The Sun. — London, England, 1832-01-21 00:00:00

4 1r:ft AYS*lnaltSl r.b;►> Sfrt asw ridi bas vraette—it .3135:1 • _ b-111519, Idt ant may ease for the removal daily borough from schedule Aor B. His Majesty's Government were perfectly prepared to co into the Committee, and they thought that suf- Client information was now before the House to en enable them to decide whether 36 of the smaller bo roughs should be taken from the borough representation of Eneland. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Noble Lord ap peared to have greatly misunderstood the observations of his Right Hon. Friend. The whole objection of his Right Hon. Friend went to this—that there being information on this subject which Ministers themselves considered ma terial, it was improper, without that information, to go into the Committee, which ought, therefore, to be post poned until the necessary documents were produced.— (Hear, hear.) He entirely coincided in the sentiments of his Right Hon. Friend, sad he would say that if the House of Commons had any respect for its own privilege , , if it had any respect for the tights of the people, it would adopt the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend, and would refuse to proceed farther until they had this important in formation regularly placed before them.—(Hear, hear.) Before thsy proceeded to determine that 56 boroughs should he disfranchised, he would demand, in the name of justice, that there should be submitted to the House that information which formed the basis and ground-work of so great an alteration in the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) On the 6th of Decemher his Maj-sty called on them to take into their most serious consideration the measures which would he proposed to them for a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament. They were recommended to take those measures into their most serious consider• amino. And what did the Noble Lord propose? His proposition was, the principle of the Bill being affirmed by the House, to go into a Committee on its details this night, in the absence of that information which even the Noble Lord himself admitted to be necessary.--( Hear.) And what was his statement, his vindication, with re spect to that information ? Did he say that the papers were ready for delivery, and would be delivered as soon as possible? No. He told the House that they were printed, and would be delivered as fast as they were stitched.—(A laugh.) The papers, it appeared, were printed ; but they, in the absence of stitching, were re quired in the Committee, to decide on matters of the deepest importance.—(Hear.) Some papers were pre sented to the House, and printed, but certainly not all that were necessary. The Noble Lord did not propose to take other and more immaterial clauses into consideration. No ; he at once called on the House to decide on the pro priety of disfranchising 56 boroughs. Against such a pro. ceeilirig, in the absence of the necessary information, he would most strenuously protest. To show the anomalous situation in which they were placed, he would call the at. tention of the House to page 9 of the document No. 8, and he begged of them to look to the places between 77 and 87, and the notes appended to them. The Right Hon. Gentleman here read the names of those places, in cluding Horehim, Great Grimsby, Caine, Helaton, and Northallerton, and also the note appended to each of them, and complained that the letter, in nine instances, referred or explanation to a document (the Commissioners' Report) which was not in the hands of Members. They were re ferred to a document presented last night, and which, he supposed, would be delivered as soon as possible. In the mean time, however, they were called upon to proceed. Now he would ask, if, in the absence of such information, it were fair, it were decent, to do so ?—( Hear.) He did not mean to attach undue importance to this matter, but im portant it undoubtedly was. In the first letter of the Secretary of State to Lieutenant Drummond he said, ''the Government have determined to found the Reform Bill on a new basis." As that was admitted, was it not necessary that this new basis should be submitted to the House ? ( [fear, hear.) Ought they not to know the peculiar cir cumstances of each borough, and the nature of its claims Sorely they ought, when they were sitting in a judicial capacity. They might rate the privileges of those boroughs as of little worth. But they must see that it was not a matter of small moment to those places on which they were about to inflict disfranchisement at all; but it became a monstrous and oppressive evil, if, in effecting that object, they proceeded on a principle of injustice.—(Hear, hear.) What possible inconvenience, be would ask, could there be in pos'poning the first clause ? It was too important to declare it in the absence of information. From the con eludine part of the Neble Lord's speech, he supposed that the Noble Lord meant to press the question to a division. Wherever the feelings or sentiments of gentlemen might be on the question of Reform, be hoped that they would, on the division, resist this attem pt to decide au important ques tion in the absence of information.—(Hear, hear.) He cared not for the number that might divide with him, but • so strongly did lie feel the necessity of having proper in formation before the House, that if he stood alone he would divide against the proposition of the Noble Lord..—( Hear.) Lord ALTHORP said, the Right Hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken the view entertained of this ques tion by his Noble Friend. His Noble Friend had not ex pressed himself unwilling to grant information. He said that the information called for was unnecessary in deciding on the first clause, which respected the number of bo roughs to be disfranchised ; but he admitted that when they came to the schedule, information would be neces sary, in order to see whether the boroughs designated ought to be retained there or not. It had been insinuated that Ministers wished to exclude certain boroughs from the operation of the Bill, and to include others, from private personal feelings. Such an insinuation was unfounded, and the fact would appear, when at the proper time they came to discuss the schedules, with reference to the infor mation that was in the progress of being laid before the House. That observation, therefore, could form no ground for postponing the Committee. The Right Hon. Gentleman had read the names of different places, anal the notes appended to them, as contained in page 9 of one of the papers. Now, if the question were as to the rela tive claims of the boroughs contained in the schedule, it would be necessary that they should have the Commis sioners' report before them ; but it was of no importance at all in deciding on the number of boroughs that should be placed in schedule A. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr, Croker) objected to the principle upon which Lieu tenant Drummond's list proceeded, and observed that the alteration in a few boroughs altered the relative value of others, with which they were not connected. This was a necessary consequence when they proceeded on a general principle, but it was not All unjust one. Fur his own part, he did not think that they were doing any thing unworthy of a deliber a tiv e assem bl y , i n di scussing the first i clause n the absence of information which did not affect it. That information did not apply, in the slightest de gree, to the question, which simply was, whether a cer tain number of boroughs should be disfranchised or not? The information called for did apply to this point-- namely, whether such and such boroughs, according to the principle laid down, ought to be included in schedule A. Fur these reasons he saw no grounds for postponing the Committee this evening. They might employ them be:yes most usefully in proceeding with other clauses of the Bill, until they came to the schedules. Sir R. VYVYAN contended that the arguments against producing information possessed no weight what ever. Were they, he demanded, a deliberative assembly ? And if they were, would they proceed to disfranchise those boroughs without inquiry, and merely because Ministers recommended such a course? He knew not the motives of Ministers in thus precipitating the question, but he should resist it to the utmost. Whether he and his friend, divided on this occasion as numerously as they did on the second reading of the Bill, mattered but little. The Bill was one that contained within it no principle of perma nency, and if they now passed it, they would be compelled to alter its provisions before twelve months had gone by. Sir C. WETHERELL said that what they complained of on his side of the House was, that it was now de manded of them to go into into a Committee on this Bill without having that information before them which was absolutely necessary in order to enable them to come to a decision upon the very first clause in it. It appeared that Lieutenant Drummond had been called upon between the 24th of November and the 12th of December to sketch out a new constitution for the country,—a period that seemed to him (Sir C. Wetherell) much too short for the completion of a work of such important magnitude.— (A laugh.) Lieutenant Drummond had himself acknow ledged that in making out his list the most difficult part of his task was to obtain correct data and accurate inforrna tion whereupon to found it. Now if the House went into Committee this evening without the information promised, and which of course would be soon forthcoming, it would place itself in a still worse predicament, for it would pro ceed to legislate without having the proper data on which to ground its decisions. Could any thing be more un just--could any thing be less business - like than such aline of proceeding ? They were called upon to go into Committee with something promised to them that they should not hare, —with soin• thing to look at that they were not now to look at, and with something that was to be on the table, hot which they would not at present be permitted to see. When they were called on to disfranchise 56 boroughs on the etriffeacg of facts, was it not consistent with common justice iiii‘simtnon sense that they should have those facts laid befprelilem.—(Hear, bear.) Lieutenant Dum snond's list 'consisted both of arithmetic and geography, and they were - riew told that his arithmetic was correct; ts• and they were requested to wait for awhile, and that by. anal-by they would see that his geography was also accurate. I au.. If he w ere argu i ng a ease of this nature under on en- l 4 ‘14.13‘115 Act, would it not be a gross absurdity on his 4y , part not to have a map of the ground before him ? or, to descend still lower in the grade of legislation, would it not be equally absurd if, at a parish vestry, when a parcel of land was about to be parcelled out to A, B, and C, they should not have the plan before them, according to which the allotments were to be made ? These familiar illustra tions served, he thought, in some degree to exhibit the absurdity of their present proposed course of proceeding. Such a species of legislation might suit very well those who belonged to Political Unions, or those persons who vrire for " the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," but as legislation proceeding from the members of a well-constituted and deliberative assembly, it was an entire and perfect piece of unredeemed mockery.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had told them, that in going into Committee they would have only to declare that fifty-six boroughs were to he disfranchised, and that hereafter, when they came to the specific case of each individual borough, they would then have the information before them ne cessary to enable them to decide upon that care. Now he (Sir C. Wetherell) would assert that their first step in going into Committee would ha to disfranchise specifically, and by name, 56 boroughs, without having a single fact before them to warrant any such proceeding. It was a most monstrous thing that that House should be compelled either under the domination of an influence out of doors that deprived it of its deliberative character, or under the equally odious domination of his Majesty's Ministers, to come to a vote with regard to a case that altogether de• pendcd upon facts, without having a single one of those facts submitted to them.—(Hear, hear.) If the House of Commons, operated upon by such an influence, whether within those walls or without those walls, were to act in such an absurd, unjust, and inconsistent manner, he (Sir C. Wetherell) Anti-Reformer as he was, would not scruple to lend his aid to reform that House, and he would do so because in his opinion it would in such case have forfeited the character that belonged to a British Parliament. Since he had had the honour of being a Member of that House, he had never seen such a blow aimed at its independence as was now aimed at it by his Majesty's Ministers withi❑ those walls, and by as odious and intolerant domination out of doors. Against the pressure, either of the influence of Ministers, who might have their object, and who, no doubt, had an object in view —(Hear)—or of that external influence to which he had alluded out of doors, he, as an in dependent Member of Parliament, begged leave to en ter his most solemn protest; and he still hoped that the House of Commons would not exhibit such a de parture from decency and justice as to proceed to vote upon such a subject as this without having the necessary information before it. He trusted that the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Noble Lord 'be Paymaster of the Forces, would not risk their credit and their character in the country by so ill-advised and precipitate a measure as this. Why, the very Political Unions themselves would not recommend such an indecent proceeding. They would at le ist allow that it was but fair that the printed papers should he in the hands of Members, and that they should have sufficient time given them to read them over. He did hope and trust, that a British House of Commons would not exhibit the humi liating spectacle of being thus trifled through the dirt and mire, at the chariot-wheels of ministerial domination. Mr. PIGOTT, as we understood argued against going into Committee on the present occasion, before the neces sary information had been pre luced to the House. Mr. HUME observed, that the sole and simple ques tion now before the House was, whether or not it would re solve itself into a Committee on the Reformßill, and he ap prehended that the question which had been incidentally raised as to whether the necessary information bad or had not been laid before them, had nothing whatever to do with the motion which they had now to decide. " Shall they go into Committee or not, on the Reform Bill ?" That was the question, he repeated, which they had to de cide, and he would ask whether there was any man pre pared to say that they should not do so. No doubt the Anti-Reformers would be prepared to give their negative to such a motion ; but if his Majesty's Ministers would be advised by him (Mr. Hume), they would not pay the least attention to those gentlemen, who would never let them go into Commtttee on the Bill at all, if they could by any possibility prevent it.—(Hear, bear.) He would call upon the Howe not to be carried away by the artifices of Hon. Gentlemen below him, but to decide tiris matter according to reason and common sense.—(A laugh from the Oppo sition.) Were they prepared, or were they not, to consi der the Bill in Committee ? That was the question, and let any man who was against their doing so say '' No."— (Cries of “ No, no," from several Members on the Oppo sition benches.) That was his appeal to the House—that was the question which it had this evening, in the face of the people of England, to decide,—namely, whether it would consider the Bill in Committee, or whether it would not do so.—(Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the com mon sense of eve!) , man in that House, and he would fearlessly appeal to the common sense of Englishmen out of doors, whether it was not right that they should that night go into Committee and consider the Bill, it being un derstood that with regard to the details of it all the ne cessary information would be furnished hereafter as they went along. Let them, in God's name, take the first step and go into Committee, where alone that information could be used by them in considering the details of the Pill. He trusted that the House would not be prevented from taking that step on this occasion by any of the devices practised by Hon. Gentlemen below hind. Suppose, after they went into Committee, the disfranchisement of only one or two boroughs by name were proposed, the rest be ing postponed till the information with regard to them had been furnished, was any man prepared to say that Old Sarum should not be disfranchised? Let them go into Committee, and suppose the disfranchisement of Old Sa rum, in which there were no houses, should be proposed, was there any man prepared to say that the decision of the House should not be taken with regard to th-it borough There was another borough—the borough of Newtown, in the Isle of Wight—with only 14 houses in it. Would any man say that such a borough as that should not be disfranchised ? In that way he would say that they were prepared to go into Committe at this moment, and to take the boroughs one by one; and if with regard to any bo rough it should be thought necessary to have more informa tion laid before the House, he for one would be ready to acquiesce in having the vote as to that borough postponed until such information should be produced. He trusted that the House would persevere in going into Committee on the Bill this evening. Mr. GOULBURN said there was no objection on that side of the House to going into Committee, nor had a single syllable fallen from any individual who had spoken against this motion that warranted such an interpretation. All they bad contended for was, that if they were to go into Committee, to disfranchise 56 boroughs, it was ne cessary they should have the grounds laid before them on which it was proposed to deprive these boroughs of their right of representation. The Hon. Member had recom mended them to discuss this question with coolness ; and lie himself, no doubt, was cool. Indeed, be believed that in the cause of Reform, no injustice, however gross, would call forth that Hon. Member's warmth; and no extent of injury, however undeserved, would excite his phlegm. Was it just, he would ask, that they should be called upon to disfranchise, in a wholesale manner, 56 boroughs, without being acquainted with the circumstances appertaining to each of them, and without being put in possession of that information with regard to them which had been collected by the persons appointed by Government for the purpose? It was not his desire, nor that of those with whom he had the honour to act, to impute to Go vernment any species of partiality in the selection of those boroughs, but he would say, if it was intended to net with partiality in the cases of disfranchisement, the course which the two Noble Lords opposite had adop•ed on this occasion was exactly that which it would be their intertst tinder such circumstances to pursue. The course which Ministers were now tarcing on the adoption of the House was one founded neither on justice nor reason. Mr. ROBINSON said, that the real question before the House should riot be misunderstood. The object of those who opposed this motion was the defeat of Reform alto ;ether.--(Hear, hear.) Looking at the course pursued last session he did not see the necessity of going into the discussion of the case of every single borough before they had voted the general disfranchisement clauses of the Bill. The arguments employed on that side of the 1-Iflu•e against this motion might be more appropriately urged when the House had gone into Committee, either for po-t -ruing the case of any individual borough, or for having it omitted altogether out of the number of those proposed to be disfranchised. The present opposition to the motion now before the House reminded bias (Mr. Robinson) touch of the attempt made in the last session of Parliament to prevent the House going into Committee at all, and which vexatious attempt was continued until past seven o'clock in the morning.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The simple question before the House, was, whether they were prepared to go into Committee to consider the Re form Bill, and as he (Mr. Robinson) conceived that the whole principle of Reform was involved in the questions of disfranchisement and enfranchisement, be was ready to vote for the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs, leaving the case of each individual borough to he argued and adjudicated hereafter. When the House voted the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs, it would merely vote that 56 of the most in- I considerable of the boroughs should be disfranchised, and, when in Committee, they would apply the rule to those boroughs individually, so as to ascertain that they came ~~ within that deseription. Now for his part he saw nothing of injustice in such a course of proceeding, and though he might wish that the principle of disfranchisement had been extended to a greater number, he should at all events give his cordial vote for the amount of disfranchisement contemplate] by the present Bill. He could not sit down without observing that the Right lion. Baronet, the Aletn her for Tamworth, after referring to the words in his lia-• jetty's speech, and insisting upon the necessity of consider ing this subject with coolness and calmness, had in his own instance set a very notable example of that calmness and moderation which he had so forcibly preached, but lied so little practised on this occasion. —(Hear.) Mr. CRESSET PELHAM was determined on that cccasion to vote as became an independent Member of the Legislature, unswayti by any influence either in or out of that House. He had a prejudice with re-pect to one bo rough, and others might have the same as to others. It would therefore be trifling with the ft elings of the House to go into the consideration of schedule A, including P 9 it did 56 boroughs, without full information regarding them all. Sir C. FORBES entirely approved of the oppo-ition in'endil to going into the Committee until the evidence was fully before the House. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman's plan would be re:or•ed to, and he for one would be ready to remain until •even o'clock in the morn ing to give his support to it..-:-(Loud cries of " Question.") Mr. HUNT ron to justify the vote he meant to give, which would be against his Majesty's Ministers.—( Hear, from both sides of the Hous:.) He would not be de terred by anything that might fall from the Hon. Member for Worcester, or the Hon. Member for Middlesex. If the question were that the whole 56 boroughs i❑ schedule A. should be disfranchised, he would vote for it, or for 60, or for all in schedule B ; but it was a different thing. when they were asked by one vote to declare that "each" of them should be disfranchised. Lord J. RUSSELL would repeat what he had before said, in order to set the Hon. Member right. If they wished at once to disfranchise the whole of the 56 bo roughs, that would ha a goad ground for objection ; but the cl use was, that they should cease to return Members to Parliament, and the insertion of the word "each," in fac , , left it open to the Committee to dc aide the particular bo roughs as they occurred. This difference existed now, —namely, that en the last occasion the clause and the schedule were the same, whereas now the question is left open until they came to the end of the schedule. After a few words from Mr. Hunt, Mr. CROKER wished to say one word as to the form of their prcceedings. He would not object to the order of the day being read ; but when it was read he would move, on the question of the Sr eaker leaving the chair, that the word " now" be omitted ; and he would then leave it to the Noble Lord to fill up the blank with any day he chose after the information necessary should be laid before the House. The order of the day was then read, when Lord J. RUSSELL, in rising to move that the Speaker do now leave the chair, observed, that this mode of proceeding would give snore time for gentlemen to make them elves acquainted with the information before the House, than if they were to postpone the Committee fur any number of days. Mr. CROKER then moved that the word " now" be left out, but on an intimation from the Speaker, altered his motion by substituting the word " Tuesday" as an amendment on the original motion. That, he thought, was the earliest day when they could have the information wanted, and he believed it would be a saving of time. The question was then put, and the gallery was cleared for adivisioo, when the numbers were— For Lord John Russell's motion ls'2 For the amendment 99 Majority for Ministers On our return to the gallery, we found the House in Committee, Mr. BERNAL in the chair. On the first clause being read, Mr. CROKER said, that the House would, no doubt, be glad to hear from his Majesty's Ministers their reason for adopting the peculiar number 56. He could not discover what reason there was for this, or what talis manic power the number 56 possessed that should induce the House to agree to it. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that it was not from any peculiar quality in that particular number, for he should quite as well have liked 50 or 55, or 60 or 66, and there was no motive except this, that the number in question would include most of the inconsiderable boroughs of the kingdom. The line being in any case arbitrary, it was thought best to take the number which had been sanc tioned by the last Bill. If Ministers bad taken 60 or 66, they would have done so on their own responsibility, but, as the case stood, the number in the present Bill was the same as that in the Bill which had passed that House, and been sent to the House of Lords. It also, in point, of fact, contained the greater number of the boroughs in the former schedule A. The reason why some of those had been left out he had formerly explained, and was oc casioned by the consideration of parishes or districts. For his own part, he should have had no objection to go far ther with disfranchisement ; but, under the circum stances, it was not deemed advisable to proceed further than they had gone before. These were the only reasons for choosing this number, and if the various plans of Re form heretofore submitted to the House were examined, it would be found that some arbitrary number of 100 or 150 Members had always been fixed upon, and for which no satisfactory reason could be given. One lion. Gentleman , had spoken of these 66 as it they were all nomination bo ' roughs. He (Lord J. Russell) would not say they were so, but he believed that on examining the schedule, far the greater proportion would be found to be of that character. Mr. CROKER said that the Noble Lord appeared to make a total and radical mistake in the assertion he ven tured on—namely, that the House had agreed to the dis franchisement of 56 boroughs. The House had done no such thing. It had agreed to the disfranchisement of par ticular boroughs which appeared to it to be decayed and inconsiderable places, and at the end of the proceedings the number of these happened to amount to 56. Up to a late period in June, 57 was the real number, when ' Saltash was removed to schedule B, though it now came back again to its original position. But now be would ask the House why should the number 56 be chosen ? The Noble Lord seemed to think the number indifferent, although he said that the present schedule A included nearly the whole of the last. This, however, was a mis take, as there were in the present only 51 out of the former 56. It was, then, a mere pretence to afford the reason given by the Noble Lord, because the House only pledged itself with respect to these 51 boroughs as being incon siderable places, and if ether boroughs could be shown to be similarly circumstanced, then the Noble Lord had a right, and it was his duty, to add them. There was a great peculiarity in this case, for the original proposition was the total disfranchisement of 60 boroughs, and the partial disfranchisement of 46 others, and he asked why not adhere to this plan at present? The changes in the present Bill from that formerly under discussion were purely arbitrary ; Ministers had not condescended to as sign a single reason for them, though it was but fair to presume they were not without some cogent ones,— (Hear.) Why, for example, was the borough of West bury, which was in schedule B of the last Bill, How to re tain its two Members? Was the change at all connected with the circumstance, that a gentleman employed by the Government with reference to the framing of the present Bill had since been returned for that borough ? (Hear.) The Rig4t Hon. Gentleman concluded with movin g , that the number " 51" be substituted for " 56" in the present clause. Sir R. FRANCO, as a representative and proprietor of the borough of Westbury, just insidiously alluded to by the Right Hon. G e ntl eman , b egge d to state, for the satis faction and information of the House and the Rig ht Hon. Gentleman, th a t a ft er th e present Bill should have passed ' into a law, he should have no more controut over the elections of Westbury, than had the Member for West minster at present.—r Hear.) At present it Was entirely under his controul.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") He could and did nominate whom he pleased for it—(flear, hear, hear)—but when the Reform Bill should have passed into a law, he should have 110 direct influence over ten of the electors. From his first entry into public life, he had been the consistent and uncompromising advocate of Re form, though from mere personal aggrandizement, he should be opposed to a measure which went to destroy his borough patronage.— (Hear, hear.) Without profess ing to more patriotism than any other supporter of the present Bill, he would add that he cheerfully sacrificed all rights of borough proprietorship, at what he conscien tiously believed was the shrine of his country's good. (Cheers.) For the satisfaction of the Right Hon. Geutle man, he would state why Westbury, set down in sche dule B of the former Bill, was permitted under the present Bill to retain its two Members. The facts were simply these —a petition was present;:) from the inhabitants of that borough to his Majesty's Ministers, pointing out and offering to prove several errors adopted by them, with respect to its population and wealth. The petitioners were heard, and made good their case. Hence the borough was allow e d to retain its two Members. Mr. STEVENSON was the Member for Westbury, so pointedly alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman; he therefore begged leave to offer one word in explanation. The Right Hon. Gentleman had represented him as having been engaged by Ministers in framing the present Bill. He wished the Right Hon. Gentleman would endeavour, whether his statement were merely historical or inventive, ;Its. ~~~ to be more correct. He bad not been eraployed by Mi nisters in any way connected with the present Bill.— (Hear.) He had through life been a friend to Reform, and had come there to support the measure of Ministers, as one calculated to promote the interests of the country by the destruction of a detestable system of nomineeship. —(Hear, hear.) He stood there as independent as any Member in that House, and he appealed to his Hon. Col league, the proprietor of Westbury, whether he held his seat upon any condition save that of voting for the present Bill.—(Hear.) He had tor 25 years been the advocate of the liberal measures which had been propounded by the party now for the fist time officially enabled to carry them into effect, some of which had been adopted by the Right Hon. Gentleman's colleagues at the eleventh hour, and he now gave a cheerful support to those men who had the ho neity and courage to bring forward their last and greatest meosure.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. CROKER had made no reference to the Hon Baronet (Sir R. Franco) which amounted to a charge of inconsistency. With respect to the other Hon. Member for Westbury, he regretted he should have Leen in error with respect to his connexion with the framing of the pre sent Bill. He, however, was not alone in his error, hav ing heard the same statement more than once in that House and elsewhere. Sir R. FRANCO had only to add to his former expla nation, that he had not only himself been a friend of Re form, but had nominated none but Reformers for his bo roughs.—(Hear.) The late Chairman of that House had sat for Westbury, but he having voted against the Reform Lill, he (Sir R. Franco) would not consent to his being again returned one of its representatives..—(Hear.) Mr. PRAED would suggest to his Right Hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment in its present form, and sub stitute one to the effect, that the number 56 be left out altogether,--that is, that there should be no particular number fixed upon in the first instance.—(Hear.) Mr. CROKER would act upon the well-timed sug gestion of his Hon. Friend. The Right Hon. Gentleman accordingly moved (his former amendment being with drawn) that the number "56" he omitted altogether. Lord SANDON was understood to be opposed to the amend ment. Sir R. PEEL thought the best course to pur sue would be to adopt his Right Hon. Friend's amend• talent, and to omit specifying any number whatever. By this means they would avoid blindly pledging themselves in the absence of the information or data on which their pledge should be founded. When he said this, he did not mean to deny that under any circumstances the number must be in degree arbitrary, but only to protest against their being called upon to pledge themselves in the absence of due information. It was important that they should be in possession of every information in tha power of Mi nisters to bestow with respect to the basis of the present schedules A and B ; as that founded on Lieut. Drum mond's calculations was, to say the least, extremely vague and unsatisfactory. That officer told them he founded his average of the relative importance of a borough on a com parison of the sums of the number of houses contained in it, with the amount of its assessed taxes. Now the geo graphical limits of a borough being once defined,--and that was a matter of little difficulty,—it was easy to ascer tain the number of houses ; and thence it would be easy to ascertain its average rental, which average rental would afford much more satisfactory data for determining the ac tual importance of the place than the amount of assessed taxes. In fact, no more vague criterion existed than the amount of assessed taxes paid in a borough,—though it was that adopted, at the instance of Lieut. Drummond, by Minister. Take, fur example, the cases of Milborne port and Nidhurst; the former in schedule A, and the latter in schedule B. Milborne contained 383 houses, and was to 10 ,, e its two Members ; while Midhurst,—a by word last Session,—with but 254 houses, was to reta'at one.—(Hear.) And why was this ? Because, accord ing to Lieutenant Drummond's returns, Midhurst paid more assessed taxes than the other borough.--(" Hear, hear," from the Treasury benches.) Hon. Members cried " Hear," but it would be easy to show that no more un certain and vague standard of the relative importance of a borough could he devisad, than its contribution to the assessed taxes, nor one, too, more liable to be abused for elective purposes. Let them suppose—he knew not whe ther the supposition would he agreeable to the fact—that the proprietor of Midhurst kept up a large establishment in its immediate vicinage, and that he followed a course, by no means unusual, of paying for his servants, carriages &c. in the country, instead of town, where they were chiefly used, as he might do under the act for compound ing for the assessed taxes,—would nor, under such a state, of things, the assessed taxes item of Midhurst be thereby so swollen, that if it were the criterion of representation, it would be more favoured under the Bill than a place of much more intrinsic importance.—(Hear.) And this supposition was by no means improbable with respect to six of the places set down in schedule B; for it was by no means unusual for some Hon. Gentlemen to pay all their assessed taxes in town, and others all in the country. He himself, for instance, paid all his in town, and he might pay all in the country—(Hear, hear)—showing that no more uncertain criterion for judging of the real im portance of a place could exist than the assessed taxes alone.—(Hear.) Lord ALTHORP was sure the House would see that the suppositious objections raised by the Right Hon. Ba ronet at?ainat the assessed taxes standard, would equally apply to any other rule they might fix upon. The suppo sitions were the more strange from the Right Hon. Ba ronet, as it might be in the recollection of the House that the reiterated objections of Hon. Gentlemen opposite last session to the disfranchisement of each favourite borough was the " amount of its contribution to the assessed taxes."—(Loud cries of hear.) And yet when Ministers take them at their word, forsooth, the Right Hon. Baronet rises in his place, and tells them that no standard could be inure fallacious, vague, and uncertain.—(Hear, hear.) Ministers, however, did not rest their Bill on the amount of assessed taxes levied in a borough alone. Generally speaking, it was a pretty fair criterion of the relative im portance of a place, and when taken in conjunction with the number of bona fide houses of election value, as was done in the present Bill, a double test was afforded as valid and unobjectionable as the nature of the thing could ad mit of.—(hear.) With respect to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) opposite, to omit specifying any number whatever beforehand, all be need say was, that it could not have the effect of satisfying the five boroughs, in whose favour he had brought it forward, for the clause as it stood left each hot ough in schedules A and B to stand on its own merits, as if no number had been previously fixed upon. The former Bill, with pre cisely the same number-56—of disfranchised boroughs in schedule A, was, as they all kuew, rejected in the House of Lords. Now, it appeared of great importance to Ministers that as little risk as po•sible should be run in incurring its being again rejected by the Lords, at the same time that they felt that it was of equal importance that the country should be satisfied that the great disfranchising principle of the former measure should be preserved entire in the present one. The number—necessarily, as the Right Hon. Baronet admitted, somewhat arbitrary—fixed upon is 56, that being the number of boroughs set down in schedule A of the Bill of last session, Ministers not feeling themselves justified—as still less would the country—to have a less number in the present Bill. They therefore, he repeated, adopted that number, hoping thereby to pre serve the disfranchising principle of the former Bill entire, while it would leave the consideration of the particular boroughs to be included under that number open to dis cussion.--(Hear.) The number to b, disfranchised being agreed to--and, he repeated, Ministers could not go further —that is, send up to the House of Lords a Bill containing a larger n umber of disfranchised boroughs than that they had La,lat rejected,withouteiure,while risking its s c u o c u c l ess n intheo i ther branch of the louver number with satisfaction to the country—(Hear, hear)-- the integrity of the general measure would not be impaired by a difference of opinion as to the claims of particular boroughs.—( Hear.) For these reasons he trusted that the House would s,e the expediency of supporting the clause as it stood. Sir It. PEEL begged leave, in corroboration of his argument against their taking the amount of assessed taxes as the basis of schedule A and B, to cite the case of Gat ton. That borough, containing 23 houses, !slid 207/. assessed taxes, being more than was paid by many of the boroughs set down in schedule B. Lord ALTHORP had to inform the Right Hon. Baro net that the subject of the assessed taxes standard was stlll under official consideration. Mr. SMITH, in a low tone of voice, was understood to deny that his father employed any undue 'trins to swell the amount of assessed taxes levied on the borough of Midhurst. Mr. GOULBIJRN agreed with his Right Hon. Friend that no more fallacious standard of the importance of a borough could not be selected than its contribution to the assessed taxes. He was sure that the Noble proprietor of Gatton might have easily, under the Assessed Taxes Com pounding Act, made the amount levied on that borough a ppear of sufficient value to entitle it to a place in s hedule B. He would further insist that they ought not to be a: tiled upon to condemn fifty.six boroughs to disfranchisement without being put in possession of such local information as would justify their doing so. Indeed a more preposterous proposition had never been brought forward in the whole course of his experience of Par liamentary proceedings, Between several places Row _ t intended to be included in this schedule there was, in fact, a greater difference as respee'ed their relative amount of population than was to he found between some of the boroughs in one schedule as compared with those in ano ther. The amount axed to No. 54, was 1,353 ; i❑ No. 35, the amount appeared to be 1,390; while in 56, there was an increase to 1,584. Under these circum stances, he agreed with his Right Hon. Friend in think ing, in would be much better to omit the number, and leave the question open for discu.sion hereafter, instead of thus prejudging the boroughs before they were afforded the means of knowing whether they were inconsiderable or not. Mr. SHELL wished to understand whether the number 56 was to be considered as a minimum or a maximum. He apprehended that it did not follow, because tkey might agree to the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs, that they would be thereby precluded from adding others to that number hereafter. The CHAIRMAN said, that the question at present before the Committee was, whether they should omit the number 56, and leave a blank, or agree to the clause as originally proposed. Mr. SHEIL trusted that Ministers would not oppose his subsequently moving that the number of boroughs be increased to 61. Lord J. RUSSELL said, it was quite competent for the Hon. Member for Louth to move either that the num ber Schedule A E. increased to 61, or that a certain number of boroughs be included in the disfranchisement. Sir R. PEEL remarked, that the suggestion of the Noble Lord, in fact, showed that by assenting to the origi • nal number they would virtually be doing nothing at all, as it would then be open for any Member to raise the question whether that number ought not to be altered.—(Laughter.) Lord ALTHORP replied that the more regular mode of proceeding would be for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to move the substitutio❑ of 61 for 56. Mr. GOULBURN recommended that a blank should be left in the way his Right Hon. Friend had proposed, and they might hereafter fill it up with any number which on further consideration should seem exp2diest. Mr. SHEIL said, it was his desire not to bring on his motion until schedule A should be disfranchised. There would surely be ❑o inconsietency in his proposing an ad dition to the number 56 as laid down by his Majesty's Ministers. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the Hon. Member might move, " that each of those 61 boroughs do not henceforth return Members to serve in Parliament," or he might move a separate clause, including the he boroughs by name in the disfranchisement. _ .-ar ~ ._ Mr. C. FERGUSSON should support the clause as it now stood, and would reserve to himself the liberty to in crease schedule A hereafter, should the Hon. Member for Louth bring forward the motion to that effect, of which he had already given notice. Sir C. WETHERELL maintained that the Noble Lord should now try his hand at a smaller number--suppose 30 or 40,—as so large a total as 56 had formerly proved fatal to the success of his first Reform Bill elsewhere. They were told that the right of sending Members should depend upon the amount of houses, but at present they had no means of ascertaining accurately how many houses all these boroughs respectively contained. Amersham, the 56th on the list, it appeared, was the pivot on which the principle of disfranchi,ement was to turn. Well, this borough con tained 360 houses, while Midhurat was proved to have only 254 ; and yet two places with such dissimilar claims on the score of population were to be treated exactly alike, according to the Bill of the Noble Lord. This was manifestly unjust, and he insisted, moreover, that they ought not to be required to vote a specific number before they were put in possession of the requisite information. Lord ALTHORP was of opinio❑ that the question at present was, not one of comparison between the rela tive claims of one borough and those of another, but whether the number disfranchised should be 56, and he had no doubt that the country generally would not be satis fied with !e.g. Mr. WARBURTON explained, that the returns of Lieutenant Drummond comprised two conditions—the number of houses and the amount of taxation; and it was entirely arbitrary how far the one principle should be al lowed to predominate in any particular case, when the de ci,ion of Government was formed on an impartial consi deration of the two taken together. Mr. GOULBURN imagined, from the observations which had fallen from the Hon. Member for Kirkcud bright, that he was totally ignorant of the situation in which the Kates was placed with respect to the borough of Downton. No less than five different returns bad been made of the number of houses in that borough. By the first return the number of houses was stated to be 316, — by the second, 326,—by the third, 500,—by the fourth, 390,—and by the fifth, 715.—(Hear, hear.) Now if the fourth return was assumed to be the right one, Downton ought to be excluded from the fifty-six condemned bo roughs. He had mentioned these particulars to the House for the purpose of showing the propriety of delaying to le gislate until correct information was laid on the table. Mr. C. FERGUSSON should vote for including Down ton in schedule A, because he did not think its population exceeded 2,000 to such an extent as to entitle it to repre sentation. His determination on this subject was made up, without reference to Lieutenant Drummond's calculations. Mr. GOULBURN—Nevertheless if Downton should be found to contain 890 houses, the Hou. Member must according to the principle now adopted in the Bill, consent to exclude that borough from schedule A. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that even supposing a case could be made out for excluding Downton from schedule A, the number 56 could be made up by taking the borough next in order—namely, No. 57. He would ex plain to the House the reason why Ministers had deter mined to take the number of houses and the amount of the assessed taxes as the test of disfranchisement. During the discussion on the last Reform Bill Ministers were con stantly reproached for having taken populatio n for a test. It was objected that this did not offer so fair a test as taxa tion and population united, and that it would inevitably lead by the rule of three to ulterior changes. To remove these objections, Ministers determined to take the amount of houses and assessed taxes as the test of disfranchise ment ; but, notwithstanding, those who before found fault with population now complained that the number of houses alone was not taken as the test. He put it to Hon. Gentlemen whether it would not be better at once fairly ' to say that they objected to disfranchisement altogether, rather than continually to cavil about the adoption of this or that particular rule ?—(Hear, hear.) Ministers had taken into their calculation, not only the assessed taxes on houses and windows, which they found to vary con siderably in the different boroughs, but the whole of the assessed taxes in each borough. By these means they con sidered that a fair judgment might be formed of the com parative importance of the different boroughs. Mr. W. WYNN objected to binding down the House to the disfranchisement of the precise number of 56 bo roughs. He was of opinion that disfranchisement and en franchisement ought to proceed together ; and there ex isted the same argument for pledging the House to the exact number of the places to be enfranchised as of those which were to be disfranchised. On referring, however, to the Bill, he found that all the enfranchising clauses commenced in the following manner—" B.: it enacted, that each of tke places enumerated in the respective sche dules, &c. ;" the exact number of those places not being specified. The lion. Member concluded by repeating that the amount of disfranchisement must depend on the amount of enfranchisement. Mr. CROKER, in answer to the observations made by the Noble Lord (Russell), stated that he and the party with whom he acted had certainly objected to the pupula tion test, because it was a principle which must lead by the rule of three to extensive changes. They urged that objection on the pecond reading of the Bill ; but when the Bill went into Committee, they made no more objections to the principle of population, but only wished to sea it strictly applied. The Noble Lord himself was the first to introduce the subject of the assessed taxes ; and he (Mr. Croker) at the time stated that the union of popu lation and taxation would form the best test. He there fore should not now object to that test, but he wished to see it calculated fairly, and applied impartially, and he thought the Scotch and Irish Members would also insist on its application to their country. Lord EAS I'NOR was prepared to go a considerable length in the disfranchisement of boroughs, but he objected to binding the House down to the precise-number of 56. Mr. S. WORTLEY said, that the principle of disfran chisement had been so mixed up with the question of the number of the boroughs, that he wished to know, previous to the division, whether it was merely a question of numbers or one of principle? If it was not a question of numbers, would another opportunity be offered of taking the sense of the House on the principle of disfranchisement ? Lord J. RUSSELL said, that the question before the Committee related only to the number of the boroughs to be disfranchised, but that it would be competent for the lion. Member to divide the House en a future occasion upon the principle of the clause. The Committee then divided. The numbers were. 198 Noes 125 Majority -75 On our re-admission to the gallery, Sir R. PEEL was proposing that the consideration of the schedule should be postponed till Monday. Lord ALTHORP was perfectly willing to concur in the suggestion, Ile considered the luestieq to be &sides' .THADMITOTCT Y fIATLIIII.r. lITHZ. A t . :../ji,v7 3v:31,20 !!3Prte :; ,- iso2Lasif ;i1 .2111.44 , C1 ELVII:* trs%-sq adJ,, ,, 3fLOn. YR lo YHAZOIT3i(I !,f,.41 noitradt i za ; g' that the clause should stand part of the Bill, and agreed that the question of the individual boroughs should be reserve'. Mr. STUART WORTLEY protested beforehand against the disfranchising of specific boroughs without fuller information. The clause was then agreed to, the House returned, and the Chairman reported progress. SUBLETTING ACT. Mr. STANLEY moved the second reading of the Sub letting Aet Amendment Bill. He hoped that the second • reading would be permitted, under the pledge, he gave that the subject should undergo the fullest discussion on going to a Committee. After a few words from Mr. Sum, the Bill was read a second time, end ordered to be, commit►ed on Friday *ext. FINES AND RECOVERIES BILL. On the motion of Mr. JOHN CAMPBELL, the House re solved itself into a Committee oa the Fines and Recoveries Bill. On reading the resolution that compensation be granted to officers who suffered from lon of fen by the abolition of fines and recoveries, Lord ALTHORP expressed a doubt whether the House ought to bind itself by such a resolution. Sir R. PEEL wished for a Select Comraittee to aseer. tain what officers were entitled to compensation, and what sums would be requir, d. Mr. J. CAMPBELL said that he should be able to ex plain this to the Committee. - The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he under stood hie HOll. and Learned Friend did not intend to take one farthing of the public money for these compensations without a Select Committee. Lord ALTHORP observed that they were about to de.. cide whether there should be compensations or not; but the House ought to have some ground to go upon, and not sanction them by a general vote, Sir R. PEEL referred to the Act of 1830, which was intended by him to prevent claims for compensation for loss of fees to patent officers. Mr. CAMPBELL said that these officers were not in cluded in that Act. Mr. GOULBURN read from the Act, " Officers con nected with fines and recoveries." Mr. Alderman VENABLES recommended that there should be a return of the officers for whom compensation was required. Lord MILTON inquired who were the parties to be benefitted by this measure ? He understood it was the landed interest of England. Was it, then, just to those who possessed personal property only, to tax them in order to relieve real property from this burdensome process? If the House did grant compensation, it should he from the pockets of those who were relieved. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit again on Monday next. ANATOMY BILL. Mr. WARBURTON, in moving the second reading of the Anatomy Bill, said that he would not enter into any discussion of this Bill on the present occasion, as it had been so fully discussed on the last night. Besides, the objections which had been made to it could be better an swered or remedied in the Committee. If the House would allow him to take the second reading of the Bill now, he would go into the Committee pro forma on Mon. day, and would there move some clauses, with the object of amending certain legal solecisms which the Bill con tained at present, and which had been pointed out to him by some of the Commissioners of real property. Mr. HUNT objected to the Bill, which he looked upon as most admirably adapted to britalize (we suppose the Hon. Member meant brutalize) the people.—(A laugh). He then read a letter from the Constitutionnel, reeona mending the artificial corpse of some French surgeon as a more efficient mode of learning anatomy than the dissec tion of the actual human body. In consequence of his op position to this Bill, he had been threatened by a surgeon, in the public papers, that he should be dissected.—(A laugh.) Now he (Mr. Hunt) would take good care that the surgeon should not Burke, before he dissected, him.— (A laugh.) He venerated the practice of a surgeon. They were in general men of benevolence ; but still, when they gave advice for the benefit of the species, they gene rally took a fee for the benefit of themselves. He would, therefore, call upon them to give up their own bodies for dissection, before they called upon the Government to le galize the dissection of bodies in every hospital throughout the country. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be conatnitted on Monday next. IRISH REFORM BILL. On the motion of Mr. STANLEY, the Bill to amend the representation of the people in Ireland was read a first time, and was ordered to be read a second time this day three weeks, and to be printed. The House then adjourned at Half-past Eleven, till Monday. On Monday, the 19th ult., the Session of the National Assembly of Greece was opened and defini tively constituted, when DEMETRIUS ZAMUDOS, a Hydriot, was appointed President ; M. LAußrato NAcos, a native of Romelia, Vice-President; and M. ENEAN, also a Rome liote, the Secretary. All the Deputies from the islands, with the exception of those from Hydra, were present.__ Count AUGUSTIN CAPO D'lsTatA, President of the Pro vincial Commi..sion of Government, pronounced an open ing address, gave an account of the Administration, of the present situation of the country, and resigned his power into the hands of the Assembly. The greatest tranquil lity reigned in all Greece. The English Admiral was at Nauplia. Admiral Hum:ix was daily expected. On the 7th December a lamentable occurrence took place at Ca lamata. M. NOIRON had been sent with a serjeant to a ♦illage; a dispute subsequently arose between them, when the latter, no doubt intoxicated, gave him several cuts with his sword, one of which took off his hand, and he was so severely wounded on the head that the life of the sufferer was despaired of. ELOPEMENT.—Yesterday, between twelve and one o'clock, a respectable looking couple, accompanied by a bride's-maid and bridegroom, presented themselves at the vestry-room of St. Mary's, Whitechapel, being provided with a license. The necessary preliminaries having been gone through, the parties proceeded from the vestry room to the front of the communion -table, where they knelt down. The Rector (the Rev. Dr. Marrrtras) was about com menc i ng t h e marriage ceremony, when he wasinterrupted by the approach of two respectable look ing individuals, who rushed into the church in breathless haste. They instantly seized the intended bride, and told the Rev. Gentleman not to proceed with the ceremony. They were the uncle and father of the young woman, who had eloped, and was going to marry contrary to the wishes of her friends. The young woman, after recovering from the surprise, declared that it was quite needless to attempt to prevent the accomplishment of her union with the object of her affections, and therefore entreated that the ceremony might at once take place, assuring them that if they did not do so, they would be only retard ing it for a very short time. Her friends, however, refused complying with her earnest entreaties, and see ing her so determined in her purpose, they had her and her intended husband removed from the church to a police station in the vicinity by a constable. From the expla nations which took place there, it appeared that the young woman, who is in her 22d year, and of very prepossessing appearance, is the daughter of a respectable and wealthy inn-keeper at Woolwich, and is entitled to considerable property. Her " adored" is only a constable in the EI division of Police, and, singular enough, belonged to the section attached to the station-house to which he war brought. The friends of the young woman again en deavoured to prevail on her to abandon her intention, and entreated her to accompany them home, but she obsti nately refused to listen to them, and declared that nothing short of absol u t e f orce would separate her from her lover. Finding themselves in this awkward dilemma, and to pre vent a further erpose of the business, her friends con- 1 sented that the young man should accompany her home. The parties then got into a coach, and drove off amidst the cheers of several hundreds of men, women, and children, who, in consequ:nce of the circumstance, had congregated round the church and in front of the station-house. SHOCKING ACCIDENT BY FIRE.—On Wed_; nesday last, between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock, an accident occurred of a most distressing nature in the family of Mr. KITELY, of George-street, Edgeware road. His eldest son, who is between eighteen and nine teen years of age, had retired to bed, and in about an hour afterwards the inmates of the house were alarmed by his calling for assistance. On his father and one of t h e servatnts running tot e a t t o . l o i ff i s h a i r n rt i m gh e t. n apartment , night-shirt, w th h sc ic o h ver w ed as htm on endeavouri ng fire, and th e b e ddi ng an d par t o f the bed curtains were also in flames. A-si-t ince was instantly rendered to the unEntunate young gentleman, and by great exertion the farther progress of the fire was prevented. Medical a.- tendance was immediately procured for Mr. KITELY, jun., who, in a few minutes, became in a state of delirium from the intense agony he was enduring, and on examining the injuries he had sustained they were found to be of a most t se h r e io a u c s eou n n a t tu t r h e a , t h h i b es has being s.OO very egiveoof much theburnt.occurrence From renceit appears that he has been in the haiiit of reading in bed, .i.nd was doing sat on Wednesday night, when he fell asleep. ' leaving the candle burning on a chair by the bedside : the candle must have fallen out of the socket into the bed alothee.