§ Lord Dudley Stuartpresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Arundel, against the proposed union of Arundel with Little Hampton, for the purpose of electing a Member to serve in Parliament. The petitioners objected to the union, on the strong ground, that the town of Little Hampton was completely under the control of a noble individual, who possessed great influence in Arundel, and who by this addition would be enabled to command the election. Another objection was stated, arising from the enmity which existed between the inhabitants of the two places. If the places were united, no Member could possibly attend to the adverse interests of his constituents. He cordially concurred in the prayer of the petition.
§ Mr. Croker, at the desire of the inhabitants of Arundel, gave his support to the prayer of the petition.
§ Lord Althorpbelieved, that in the Com- 382 mittee on the Boundaries' Bill, he should be able to show sufficient grounds for the course which had been adopted.
An Hon. Memberwished to know, whether it was the intention of the Government to send that Bill to a Committee upstairs?
§ Lord Althorpthought it would not be desirable to refer that Bill to such a Committee, at least with respect to the mass of places that were to be legislated for. In some particularly nice and delicate cases, it was possible that such a course might become necessary, but, generally speaking, it would occasion great loss of time to refer the Bill to the examination of such a Committee.
§ Petition to be printed.
§ Lord Dudley Stuartpresented another petition from Arundel numerously signed, stating that the Boundary Commissioners had made an incorrect Return with respect to the borough, in consequence of which the rival town of Little Hampton was to be added to the borough of Arundel, and they prayed that Arundel might return a Member by itself. The Commissioners were ordered to add to those boroughs which did not contain 300 10l. tenements, and to those only. Now the petitioners were prepared to prove that Arundel contained 320 10l. tenements, and, having above 300 qualified tenements, no addition should have been made to the borough. If the House investigated the circumstances, he was confident he should be able to substantiate the statement made in the petition. A great injustice would be done if the petitioners were not allowed to prove the statement at the Bar, or if Little Hampton were added to Arundel. If the Boundaries Bill contained a clause adding Little Hampton to Arundel, he should oppose that Bill.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanhoped the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would allow the petitioners the opportunity which they prayed for, to have the merits of their case fairly proved.
§ Lord Althorpthought it much better to defer the discussion on the boundaries of each particular borough until the case came regularly before the House in Committee on the Boundary Bill.
§ Mr. Crokersupported the petition. When the Boundary Bill got into Committee, he should certainly endeavour to obtain justice for those particular boroughs which he considered were unjustly dealt 383 with, and to render the Bill consistent with its own principles.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellcould not refrain from congratulating the noble Lord who presented the petition on the line of conduct he had pursued. The noble Lord supported the Reform Bill throughout, and now, when it was too late, came forward with a petition against it.
§ Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that his noble friend who presented the petition, had brought forward his objection just at the proper period, and when it might be most conveniently remedied.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenhoped, that the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, did not intend to defer bringing in the Bill to prevent bribery and corruption at elections, until so late a period that it might be prevented from passing during the present Session.
Lord John Russellreplied, that the Bill to prevent bribery and corruption at elections was quite ready to bring forward, but he had been prevented from introducing it by the extreme press of public business.
§ Lord Dudley Stuartdenied, that in opposing the addition of the town of Little Hampton to the borough of Arundel he could be said to impugn the principle of the Reform Bill. He was as friendly as ever he had been to that great measure, which he trusted would be brought, in another place, on that very night, to a glorious and triumphant conclusion. When the proper occasion arrived, he hoped it would be found his objection to the boundaries of the borough of Arundel was not too late.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanwished to ask the noble Lord, whether there was any foundation for a report which had been circulated, that it was the intention of Government to bring in a Bill to enable Members of that House to continue to hold their seats on the acceptance of office under the Crown. If such a measure were intended, he must say, that he did not know any which was calculated to give a more fatal stab to the Constitution. He would wish also to know from the noble Lord, whether he would object to allowing the Boundary Bill to go to a Committee up-stairs; or, in case any borough could make out a strong case against the changes proposed by that Bill, whether he would allow the case of such borough to be referred to a Committee?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, it certainly was not the intention of Government to introduce any such measure as that to which the hon. Baronet's first question referred. He would not say what might be the intention of any individual on that subject, but certainly Government had no intention of proposing: any such measure. As to the second question, he would say, without pledging himself to any particular course, that if any difficulties should occur with respect to any particular place, he would not object to any reasonable mode of bringing full information on the subject before the House,
§ Petition to be printed.