The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-20 00:00:00

REFORM BILL.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the House then
resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. G. BANKES took the opportunity of presenting
a petition from Great Beilw in, in Wiltshire, which stated
that, by the census of 1821, the inhabitants were only
numbered at 1,928, while, by that of 1831, they were
numbered at 2,191, and prayed that their case might be
taken into the consideration of the House. Admitting,
for the sake of argument, that the principle on which
Ministers proceeded was a right one, he contended that
this borough was entitled, by their own doctrines, to a
representation.
Mr. MACKINNON then moved an instruction to the
Committee, ilech.ring that the boroughs in the Schedules
A and B, should be considered in reference to the last
census (1831), and not to the census of 1821. The Hon.
Member objected to taking the census in 1821, as it would
give the Bill a retrospective effect, and denied that there
was any partiality in the census of 1831.
Mr. CRESSET PELHAM seconded the motion.

Lord J. RUSSELL did not think it necessary to say
many words on the subject. The Bill had now been four
days in Committee—some progress had been made, and
he accordingly considered the motion came too late. He
reminded the House, that when the Bill was first intro-
duced, the latest true document whereon they could pro-
ceed, was the census of 1821 ; and he observed, that if
Ministers took the census of 1831, they should proceed
upon a new basis; because it was not the precise number
of two thousand inhabitants to which they addressed their
attention, but to the great principle which they wished to
establish. He acknowledged that the population of some
boroughs had increased since 1821, while that of others
had diminished. But this, be contended, afforded no
reason why they should change the plan on which they
had determined to proceed. If they wok the census of
1531, they should proceed on a new basis ; but the result
would be still the same. The census of 1821, too, was
desirable; because, unlike that of 1831, it had been taken
without any view to the possible consequences.
Mr. G. BANKES hosed that many Hon. Members
who supported the Noble Lord generally, would vote
against him on the present occasion.—(Oh, oh, and
laughter.) He observed, these exclamations were rather
unusual in that House—it was not unusual, however, with
the Hon. Member for Sussex to endeavour, by such pro-
ceedings, to prevent Members from honestly and in-
dependently discharging their duty. The question,

he contended, had been brought forward at a proper time;
it was a new one, and well worthy the consideration of
the Committee. lie would not he a party to vexatious
delay ; but he would use his best endeavours to amend the
Bill, thinking, with the Noble Lord (Russell), that if the
people of England were to have a new Constitution, they
were entitled to the best the House could give them. He
did not consider that any Hon. Member, wheever pledge
lie might have given to support the general principle of the
Bill, could be hound by that pledge to oppose the present
proposition; for by that proposition the principle of the
Bill was in no way affected. The instance of Great Bri-
tain was in itself sufficient to show the justice of taking
the present census, inste id of the census of 1821, as the
basis of the Bill. In that, and in every other place in
which burgage tenure formed the right of voting, the Bill,
as at present framed, would disfranchise a considerable
number of the labouring classes. Great Bedwin was one
of the most ancient boroughs in the kingdom. It had ex-
isted from the time of Edward 1., and the antiquarian learn-
ing of the Noble Lord should induce him on that ground to
respect a place which had returned at various periods
many distinguished individuals to that House, and had ne-
ver been subject to any imputation of improper conduct.
He entreated young Members to refer to the opinions of all
the great men of former days, who had uniformly opposed
the disfranchisement of any borough, unless due cause
were shown for the step. Such was the doctrine main-
tained by Mr. Fox in the cases of Shoreham and Ayles-
bury, and up to the latest period of his life. Mr. Pitt,
too, although he supported the right of Parliament to dis-
franchise any borough, did so on grounds very different
from those which were alleged at the present day. Mr.
Pitt always contended that cases of disfranchi,etrient should
be accompanied by compensation.—(A loud and solitary
cry of " Hear.") He was really at a loss to know why
he had received the honour of this notice from the Worthy
Alderman, except it were to show that the Worthy Alder-
man was in the House, and that he was not asleep : and
that his (Mr. Bankes's) speech had not produced upon the
Worthy Alderman the " sudorific" effect—(A laugh)—
which the Worthy Alderman had complained of the other
evening in the speech of tin lion. and Learned Gentleman.
The appeal which lie (Mr. Bankes) had been making was
to all those who had not pledged themselves to their con-
stituents to a degree which, in his opinion, was unconsti-
tution4l.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Of those he was willing
to believe that the Worthy Alderman was one. He had a
great respect for the Worthy Alderman's constituents, for
their intelligence, and for their growth in wealth and
splendour. But something of a spirit of despotism had
grown up with that wealth and intelligence, which he was
astonished to observe, and which lie was not less astonished
to find submitted to.—(Hear, hear.) He repeated, he
would not yield even to the Wcrthy Alderman himself in
respect for the citizens of London. At many glorious pe-
riods of our history they had taken a glorious position.
But there wan something even in the greatness and gene-
rosity of their character which sometimes hurried them
farther than they ought to go. To that he attributed
their requiring such pledges from their representatives as
no Member of Parliament ought to he called upon to give.
He had already observed, that there had been great and
glorious periods of our history, at which the citizens of
London had distinguished themselves ; but there had been
other periods at which they had been hurried too far by
the warmth of the moment. For instance, a short time
before the establishment of the Commonwealth a petition
had been signed by ten thousand of the citizens of London,
in the carriage with him, observed to him, " How spraying
hf
et fre'r:
owutadhr,e,dsst tlle abolitioncheers.of
citizens
Cromwell'sothf eB
London ench
secretary,roe ef Bishops.
ei
vew o CromwellTw ea
ns
popu-
lar you are !—how highly you are respected !" " My good
friend," answered the Protector, " these worthy citizens
would shout just as loudly if you and I were going up Hol-
born-hill, on our way to Tyburn, to be hanged.".—(A
laugh.) And so it was. For, ten years afterwards, the
restoration of Charles the Second was hailed with accla-
mations by the citizens of London, who once more became
" his Majesty's most loyal and faithful subjects."—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by again strongly
recommending the adoption of the census of the present day.
Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN, after the notice which
the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle had been pleased to
take of him, should be wanting in gratitude if he did not
say a few words. The cry of " Hear !" which had drawn
upon him the Hon. Member's attention, was elicited by
observing that the Hon. Member's object was compensa-
tion to the disfranchised boroughs.—(No, no, no.) Hon.
Gentlemen might call out "No, no," but that was evi-
dently the object at which the Hon. Member for Corfe
Castle was driving. This interruption of his had pro-
duced from the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle a compli-
ment to the citizens of London, whom, however, before he
sat down, he charged with inconsistency. Wearied as he
was with the discussion, and anxious to go into the Corn.
mittee—for he was persuaded that every man of common
intelligence must thoroughly understand the principle of
the Bill without any further observations—he begged
leave to make a few remarks on what had fallen from the
lion. Gentleman. Did that lion. Gentleman mean to
say that the various Members of counties and great cities,
who supported the Bill, were fettered—that they were
not free ? What was the coinmon usage of every candi-
date at every general election ? Did he not in his cir-
culars and advertisements pledge himself to the support
of certain opinions and measures ? No man living could
charge him (Mr. Alderman Waithman) with having got
into the House upon such a pledge as that which the lion.
Member had described. At his election he had declared
himself the friend of Reform, and on that principle he had
triumphed. At the last election, therefore, any pledge
was unnecessary. It was necessary, however, that the
electors throughout the whole kingdom should understand
the sentiments of those whom they chose as their rep re
sentatives. He begged to ask whether it was becoming
or decent in a Member for a rotten borough to say that
Members for counties and great cities came to that House
in fetters ?—(Hear, hear.) Were Members for rotten
boroughs not in fetters ? Did they come to that House

free from pledges?—(Hear.) Had the Members for Cot-
ton, for Boroughbridge, for Marlborough. given A o pledges?
An Hon. Colleague of his had been called to account by
his constituents, and properly, _ for a vote of his in that

House. But if the Member of any of those boroughs to
which he had alluded were to come to that House and vote
for the Bill, would not the proprietor of that borough call
such Member to account for his conduct ; and would 'hat
Member continue to represent the borough after such an
open defiance of the proprietor ? For himself, he had voted
on the eight memorable divisions of last Wednesday morn
ing ; and if he had sacrificed his life on that
and the thing were to do over again, he -would do it.—
(A laugh.) When the Hon. fslember for Corfe Cas,le
talked of compensation, what did he mean ? Did he mean
to give compensation to electors who were ready to vote
for they knew not whom ? No. He meant compens.r_
tion to the slave-owners—to the borough proprietor,—to
the men who speculated on public rights, and endeavoured
to convert them into public property.—(Hoar, heAr.)
Why did those persons want compensation ? Because they
obtained undue advantages by their present influence, of
which the Bill would deprive them. Their pretensions
were those of insolence and arrogance.

Mr. BANKES said, the Hon:Alderman had asked him
what he meant by compensation. If the Hon. Alderman
had not interrupted him in his observations on that sub-
ject, he would have heard him say, that compensation tea,
wholly out of the question in the present ease. He trusted,
if farther vexatious delays were attempted, that the House
would meet at ten o'clock in the morning, to accelerate•
the progress of the measure.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX warmly denied that he en-
tered the House under any fetters. He had been returned
by the unbought votes of the freeholders of the county of
Sussex ; the Hon. Member had been returned by the
bought votes of the burgesses of Corfe Castle. Whenever
the Hon. Member made such attacks upon him, he would
repel them with the indignation they deserved. Although
he was not fettered, the Hon. Member was ; and he had
that day, in Pall-mall, rivetted his fetters more closely

than or: his election.
Lord ALTHORP observed. that if such irrelevant to-
pics were introduced into the discussion, it would be im-
possible for the House to proceed effectually with the Bill.
His Noble Friend had already most distinctly stated the
motives which had induced the authors of the Bill to pre-
fer as its basis the population returns of 1821 to those
which were now in preparation. As to the number of
two thousand, they bad adopted that as a general guide,
and to prevent the suspicion of p ►rtiality ; but a slight ad-
dition to, or diminution of that- number, would make en
difference in the principle of the measure.
After a few words from Mr. RICE TREVOR, and Mr.
PRAM), the House divided—

For the motion 169
Against it
Majority for Ministers
. _

. .
On our return to the Gallery, we found the House in
Contmittee on the Reform Bill, Mr. BERNAL being in the

Chair.

On the question being put, that the borough of Appleby
stand part of the clause,
Lord MAITL tND said, that so much had been already

stated on the subject of this borough, that he would not
trouble the House with many observations on the question
beyond those which had been slightly touched on in the
course of the former discussions. In the borough of Ap-
pleby the right of voting, was by burgage tenure, and the
borough extended over a considerable portion of the two
parishes of Appleby St. Lawrence, and Appleby St. Mi-
chael. The jurisdiction of the Mayor and Corporation
being, however, acknowledged in the whole of the two
parishes, and all licenses granted under their authority;
with the power to prove these facts to the satisfaction of
the House, and with the knowledge that the population of
these two parishes amounts to some hundreds over the
line of disfranchisement, he thought he was doing his duty
to the House and to the inhabitants of the borough by
moving that Appleby be taken out of Schedule A, and
placed in Schedule B.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was of opinion he should he
able to satisfy the House that the borough of Appleby had
not been unfairly treated, by being placed in schedule A
rather than in schedule B. The Government had endea-
voured to render the line they felt it necessary to draw as
fair as possible ; but there were some boroughs in which
it happened that the borough and the parish wereso placed
together, they found themselves unable to adhere rigidly
to their original intentions. During the last Parliament
it was represented to them, for instance, that the Mem-
bers for the borough of Buckingham were Members also
for the p.rish in which Buckingham is situated ; and
they, therefore, found it necessary to admit the population
of the parish to be included. So also, upon inquiry, it
was found that Taniworth, and one or two other places,
could plead the same ground of exception, and their claims
were allowed. It was extremely difficult, the House must
see, to draw a perfect line ; but there was a material dif-
ference between the ease of a borouzh which formed the
principal p art of a parish, like Buckingham, and a bo-
rough which extended into two parishes, like Appleby.—
(Hear, hear.) The House would at once see that there
was a material distinction in the preservation of the
line between a borough which comprised two parishes,
and a borough which extended into two parishes.
Wherever any great abuse of the principle could be
pointed out, the Government were anxious to acl.now-
ledge and rectify it ; but he thought the House
would agree with him, when they heard the real
facts of the case, that Appleby was not entitled to he
excepted. If he was rightly informed, the state of Ap-
pleby was this the burgh extended into two parishes—
one part of it was composed of a portion, but not of the
whole, of St. Lawrence, and the other extended into St.
Michael's, otherwise Bondgate, a very large parish, going
in one direction from the borough seven or eight miles, and
being altogether 15 miles long.--( Hear, hear.) He thought,
therefore, it would be a very great abuse of the principle
on which they proceeded, if they permitted a borough of
this kind to claim to be excepted on account of the parish
in a part of which it happened to be situated, and joining
as it did a small part of one, and not comprising within its
boundaries the whole of the other. As early as last January
the Mayor of Appleby, being applied to by the Government
to answer questions with respect to the burgh, wrote a reply
to the Secretary of State to say that " the return of 1821
did not state the population of the parishe,, but of the
burgh, some part of which extended over the parish of St.
Michael, and the remainder of which was in St. Lawrence ;
but as the boundaries had not been perambulated in the
memory of man, it was not in hi% power to state positively
what they were." It would be found, from the returns
of 1821, that the population of that part of the borough
which was in St. Lawrence amounted to 824, while
Scareaby or St. Michael's had 108, making 932 ; and
by returns in the papers laid on the table, it appeared
that the population of the borough in St. Lawrence
was 551, and in St. Michael's, or Bondgate, 203,
making 1,504 ; and it appeared, also, that the county
gaol was situated in the borough ; and that there were
in it eighteen prisoners. He did not think it neces-
sary to make any allusion to the number of ten-pound
houkeholders which were to be found in the borough, be-
cause it was not expedient to take them into account, in
considering the situation of a borough which did not come
within that lints of population they conceived requisite to
establish a qualification for the enjoyment of the elective
franchise.an y gonaiod rati
inhabitants
tee
ntddtoisi
sdepho,nafdatpl, however,
twooe
ofv
neterhN,
oe think
lif mden
decision,
etsohi
d,ntuirAgaApsaigpe
tlellehibtel
eywnrmiuhgraineidt:
and the borough itself had been for a long time a nomina-
tion onitos
the other House of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) No
hardship, therefore, could be done, except to those two in-
dividuals; and they would merely suffer in being deprived
of a right which they ought never to have enjoyed—
(Hear, hear)—the borough itself being, from its size, ex-
cluded from claiming exemption from disfranchisement.
He conceived, therefore, from what he bad stated, that the
justice of the case had been fully proved, and that as no
serious doubt could be entertained with respect to the po-
pulation of the borough, he hoped the Committee would
require no further evidence to declare that Appleby must
stand part of the clause.—(Hear.)
Mr. CROKER said, there was one expression fell
from the Noble Lord in the course of his speech which
gave him the greatest satisfaction. The word was " jos-
tice,"—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord appealed to the
justice of the case.--(Hear, hear.) That appeal be se-
conded most cordially; and he would say more, that if
any gentleman in that House had a doubt of the justice of
the claims of Appleby, he did not lay claim to his vote.
—(Hear, hear.) He rested on the justice of the case, and
not on its expediency or its policy. Before, however, he
touched on the question of Appleby, he entreated the
Noble Lord's attention to a question of some importance
which he wished to put to him. The population returns
bsa:nioli:linosaiopu gsnratyderhri returnsJi ahatnl, ndh jet Sb'enveS:PgiE, called rose,ed nbtuitt
of 1831 were most valuable, because they exhibited the
epopulation r oft, u
tTt
iliploeesrbecoeriroyeuitnuggrhn%tve ande
rteli
populationparishesenot,
i,o woefdv distinct froth
con-
trary to the general rule, to he lumped together as borough
icrehidThtloi
satnasindkg,u,,t,ihlekteNdwo
tbisilieethLpe(o)prddiui,,ltiaiftnihocetni,p)onof
distinction.
pseveralon,t
anMembersswer.” on
Thet e
Noble Lord, however, said, in a low tone, that he knew
nothing about Caine except what he found in the papers

on the table, which were signed by a person of whom h
knew nothing. Those papers, he believed, were placed
there on the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. CROKER was surprised to hear that the Nob! e
Lord had no information on this subject, and did not know
the name of the person who signed the return, although he
bad particularly directed the Noble Lord's attention to the
subject. if the Noble Lord had not directed his attention
to Caine after it had been so particularly called to it,
why, in the name of justice, was be an learned on the sub-
ject of Appleby ?—(Cheers.) Why was the Noble Lord
able to define to them the boundaries of St. Michael and
St. Lawrence, and to point out the situation of the county
gaol in the borough of Appleby, and yet avow himself in
utter ignorance of any thing connected with the much-
stioned borough of Caine.—(Hear, hear-)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL made na inquiries with re-
spect to any of the boroughs He took the population as
he found it in the returns ; and if he possessed any in-
formation on the subject of Appleby, it was derived from
the statements furnished at the request of the Hon. Mem-
ber oppre.ite
Mr. CROKER observed, that the Noble Lord's candid
and just friends on the other side had counselled him not to
give any reply to his question, and yet the Noble Lord had
already volunteered, and left the matter jnst as he found
it. After expressing an opinion that the course pursued
with respect to Caine was the result of gross ignorance, or
of blind partiality, the Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded
to say, that speaking in all honour and sincerity—(Cheers
from the Ministerialists)—did the other side object to the
language of honour and sincerity?—(Cheers from the Op-
position.) He would say again, speaking in honour and
sincerity, that he believed the Noble Lord had taken his
line with respect to Appleby in utter ignorance of the real
state of the case.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the
Noble Lord had been misled by the mention of the word
Bondgate, and that he had no idea, when he saw Bondgate
mentioned in the return in connection with Appleby, that
under that nn ord lurked the parish of St. Michael's.
(Hear, hear.) This was in. Iced evident, front the course
adopted throughout by the Noble Lord with reference to
Appleby. When the Noble Lord brought in the first Bill,
he stated the population of the boroughs to be disfran-
chised, and among others he named Appleby as having a
population of eight hundred and twenty-four persons.---
Now, this was exactly the number of persons inhabitants
of the borough in one parish, the population residing in the
other—that is, Bondgate St. Micha 11.—bring altogether
passed over.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, indeed,
admitted himself thst he had passed over the other part,
under the name of Bondgate ; for although he then stated
the population to be eight hundred and twenty-four, he
now admitted the population of the other part to be
near four hundred. There was, however, another
poin►, of much greater importance, connected with
the course which I ad been } ursued tlwards the borough
of Appleby. In the census of 1811, the population was
classed according to towns and boroughs. In the census
of 1821, it was taken arc ,rdirg t r parishes. Now, if
the Noble Lord, when he selected the borough of Appleby
for disfranchisement, had taken the trouble to turn to the
population returns of 1811, he would have found the fol-
lowing entry :—" Appleby borough—Parish of St. Law-
rence, Parish of St. Michael's;" and then followed a re-
turn of population of these parishes, stated together under
the held of Appleby—and, would the House believe

in the year 1811 the population was large enough to carry
the ho: ough far beyond the Noble Lord's line of disfrav
chi•ement.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord resisted
every attempt to advance towards the population of the
pt esent day ; he insisted on taking the returns of ten years
back ; and how was it, then, when he found himself at
fault with respect to the returns of 1821, that be never
thought of looking hack to those of 1811 ?—(llear.) But
the Noble Lord, to remedy these evils, had recourse to a,
riding commission—did lie forget that when he spoke Of
the seven miles' distance ? It was possible the riding maw
missioners might have exercise enough, for he believed iS
some of the boroughs there would lie little hope of cony
pleting them in a d stance short of ten or fifteen miles..."
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had called for this infors,
'nation, and now he had obtained it what did it shoo'
Why, the Noble Lord's inconsistency. The borough
of Malmesbury stood originally in the schedule A ;
did not happen to have the requisite number of popular '
tion, because the borough was separated in the re"
turn from the parish. It was at first returned °
having a population of 1,300. The new returns, bole,
ever, showed that both Appleby and Malmesbury execede
2,000. What was done by the Noble Lord upon this
Did he reject Malinesbury ? Oh no! He granted the
favour to Malmesbury, which, under the very same cite
cutestanees, at the very same time, and upon the vet)
same prineiplus, he retuned to Appleby.—(Hear, bear.)
Then there was the borough of Oakhampton ; that 'O4
stated in the return as having 1,900 inhabitants, but t°
the new papers there was appended a note, stating tIIBC
the entire parish contained 2,023 inhabitants. Upon that
",
information the borough of Oakhampton was transferred
from Schedule A to Schedule B, because it had twenty'
three inhabitants over the requisite number; while Ar
pleby, which had 600 more than the required number' '
was utterly banished frrin the number of represented bo:
roughs.—(Hear, hear.) There was another case strong°
even than this; it was the case of a borough which
kept in all the vigour Of its elective franchise, and Yr.
which, if justice was done, would lie transferred to the
Schedule A ; and Appleby must be placed in Schedule 13,i
It was the borough of Horsham. He particularly called
the attention of the House to the case of this borougbj
while he informed them that Horsham, which preservc:
its number of Members, was not entitled to that privilege
in fact, and was only in a situation to retain it by anoth;
misapplication of the same rule by which Appleby Wilta
disfranchised. The Noble Lord had said that he tvisit,'
lay down the rule, and that he should be told what wets
the exceptions. Yes, he should be told, hut he should be
'',
told from that side of the House.-.-( Hear.) In the cenoA
of 1821, the borough and parish of Horsham were returne,
as containing 4,570 members. Oh, that is excellent'
thought the Noble Lord ; but then, when he thought s°'
he omitted to notice what was stated in a little note or
pended to the return—namely, that the parish of Horshl:
in the population returns of 1811, was returned as con§iito
ing of three separate divisions. That note ought to bag
excited the Noble Lord's attention, and especially he °ago
to have considered that, as Horsham was kept beyond lb,
line by its three divisions, Appleby ought to be allowed t
same advantage with its two parishes.—(Hear, he'd),
This was the return in 1811 :—" Horsham, the 1101110
part, 1,774 inhabitants—( Hear, hear)—and then
other divisions, the northern part containing 1,100 inta
bitants, and the southern part 930, making altogetl
-3,800 inhabitants."—(lbAr, hear.) Would any one 0
him that this was a case to be favourably distinguiebed ar Via'
that of Appleby? In the one and in the other the pol'u yt
tion of the borough was less than 2,000 ; yet Horshanly
to have its two Members, while Appleby was to be n'll°loo
disfranchised. The return want on to say, " The inere be
of the population in this parish is to be attributed to tr,
enclosure of 800 acres of waste land in the neiglit'°%,
hood." That waste land was not part of the borougoi
so that that excuse could not be set up in fsC°iyi
of Horsham ; and it was evident, that if the distance or
the parish from the borough of Appleby was a reasoll.bo
the disfranchisement of that borough, the distance of 1.,00
waste land from the borough of Horsham was a rea;io
why its population should not be taken into the acCoun',
order to secure to that borough the possession of its riect)
tive franchise. What could be said to this by those bolt
were pledged to support the whole Bill, and the Able
mistakes of the Bill ? The case was still more retnarlaidgb
in the instance of the borough of Morpeth. That bore ;tO,
was at first placed in the schedule B. The popubltly ,
according to the census of 1821, was the line, the 1l Still,
manthine line, that was to govern the Noble Lord. 'leg,
however, there were mistakes, and these were to be -00 e
rected ; hut these mistakes could only be corrected 0° it)
side of the line, not on the other. By throwirtgre
the parish in the case of Morpeth, though it wag 1
fused to be thrown in, in the case of Appleby, the Pep
lotion of Morpeth was increased to 4,130, and remait'elebi
the full enjoyment of its elective franchise ; while APP ore
being in precisely the same situation, and with 500
inhabitants than Morpeth, was to he utterly disfraneb'hillt
—(Hear, hear.) Men were sometimes put to saki
when they were called on for money they could not 'did
and so they were when they were called on for reason', Ord'
could not give. In that situation was the Noble ''o;
Surely he would not think of telling Appleby that it Seger!
mere nomination borough, the property of boroughtn° ttc,
—all boroughmongers ; or if he did, would he gir,_g
same answer to Tavistock.—(Cheers.) Why bad elel,
made the same allusion to the borough of Calne--villa t°
he not made it to every borough in schedule B, %leo°,
several other boroughs tint in army schedule at all ?--I.,ord'
hear.) This conduct was not worthy of the Noblee ft°:
the more especially it was not worthy of him as beats
fussed to destroy tlre old burgage tenures, and to cr per
fresh franchise of the extensive kind—too extensive'dle43
haps—as in some instances he must travel sevenr oci
from the borough to get it into operation.—(gra ;We
laughter.) The Noble Lord had dealt with different
in a different manner, upon the same circumstance:', tb°,
put one borough into schedule B, and though preei'
• t
same principle and the same circumstances apple" to
t,' po hose
boroughs, he continued them in schedule A. rr to at
said, that because the sane facts were applic-ab'ed t`'htr-
borough of Appleby, therefore he would not exten

borougl
exp
were u
such a-
would
he cod
to *hum
tively ca
situatioi

Mr:
Vernan,
The re

vt siqe,