HC Deb 14 March 1831 vol 3 cc431-2
Lord John Russell

brought in a Bill "To amend the Representation of the people in England and Wales," which, on the motion of the noble Lord, was read a first time. It began "Whereas divers abuses have long prevailed in the choice of Representatives in the Commons House of Parliament." The noble Lord then rose to propose that it be read a second time on Monday, and said, that there were one or two observations which he had to make on the present occasion. One of the boroughs which he had enumerated in the list of those which it was proposed should, for the future, return only one Member to Parliament, did at present, he found, return only one Member, and not two. This borough was Bewdley, which would, therefore, remain as at present. He had omitted also to state, that it was intended, in one or two instances, that certain large suburbs should be joined with the towns to which they belonged. Thus Chatham and Stroud would be added to Rochester; Sculcoates to Hull; and Portsea to Portsmouth. He had also omitted to state an arrangement which it was proposed to make with regard to another town. This was Devonport, in the neighbourhood of Plymouth. It was proposed that Devon-port and Stone house should be joined, and send two Members to Parliament, leaving Plymouth as it was at present. It, was also proposed that the right of suffrage should be extended to the whole parish of Halifax and the suburbs, which contained 100,000 inhabitants, and to give them the right of returning two Members. He was not aware that there was any thing else in the Bill different from the statement which he had already made to the House. He begged to move, that the Bill be read a second time on Monday next.

Mr. H. Drummond

begged to know when the Scotch Reform bill would be introduced.

The Lord Advocate

said, he should wish to introduce that bill to-morrow. In point of fact, the bill was ready now, but there were certain schedules yet to be attached to it.

Sir G. Warrender

hoped that the second reading of the Scotch bill would not be fixed for the same day as the second reading of the other bill. It was highly desirable that they should have a separate day for the second reading of the Scotch bill.

Lord Althorp

had no objection to the second reading of the Scotch bill being fixed for a different day.

Motion agreed to.

Forward to