Star.
London, England, 1828-06-28 00:00:00

Mfr. feel) would follow any particular coarse from the
declaration be bird made he would Say, that if the
...
Hop. Gentleman od gist the franchise of Erik Ret.
fait to a great town, and that the Noble Lind 4(ohn
'teasel) had transferred that of Penryn to a county,.
and that- the Noble Lord's Bill failed in the other
Hr use, the franchise still remaining to Penryn, he
would then have supported the 016poiltielt1 of the ain:
Walther. Ttleseise witsbnweeve different, because his
Hon. Friend (Mr. N.CalVeTt) hint submitted. hic propo-
sition while both the cases were-pending, which he
(Mr. Peel) did then, and would now support. He could
not, however, agree with the Hon. Member, as to leav-
ing &Ist Redfotd as it was, because A case of great
delinquency had been proved. The question at present
was, that the Hon. Member wished Birmingham to have.
the frinchise. The Noble Lord proposed the transfer to
ore of the Ridings of Yorkshire. and his Honourable
Friend (Mr. N. Calvert) desited that it. should be given
to the two adjacent Hundreds, that the County might
not be deprived of two Representative*. He confessed
that his two grounds for transferring the franchise of
one borough to the hundred of Bassetlaw, and that of
another to Manchester, being the desirethat one should
go ta the agricultural, and 'another to the manufactur-
ing interest, would be as fully gained by giving one to
a riding of Yorkshire as it could in the other way.
The case of East Retford he did think was such, that it
should not be an object to confine the franchise so at to
benefit East Retford ; because, if the House of Lords
had not given the franchise of Penryn to Manchester,
then they were bound to transfer the other to a great
town. That he had been prepared to fulfil, wherefore
it was impoisible for him to argue that East Retford
should he preserved; at the same time, some regard
might perhaps be shown towards that proportion of the
electors who remained uncorrupted. He viewed the
elective franchise, however, in a different light from
tither privileges; ;twits a public trust, and if that trust
had been abused, the minority must abide by 'the fate
of the majority, and although it might be considered a
hardship that the minority should suffer, yet suCh was
:he general rule, both in that House as well as in Cor-
porations, where, it the majority did wrong, the mino-
rity was bound; and such, frOm the nature id
,things,
•must-alwayshe the case. With respect to the county
of Nottingham, he had been, from the first moment,
unwilling to disturb the proportion, and he would cer-
tainly sooner have traniterred the franchise -of Penryn
to a great town than to' East Retford, on account
of Cornwall having forty-four Members. That doc-
trine had been found fault with, and it had been said.
that these should be no apportionment of this kind; but
he never hand a debate in which that argument had
not been made use of when a-transfer was contem-
plated. The Noble Lord himself had.• in the Gram.
pound and Perim 'cases, compared . Corriviall, with
Lancashire. He knew very well that in point of prin•
ciple it mattered not whether • a county ' returned.
forty.four, . eight, er four Members; yet there would'
always be less 'difficulty to make ii transfer, froth. a
county of the former to one of the latter description.
Seeing then that the county of Nottiogliam•had only
eight Member., which Wool& by the', Mon.. Mindset's
Bill be reduced to six—;-that:in the hundrid of Ilissetliw
thtre were 2,000 freeholder*, and a population of 95.000
—that the constituency wastes' ectablet and comprised'
the inhabitants -of- two or three market-towns,. which
Were not teprertied—and believing that they were not
subject to'theliatficOlar in fluenceof i heAristocraiy—
be did not see why the House should depart front the
rule of Opening the franchise to the *hundred. which
they had invariably pursued in every case except that
of Grampourfd. •-They would taas -*fat itbd beep the
object of the House on former'occasionsfor they swank)
mark thaii disapprobation of the delinquency that bad
been committed, while at the same time they secured a:
good representation. Lord Chatham bad said, "that be
was glad tosee Bramber taken awayfrom India, and tet
stored to its si:uation in the county of Sussex:' His idea
was, that Shoreham was entirely under East India in-
terest. Mr. Fox also, in almost every case, protested
.against the transfer of a franchise, and so far froni even
wishing to remove one to a great town, he-had given
the most persevering opposition to the Bills respecting
Shoreham, Ailesbury, and Cricklade. In another case
also, that of stock bridge, there were two Bills brought
in, one for a transfer to the hundred, andanother for
the pusiihment of the corrupt voters. *Hialso thought
it better that the Bills should be separate, and
the Honourable Member for HertfOrdshire only fol-
lowed the course of Mr. Fox, who disapproied of in-
eluding the disfranchisement of a borough in the Bill,
which save it to ancther place. Thus it appeared,that:
all those who, ere most favourable to reform, and
&menet them Mr. Pitt, after adickating the general
principle, were in favour of the course pursued is this
instance, and therefore he (Mr.• Secretary Peil) -was
sorprlied that Mime who now professed to be friends of
refattm should declare that they would 'kern seeing
East Retfordsas it was, to giving the franchise to the
hundred. Under all circumstances, therefore, and con-
sidering the number of Mentbers returned for' the
county, he was inclined to prefer the proposition of his
Honourable Friend the Member for Hertfordshire. He
did not think that perhaps at this advanced period of
the Session birth le:lowlier, of the Legislatute might be
able finally to decide upon the measzre.• at the same
time, he thought that as. much, as possible ought to be
done, so that it might be introduced with effect at an
early period of the next Session.. He should be.extremely
sorry, after the evidence adduced at the Bar, to see
East Retford restored to its original-state, and he trusted
that, under the circumstances, she House 'would take
measures that no writ should issue for the election of
any Member 'here. On these grounds he would de-
cidedly oppose the amendment.
LordolOHN RUSSELL said, it was only in extreme
cases the number of representatives of a cr luny should
be taken int) consideration. Such a county for instance
as Coinwill. But when the Right Hon.' Gentleman
said, they ought not to tike away any of the eight
Members of the county of Nottingham, it was pushing
the principle too far. Two of the Metnbereot Notting-
hamshire Were added only is the reign of Charles IL—
The representation of East ReVord .was advainageOus,
not to the county, but to the Burgesses of East Retford.
He thought thelest manner of dealing with the &O-
ahe would be to give it to a large town, because the
counties were better represented , than the large- towns.
When the Right Hon. Gentleman referred to the antis&
rity of Lord (Alabama and Me. danxihe did not consider
that many large eqd Wealthy:P.6*ns. had since grown
up. He totillY icguisied ,tlie.gight. Hen.' Gentleman
ofugy desire, to get in parsieulat Member lifer East .Ret-;
food; but it so happened that 'Members of the other
,louse of Parliament bid ' *satiable influence in the
hopdred of Bisitttaw, Wsetseier there was a borough
loose,-he thOutibt the best policy would be to transfer
it to large town. The landed and matinfacturing its.
wrest must wax or wear together, and he regrettbd the
..jeakrusy which appealed lit late to have grown'u'p:_ It
. idig: inatedio a gteat.lneasete in tie discussions (*ldle
Corn Bill. He hoped this jealousy would be. soon re-
• moved.- It wit ttoin this it, arose that the question