Star.
London, England, 1831-04-14 00:00:00

secs within the line. If the number of the house, were to be ri
ass franchise would be returned to large and populous towns. (Cheers.,)
Sir E. SLTUDEN said, that these changes altered every principle of
the bill; it was, in every sense, a new bill. There had been
petitions for the whole bill, and nothing but the bill; and what
wee the bill now proposed ? what had come of the unanimous opinion
of the people ! what had the hon. member for Preston told them, that
except those who had franchises given to them, all the people were
against it. What was the bill which they were to go into a committee
upon ? not the bill they had before discussed. As to the boroughs to
be disfranchised, he had riwnya been of opinion that it never was in.
tended to touch those boroughs: they were retained, e' a Bank" to be
dealt out to pacify particular discontent.
Mr. CAMPBELL denied that the principle of the Bill was altered
The principle was to destroy nominations to seats—rotten boroughs.—
and corruption—and that was retained.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, this was a true description of the Bill,
and its principle remained unchanged. It would remove the base
Borougbmongering faction to the traffic in seats, to compromises for
the expenses of elections by sales of future seats—by arrangements to
get Peerages. (Cheers). Arrangements that might even go the
awful length of securing judicial appointments. (Loud cheers.)—
That base traffic would be destroyed for ever by this Bill. As to
what the Member for Preston had said, he could not view those Re-
formers as the genuine Reformers of England; because they did not
get votes they selfishly turned round upon the bilL
Lord VALLETORT said, the principle of the Bill would be ma-
terially changed by giving more Members to towns—it would destroy
the agricultural interests in that House.
Mr. NORTH wished to know whether the Irish Bill was to be al-
tered ?

Mr. STANLEY repeated, that the principle of the Bill would be
retained.

Mr. HUNT said, the hon. Gentleman for Weymouth quoted him
as good authority, though, about a week ago his authority was good
for nothing with that hon. gentleman. What he had stated was, that
in travelling through Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Lancashire, he
met large .bodies ,of people, who one and all, when he put the ques-
tion, whether the bill brought forward by ministers would benefit them,
and whether they were satisfied, always said they were not; and'
that if they were not allowed to return members themselves they
would rather they should be returned by the landhowners than by the
shopkeepers, who were the most likely to be corrupted of any class of
the people. He would always state facts, regardless how they act,
whether to the right or left. "He would rather be a dog and bay
the moon," than not speak his sentiments in that house. He was
sorry to see the hon. member for Waterford, who was brought into
parliament to support universal suffrage and vote by ballot, now feel.
log pain at hearing these great measures advocated. For his part, not
only if he had a government prosecution banging over him, but if he
was going to the scaffold, he would advocate the cause of the whole
people. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry to find the hon. member for
IVuterford departing from this principle. (Great cheering from the
Opposition.)
General GASCOYNE said, he understood from the noble lord yes-
terday, that the relative numbers of the Members for England, Iceland
and Scotland, should not be changed. Till it was known shut was to
be done with the disfranchised members, he would never agree to the
disfranchisement. In Liverpool, at this moment, there was very great
doubt amongst the lower orders of the people whether this measure would
be for their advantage. (Great laughter.)
Lord ALTHOItP said lie was not in the }loose when his Noble
Friend made the statement to which the Gallant General alluded : but
he WAS confident his Noble Friend did not state that It was the Mien-
lion of Government to keep up the present number of the House. It
was found that some of the population returns were inaccurate, and
that, according to the principle laid down, some few boroughs now in
the schedule would not be disfranchised, and, of course, those boroughs
would still return, and so far increw.e the proposed number of mem-
bers ; and if the House should insist on having a greater number of
members, Government would propose a greater number of populous
places for representation.
Lord STORMONT wished to know whether the new members were
to be given to towns, or to counties, or to both ; and whether in Eng-
land, or Scotland, or all three ?

Lord A LTHORP said. the addition if the house compelled an ad-
dition to be made, should be made by,giving representatives to populous
places, principally large towns, and probably wholly in England.
111 r. Alderman WOOD said, the friecds of the late ministers were,
in the City today, in a state of great exultation at what they called
the confusion of Ministers on the reform question. Their exultation
to-day, if possible, exceeded their long faces on the second reading of
the bill ; and certainly he never before saw such long faces as on that
night (laughter). Every thing that could give the late ministers a
chance of tooling back wits caught at, however absurd. He thought
the alterations to be made in the bill were all improvements, and not at
all a change in the principles of the bill. ( Hear.)
Mr. FERGUSON cdd, there was no principle of the bill broken in
on by not insisting on diminishing the number of members of that house.
He hoped a greater number of members would be given to Scotland and
Ireland, but that was entirely for the committee to conider. When the
proposition of 4., members was fixed for Scotland, her proportion to the
revenue was one-fortieth—now it is between orie.sixth and une.seventh.
The whole state of Scotland was changed, and her representation de-
manded change also. MI the hon. gentlemen on the other side were
non-reformers, and they contm..ally cheered the hon. member for Pm-
ton, who was for universal suffrage, though they would not go so far
themselves as the present bill. They all now heard of a moderate