice as expost facto legislation. A member of the House
of Commons could be made a bankrupt, and would thenhave
to resign his seat; but when the Act of Parliament making
that law was passed, care was taken that it should not
apply to a member for debts contracted previously to its

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock,
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the Great Northern and
Western (of Ireland) Railway Bills were considered and
agreed to. The following bills were considered and ordered
to be read a third time :—Bonelli's Electric Telegraph Com-
pany; Charing-cross Railway (City Terminus) ; Dews-
bury and Batley Gas; Great Western Railway ; Hereford,
Hay, and Brecon Railway ; Londonderry and Lough
Swilly Railway ; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board ; and
Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway.
The following bills were read a second time :—Devon
Valley Railway, Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Railway,
Forth and Clyde Junction Railway, Kinross-shire Rail-
way, and Shireoaks District Church.
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the withdrawal
of the Galway Subsidy, from different places in favour of
the claims of the London University to one of the vacant
seats, against the Irish Poor Law Act, &c.

ARMY EFFE CTIVE S.
On the motion of Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, an address
was ordered for a return of army effectives of all ranks paid
out of the British Exchequer on the Ist day of January,
'st day of February, and Ist day of March, 1860.
EARL CRAVEN'S CHARITY.

In reply to Sir J. SHELLEY,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a piece of
land had been left by the late Lord Craven, towards endow-
ing an hospital for the five parishes in the neighbourhood
of Paddington, for the reception of patients affected with
contagious diseases, and the income, amounting to £350
a-year, had been offered to St. Mary's Hospital on condition
of an additional wing being attached to that institution, to
carry out the view of the noble donor (Earl Craven). That
offer had been refused, and he was endeavouring to find
some other institution which might feel disposed to accept
of it.

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.

enactment, so jealous was Parliament of committing itself - vouring to fulfil that pledge, the Government would act
to retrospective enactments.
wisely if they left the exact mode of settling the question in
Lord WENSLEYDALE was understood to defend the the hands of the house itself; and, if they did not, treat it
retrospective clauses.
On the
as a party question. They could all see the rapid disin-
question being put that the amendment be in- tegration of parties which was going on in the country.
serted in the bill, their lordships divided— It was said that the Liberal constituencies had no
Contents
Non-contents 6l Majority
—37 members had no confidence in their chief. The Liberal
The
•
exemption clause was then inserted. party, which was once strong, was now thoroughly die.
•
Lord CRANWORTH then moved to leave out a clause organised - ' the once gr eat leader of that party was pare-
introduced into the bill by the select committee, on the mo- lysed, and the Reform Bill, which once occupied a place in
tion of the Earl of Derby, to the effect that if a father and the deliberations of the country, was made the plaything
and the sport of irresponsibled parties.
son have each a life interest in the same estate, and that it
The house divid.
For going into committee, ........... 338
is to revert to the son upon the death of the father, the cre-
ditors of the son, in the event of his becoming bankrupt,
Against ........................... 44
shall not be allowed to sell that interest without the special
house tMheanjowrietynt ........ . c..oini"Mittee on the b—ill-. 294
leave of the Court. The introduction of the clause left
TheM COLLINS moved to insert in clause 1, line 4, that
their lordships open to the imputation of favouring the
Yorkshirer should be entitled to return four Knights of the
aristocracy. In the case of a trader, his reversionary right
Shire to serve in Parliament, and should be divided into
to any property would be sold for what it might bring, and
two divisions, according to the form in Schedule (A) to the
the non-trader ought not to be put in a better position.
act annexed. He contended that it was the bounden duty
The Earl of DERBY defended the clause. He had got an
of the house to declare that three of the vacant seats should
actuary to calculate the value of a property held by a father
be extended to counties, In 1832 the noble lord the Secre-
and son under tho circumstances mentioned, the father
counties, and EdiAdffsaoiruspognavethefourgroumnedni
being 55:years of age and the son 25, and he found it would
tary for Foreign
thatbe r members
these each
coup to 26.
fetch only two years' purchase. In the case of such a pro- tam'
entitled to that number of representatives in right
perty being sold, the present holder would have no interest 4,_..,
were .
in keeping up the value for those who were to possess it in "55
population. For the same reasons the West Riding of
succession to himself, and they, on taking possession of it,of
.taxation, number of electors, geographical area, and
had Yorkshire was entitled to four members, and ought to have
would have no other care than how to screw the most they PI)
that number assigned to it by the noble lord at the time
could out of it, so that it would come to the present posses-
sor's grandchild greatly deteriorated. Under those eircum-
he introduced his Reform Bill. He maintained that in
stances, it was, he thought, a very mild favour to ask that
the estate should not be sold without the section of the population, as well as in geographical area, the West Riding
Court. of Yorkshire was well entitled to further representation.
After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE in respect to The country of the West Riding had, in 1859, 36,000 voters.
post obits, He denied that the inequality of the representation was
Lord CRANWORTII withdrew his amendment. made up by borough members, and, on the contrary, he
The other clauses were then agreed to ; and the bill thought that the proportion of borough members to rural
having gone through committee, was reported to the house. members was unjustly large. He proposed to take the
WILLS OF PERSONALTY BY BRITISH SUB- same boundary as had been proposed by the Government:of
JECTS ABROAD BILL. Lord Aberdeen, for it was always advisable to take, as far
This bill was passed through committee. as possible, the ancient landmarks of the country. He re-
CUSTOMS (INLAND) REVENUE BILL. gretted that there were no more seats to be disposed of, but
This bill was likewise passed through committee. in the interest of the West Riding, he felt bound to advo-
The Earl of LEITRIM gave notice that, on Thursday cute its just claim to further representdtion. He did not
night, he would make a formal motion in respect to the wish to do anything hostile to her Majesty's Government,
matter which he broached in the early part of the et ening, but he felt himself bound to move the postponement of the
so that Chief Justice Monaghan might have an opportunity clause, in order at once to decide upon the question whether
of replying to the charge he had made against him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said Thursday was far too Chelsea should have a member or not. The hon. member
concluded by moving the postponement of the clause.
early a day, as there would not be sufficient time for him to Sir G. C. LEWIS supported the amendment. The hon.
communicate with the learned judge in question. member had shown no reason for departing from the usual
After a few words from the Earl of DONOUGHMORE, practice of taking the clause seriatim. The proposal of the
the time was enlarged, and their lordships adjourned at a hon. member to give an additional member to Yorkshire
quarter to eight o'clock. 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. The hon. gentleman proposed
L 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 come
L mittee would negative the amendment.
L 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. Ho 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 lion. 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
CHINA—MR. PARKE'S REPORT. thought the proposition to give to the counties the votes
Col. SYKES asked the SeCretary of State for Foreign taken from the boroughs was unreasonable, and therefore,
Affairs, whether the report from Mr. Parkes of his four he should oppose the motion of his hon. friend:
interviews with the Taeoing authorities at Nankin, to Mr. W. E. BUNCOMBE maintained that the West
which reference was made in Commander Aplin's letter, Riding was fairly entitled to two additional members, and
dated the 2d of April, 1861, in the China correspondence, he thought that the Riding might with advantage be
respecting the opening of the Yang .tze-Kiang river, would divided. Notwithstanding the increase of facilities, there
be laid upon the table of the house ? was still great expense in bringing voters from long dis-
Lord J. RUSSELL said that whatever :papers had been tanees. In 1806, the expense of an election for the county of
received on the subject had been already on the table. York was almost fabulous, amounting, in fact, to £20,000.
DEPORTATION OF MR. MOSS FROM JAPAN. Mr. DENT thought that the influence of the towns was
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Secretary of already too predominant, and without regarding it as a party
State for Foreign Affairs, if any decision had been come to question, he thought that all interests ought to be fairly re-
in the case of Mr. Moss, sentenced by Mr. Alcock to fine, presented in this house. The West Riding had grown ex-
deportation from Japan, and imprisonment at Hong Kong ; cessively—in fact, was overgrown, and ought to be divided.
and if he is prepared to lay any papers on that subject Mr. BEECROFT also advocated the division of the
upon the table of the house ? West Riding.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would not be proper to .Sir G. C. LEWIS said that, when Government last
lay such papers before the house, considering that there year introduced a Reform Bill, in which it was proposed
were law proceedings pending at Hong Kong in reference to give two extra seats to the West Riding, without divid-
to the subject. ing it, they received a large number of memorials, from
APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND which it appeared that there was a great division of opinion
ST. ALBANS) BILL. in the Riding upon that point, and that this division was
On the motion for going into committee on this bill, not conterminous with the political parties. Some persons
Earl JERMYN moved that the house resolve itself into of both the Liberal and the Conservative party were found
such committee this day six months. The noble lord, who upon each side. Any gentleman who gave his vote in
was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that favour of the division of the West Riding, under the im-
ression that it will be acceptable to the majority of the
Sudbury was not deserving of the sweeping condemnation P
which had been passed on it by depriving it of Parliamen- people of the West Riding, would be labouring under a great
tary representation, and referred to the cases of other mistake.
boroughs which from time to time had been proved to have Mr. NEWDEGATE observed that the house was not
been guilty of offences quite as bad as those committed by bound by the views of the electors, for though they ought
this borough. He complained that the Government had to have due weight, yet the great and principal point was to
not dealt explicitly with him in regard to the question he secure the return of fit and properpersons to the house. lie
had put shortly before the Easter vacation, as to whether represented a large constituency, and had some means of
it was intended to deal with the other delinquent boroughs judging of the probable inconveniences of a still larger con-
with the same severity as St. Albans and Sudbury had been stituency. He was not in favour of' very small constituen-
treated, and he was left uninformed on this subject. cies either, for the excess in that direction was as bad as the
He said the question in regard to this borough was not one other; but the effect of a very large constituency was to
of abstract political morality or immorality, but one of rela- place the power in the hands of a small number of persons.
tive or comparative merit ; and applying this proposition to It was impossible in an overgrown constituency to do with-
the present case, he thought it most unjust to visit the, out organisation, and the effect of that organisation was that
borough of Sudbury with the heavy penalty which had been a small number, no doubt of intelligent persons, formed an
inflicted on it. He said that it was not his intention to extempore organisation, and got all the power into their own
oppose this bill further than to elicit a discussion as to what hands. There were but 159 county members in the house,
should be the practise in future with regard to constituencies though they represented a majority of the people, and by
convicted of gross and systematic corruption. far the largest number of hbuseholders. He should cor-
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he thought the proper oc- dially support the amendment.
casion on which the subject of dealing with boroughs con- 111 r. COLLINS hoped Government would not press to a
victed of corruption would be when the Corrupt Practice at I divisions, for he could not conceive the embarrassing posi-
Elections Bill was brought forward. The object of the Lion in which they would be placed if the 3d clause were
noble lord was in fact to resuscitate a defuiact borough, and I rejected after this were passed. If his amendment wer
a borough remarkable for its corruption. In the work of agreed to, then it was easy to give the two seats to York-
e
mr
Sudbury had
who sat at that table, it had been shown that shire; but if Chelsea were rejected after a third member
had been famous in the annals of political abase- had been given to Yorkshire they could not give a fourth.
meat. lie referred also to the overwhelmin mass of evi- He was not proposing to give to the counties what had been
deuce before the select Committee confirmatory of the bad taken from the boroughs, but to restore a seat to a similar
to the boroughs of Glouces
reputation which that borough
necessarily the function of Gr
to disfranchise these boron
any private member to do sg '
Government would give the'
He trusted, under these the
Jermyn) would not press his ances'
every due consideration.
motion.
Major PARKER, who had seconded the
trusted that the house would reject the bill.
Mr. SCULLY also opposed the bill,
and Wakefield, it was not Mr. HADFIELD thought that Lancashire was more
but it was competent for The committee divided, when the numbers were—
Government if that were adopted,
the noble lord (Earl Ayes (for postponing the clause)
Noes Bl
113
Majority against postponing the clause —37
Mr. COLLINS moved to substitute in the first line of
amendment, this clause the words after the "passing of this Act," for
which he d
as a miserable substitute on the part of the Gove en°ll3lcgd
the Reform Bill which they had promised the eount,7
on the faith of which they had been placed in power.
Mr. STIRLING supported the bill as being a step is had acquired. With regard source to that from which it had been taken.
hsovernment to bring in a bill entitled to two extra members than Yorkshire.
tthheenveobreds "on and after the Ist November." The new re-
gister could not be made out till the Ist December, so that,
.tcoinutpetent
ent ford in point of fact, there would be no register in existence on
present session.
an thethe Ist December. It would be a great advantage to have
newsir C LtheE
voters entered on the existing register, and it would
to any member to move the issue of a
the right direction. He thought that on the distribuetniolay
of the seats, it was a fallacy to regard them as being
CI.G C.LEWIS said the Bth section of
English seats, and that one of them should be given to vided that the new writs should
Scotland and another to Ireland. When they went into register was in force. That not be issued till the new
committee he would move that one of the vacantseats should to the counties he would providedi for the boroughs. As
be given to the Scotch University. had been fixed. The date exp ain why the let November
fixed in the bill had been selected
Col. DUNNE gave notice that in committee he would as a more convenient period for the election
move that two of the vacant seats should be given to Ire- the time of harvest,
land. His hon. and learned friend the member for Dun- The amendment was withdrawn.
garvan had a motion to the same effect, but he specified Colonel DUNNE moved as an amendment that on
Cork and Dublin as being the parts of Ireland to whom the should be apportioned to Ireland. There was
nothing e seat
ull
additional members should bo appropriated, and to that mo- reasonable in this request, and both the present and
late-
tion he had no objection. lie contended that Ireland was Government were of opinion that Ireland was not „fa_
not adequately represented in that house, and that the ciently represented. If increase of population were to be
present was a. fitting opportunity for the Parlia- considered as a test for guidance in the distribution of seats
meta to do justice, though in a very small then upon that ground Ireland had a very strong claim,
degree. He would move that Cork should be substituted There were four members for a county of 31,000 electors, or
for Lancashire in the bill, or if it was more agreeable to one member to less than 8,000, and it could not be disputed
Scotch
members to make a similar motion in relation to for a moment that the thirteen towns as well as the county
the Scotch
University, he would move that Cork be sub- were adequately represented. He contended that there
stituted for Chelsea was no force in the argument that one of the vacant seats
Sir H. 'WILL .
OUGHBY deprecated the introduction of ought not to be given to Ireland, because it was an Eng-
the subject of the hero
If that principle were to be accepted by the
the introduction of
tahs of St. Albans and Sudbury into fish seat.
should be Slowed to
makeilh thestrong selection of the boroughs repeal of the Union ;and 1 t was absurd to treat Ireland
who were to get the additional members,
a separate c
ountry, so long as it was really an integral part
Mr. WARNER believes} the
house WBB not prepared to of the United Ii ingdom. No Government had yet done
go the entire length which the noble lord who proposed the justice to Ireland,; and he contended that the Irish mem-
amendment appeared to
which was that the writs berg were justified in uniting together for the purpose of
should actually be restored to those
Sudbury and St. Albans. The housesemartyred boroughs of opposing any Government until their claims were rocog-
was pledged to extend I nixed. At present Ireland contributed to the revenue
considerably the repreeentation of the •
people,
and, 111, =lea- of the country far more gm eito received, he represeut4-

Sir E. COLEBROOK E protested against any course of
proceeding which should act as a bar against the claims of
Sootland to further representation. He considered that
Lancashire had better claims than Ireland for an additional
member ; but he considered that Lanarkshire stood, in point
of population, on a perfect par with the county which was
the subject of the present clause. He was aware, however,
of the difficulty of pressing the claim for Scotland; and if
he refrained from doing so, it was because he thought that
on the present occasion more substantial justice would be
done by meeting the question on the 3d clause, and he re-
served to himself, when that clause came under discussion,
the right of advocating the claims of the county with which
he was connected.
Lord J. MANNERS had always looked upon this mea-
sure as being of great importance, and he should vote
simply on the ground which he had previously advanced
during the course of the evening.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ......
Against it .......................... 228
Majority.,,,,,,,
—l6l
The amendment was therefore lost:
Mr. BAZLEY (for Mr. Massey, who occupied the chair)
moved to acid at the end of the clause, "And the borough
of Salford, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, shall be
entitled to return two members instead of one member to
serve in Parliament." He hoped this motion would be
agreed to on account of the great increase that had taken
place in the population and wealth of Salford.
Sir G. C. LEWIS preferred the clause as it stood. It
was true that the population of Salford was greater than
that of any other borough returning only one member, but
in fact Salford was virtually a part of Manchester. (Hear,
hear.) If the proposal was adopted, Manchester would vir-
tually have four members, while Liverpool would only have
two. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BAZLEY withdrew the amendment.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 2.
On clause 3,
Mr. KNIGHTLEY proposed to leave out the words
" parishes of Chelsea and Kensington," in order that the
appropriation of the vacant seats might be the subject of
future discussion.
Sir G. C. LEWIS thought that the hon. member had
adopted rather an unusual mode of moving an amendment,
inasmuch as he had not made any counter proposal, so as to
enable the committee to decide between it and that of the
Government. Ihe Government had assigned a seat to
Chelsea and Kensington, because it seemed fair to give one
of the four seats to the metropolis. The same proposal had
been made in the last two Reform Bills, (No, from Mr.
Disraeli.) lie did not appeal to that as a conclusive pre-
cedent in support of the present bill, because the previous
bills were of a more extensive character. Owing to the
magnitude of the metropolis and the great increase of its
population, it was fairly entitled to an additional member.
In 1851, the population of the metropolis, within the limits
of the local government, was 2,352,000, and this year it
was 2,803,000, being an increase in 10 years of 440,000.
The population of Manchester was only 243,000; of Liver-
pool, 260,000; and of Birmingham, 212,000. So that the
increase in the population of the metropolis was equal to
the population of Manchester and Liverpool put together.
The population of Vienna was 476,000; of Berlin, 438,000;
and of Madrid, 475,000—50 that the increase in the popula-
tion of London, in the last ten years, was greater in some
instances than the population of the capitals of Powers of
the first magnitude. The population of the two parishes of
Chelsea and Knightsbridge had increased, in the last ten
years, from 100,000 to 134,000. (Hear.) Property had also
increased in a degree equal, if not superior, to the increase
of population. He did not think that any other borough
could be pointed out which had increased in these respects
in an equal degree with Chelsea and Kensington.
Mr. BENTINCK said that in answer to his hon. friend
the right hon. baronet had assumed that there was no coun-
ter-proposal. But, in point of fact, the hon. gentleman had
made a counter-proposal. The objection to the proposal of
this clause was that there was no reason why congregated
masses alone should be taken into account. Yet, the only
ground which the right hon. baronet had taken was that
there had been a great increase in population. The great
difficulty which every Government had to deal with in all
questions of reform was the great predominance of power
in the urban districts. Until that gross inequality was re-
moved there could be no substantial justice in any reform,
awl they would ford that they mid Inver get any eatiefge-