The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-24 00:00:00

REFORM BILL.

The Order of the Day to that effect having been read,
on the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the House re-
solved itselt into a Committee on the Bill to amend the
representation of the peop.e in England and Wales.

The CnArastAri began to read clause the second,
viz. :—" And be it enacted, that each of the thirty bo-
roughs enumerated in the schedule marked B to this
Act annexed, shall, from and after the end of this present
Parliament, return one Member, and no more, to serve
in Parliament."

Mr. GOULBURN wished to know why the word
" thirty" was inserted in this clause? When he, and the
other opposers of the 8.11, asked why they were called
upon to pledge themselves in the first clause that 56 bo-
roughs should be wholly disfranchised, before ally opportu-
nity was afforded of examining into the condition of those
boroughs, in order at least to see if they came with the
arbitrary rule of the Noble Lords opposite, they were met
among other statements by this,—namely, that as 56 was
the number inserted in the first clause of the Bill which
the House of Lords had rejected, it was therefore expe-
dient that 56 should be the number inserted in the first
clause of the present Bill. Now in the second clause of
the Bill which had been rejected by the House of Lords,
the number 41 had been inserted. Why did the Noble
Lords abstain from applying to the expediency of retain•
iug 41 in the second clause, the same test which had
convinced them of the expediency of retaining 56 in the
first clause ?

Lord ALTHORP observed that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had stated only half the answer which had been
made the other evening to his question respecting the first
clause. The answer was, that the number b 6 had been
retained, not more, because the House of Lords had already
rejected the Bill with that number ; not less, because that
number had been approved by the great mass of the people
of England.—(Hear, hear.) He would sow tell the
Right Hon. Gentleman why the number 30 had been in-
serted in the second clause, whereas 41 was the number
in the last Bill. After the rejection of the last Bill by the
mightthe inheescs,uprdebvcaruadpiily to
House of Lords, his Majesty's Ministers had considered
the measure with a as tar as was consistent with the
inight diminish the objections which the majority of
preservationit sy m o diticoaf t :ohne
oeffiwc ihei chy it ofwhich
House of Lords bad urged against it ; and, am they 0,

served, that one of the strongest of those objections was
the diminution of the number of representatives, they
therefore resolved not to propose any such diminution
in the new measure. To do this, it becasne necessary to
comprehend 93 additional Members in the present Bill.
His Majesty's Ministers thought that if they gave the
whole 23 to schedule B, they should be justly c:larged
with dioHnishing, the tfficacy of the Bill. They, there-

fore, re.olved to give 12 e!sewhere, an to rednee the
numb,r in schedule B by 11 ; thus making that numher
30 instead of 41. The Committee would row decide
whether, in •o doing, his Majesty's Governm-nt bad, in
their opinion, done right. Any reductit•n in schedule B
beyond tl,tt to 30, his Majesty's Mit:jeers felt would be a
diminution of the efficiency of the mei-ure.

Mr. GOULBURN proceeded, and vs;ntznded that the

House h of great reason to comitlain of the conduct which
1110 been pursued towards them by his Majesty's Mini
sters. They had to complain of the conduct of Alinisters
with respect to the its: clause of the because they
Were relnired to pronopore upon it without having urn
infwernation in their hands which might enable them to
judge of its merits. They had to co o plain of the eenduet
of Ministers with respect to the second cla•ise of the Bill,
because, although certain information had been in the
mean while prepared, it had been in their han•ts for so
limited a period, that they had not the rneins of examin-
ing whether or not the boroughs which it stow proposed
partially to disfranchise came within the rule which the
authors of the measure set up. When the Hon. Member
for Louth wished to add rive to the number of boroughs to
be wholly disfranchised in schedule A, the Noble Lord
left him a loop-hole, by teliin7 him that although the
numb r now agreed to in the chime was 56, he might
propose that it should i. 6l when the sehedn:e came to
be considered. But now when the No: le Lead thought
that he (Mr. Goulburn) wished to rescue some of ti c
boroughs in schedule H from the 'grasp of destruction, be
declared that the titmthr,r 30 had been inserted in the
donors 43 the ernallsttt that could be adopted without in-
juring the etlic,tency of the Bill. That was not his (Mr.
Goulburn',:j opinion ; and having thus shortly stated the
g otre.,lll,:on which he resisted the introduction in the
':.',ause of the word " thety," he now moved that the word
be otni•ted.
Sir G. WARRENDER concurred in the Right Hon.
Gentlctran's motion, hut on different grounds. He could
. .

assure his Majesty's Government that he approached the
discussion with every wish that the measure might be ren-
m fficient, and consonant to the wishes of the reat
m .jarity of the people. With respect, however, to the
thirty boroughs comprehm Ivied in schedule B, they were
either nomination boroughs, or they were not so. If they
were nomination boroughs, he called upon the authors of
the NIL en their own principles, not to leeve any of those
berouge,s a single Member. He contended, bowever, that
they were nor rieminatem boroughs ; and, therefore, that
if the prieeiole of the Bill was to do away with nomina-
tion horneelms only, then the boroughs in schedule B should
be left untouched. If he was right in saying that on the
ground of disfranchisement those boroughs ought not to
be touched, he should be right in saying that on the
ground, of enfranchisement also they ought not to be
touched. It was not necessary to resort to the disfran-
chisement of those boroughs in order to enfranchise those
place. to which, in his opinion, the priv,lege of returning
representatives should be limited. He begged to throw
himself on the indulgence, on the generosity of the House
for a few moments. It was with great pain he intruded open
them et all. But, unconnected as he was with all parties
in that House, it was only by throwing himself on their
generosity that he could hope to be able to proceed He hail
felt it conscientiously his duty to vote for the second read-
ing of the Bill in December; and in cemequence be
had been assailed in various publications, and subjected
to all the vituperation in which the press of this country
sometimes indulged. He was so convinced, however. of
the great utility o the Press in general, that he had not
been disposed to make any forme! complaint to the House
upon the subject, or to call for the permishmmnt of those
who, in his person, had made so direct an attick on their
privileges. The reasons why lie had voted for the second
Treeing of the Bill in December, although he had opposed
it in June, were, that Minister: had !made some important
concessions in the provision of the measure—that the
circumstances of the times were materially changed—that
the agitation of the question had paralyzed the commerce
of the country—that, for the first time in the financial
history of the country, all hope of a surplus revenue had •
ceas,d—th.,t there was general discontent among the
people—and that there was such insubordination among
the inferior classes, and such an abeyance of authority
among the superior, that in some of time principal towns
and cities of the 'kingdom the ni d. had ot.taioed uncon-
trouled I,os=essi n of power Under such rircurnat :nee.
he fe's ;t to Imp most desirable that the question should, it
possible, be settled. The country was not in the immune
seuation as that in which it was in 1830, when the Right
Hon. Baronet under him made the unfortunate declaration,
that to take a step to Reform anything was the way to
prevent the Reform of everything. —(Question, ques•ion.)
He was sorry to intrude on the attention of the House,
but having been charged in one of the diurn ml prints with
being guilty of apestacy and treachery, he had been desi-
rous, however unwilling, to come in contact with the Press,
to exonerate himself from such an imputation. Any
objection that he now made to the Bill was not made
in a spirit of hostility : on the contrary, it was made
with a desire to see the B;11 rendered a satisfactory
measure. He had already shown that the thirty
boroughs should not be included in schedule B on
the ground of disfranchipenment ; he would now shoe,
that they need not be included in it on the ground of en-
frenchissment. On what principle was it that the thirty
boroughs comprehended in schedule B were to lose each
eras Member? For the purpose of conferring the right ot
returning thirty representatives on other places. Now he
willingly admired that latge manufacturing and commer-
ciel communities which had grown up from insignificance
to importance were fully entitled to represent itivt a who
could conduct their peculiar interests in Parliament; but
to the proposal to give representatives to large masses of
the popul ttion, whose interests were already sufficiently at-
tended to in the House, was, in his opinion, unnecessary
and injurious. That observation applied to many of the
places to which representatives were givon by the Bill.
There would be no difficulty in deducting fifteen 3lembers
demon schedule C, and five more from schedule D. As to
the proposition for giving three Members to certain
counties, it was calculated only to produce disunion, ex-
crement, and confusion. From these, ten more Members
might be deducted. One of the most injudicim us and in-
exeedient class of additions was, as be had already observed,
to towns and places already sufficiently represented. Ile
or. that eround, deduct all the proposed Members
for the metropo'itan ttistriets. By the process which he
had described, thirty Members would he obtained, being
exactly equivalent to the number diminished by schedule
B. The diminution was, therefore, unnecessary for the
amount of enfranchisement which in his opinion ought to
take place. Feeling allegiance to no one, with reference
to ties question, but to the country, he should continue to
persevere in the course which, after much consideration,
appeared to hen calculated to effect a beneficial purpose;
and on the grounds which he had stated ime would vote for
the Right Hon. Gentleman's motion.
Lord EASTNOR said that all who knew him were
aware that he had steadily opposed time Reform Bill. He
felt as strongly as ever that he could not have adopted that
itnea•mre lo the faithful, honest, and conseientious dia-
charge of his duty. He felt compelled to oppose that Bill
because it was a complete reconstruction of that House, in
a manner which appealed to him replete with danger to
the country. The circumstances which hid since occurred,
however—the approbation which the Bill had received
from a vast mass of the populetion, and from a consi-
deratmle part of time property ot the country, and the con-
viction which had grown up in his mind of the impossi-
bility that any Administration could in future conduct the
affairs of tee country with that strength indispensable to
success while the nomination boroughs were in existence,
had induced him to make up his mind to the abolition of
those boroughs, and to the conferring of the elective fran-
chise on some of the considerable towns now unrepresented.
Thus tar he was prepared to go, but he could go no further.
His apprehension of the Bill as it st.od at present was,
that it would underinine and destroy the Constitution by
making that Melee the representative of the excited passions.
of the people, rather than of their calm, sober, and de-
liberate judgment. It wets impossible to doubt that if that
were once to be the case, the Constitution was gone. With
this view it would, fur instance, be impossible for hint to
vote for the accession of the Metropolitan Members. He
never could vote for the Bill while the clause including
those Members remained in it ; for it appeared to him
that it was precisely calculated to produce the very mis-
chief he apprehended ; because where so many represen-
tatives were backed by so immense
de
a constituency,rrdanr-
ous excitement was in the
highestgnreetel upon, the
the Boone]
th
What-
ever alteration, however,
it was carried into effect wase deterini
setter. For as long as the
present question was agitated, attention could ant be paid
to the condition of the poor, to the state of manufactures,
commerce, and agriculture, and to other important sub-
jects which required examination. There were two or
three other parts of the Bill, which it left in it, wou.d
prevent him from voting fur it. He felt strongly that in
its present shape the Bill would be disadvantageous to the
landed interest. There was one particular clause which
Went to take away from the landed interest the weight

which he was sure the authors of the Bill were desirous it
te.iould possess. He alluded to tte clause by which the
votes of certain residents in cities were to be thrown into
counties. Now the two descriptions of individuals, the
tosidents in town and the residents in the country, had
listinct interests; and the admixture of the fortner in
thto.e elections which ought to he strictly confined to the
litter, must have a very pernicious effect.
Mr. WEYLAND spoke at some length against the
principle of the Bill, hut in so low a tone that his observa•
tions were not heard in the gallery. We believe be said,
that if the Government went on the plan of giving a new
eawstitutional syatain of this country, then he could un-
oar-stand them ; but he was utterly at a I..ss to compre-
hend how they could hope to improve the present system
by a Bill so full of anomalies as that now under considera-
tion.
[A short,tatured and rather mean-looking man, but respect-
ably aftil•ed, rose in the middle of the gallery when the Hon.
MeMber concluded, and exclaimed—" Gentlemen"—Several
persons, in his immediate vicinity, attempted to restrain him,
and pointed out the danger which he incurred by a breach of
the privileges of the Loose, but he indignantly resisted their im-
portunities, and again exclaimed—" Gentlemen, I am com-
manded by the Lord God to till in this House the office of a
Prap:ict. In the month of Lst January"—The Chairman of the
Onnmittee here called for the Serjeant, and the Messenger put
an abrupt termination to the history of the process of inspiration.
The poor Prophet suffered himself to be conducted quietly out
of the gallery, and proved, we understand, so harmlessly insane,
that he was in a few minutes afterwards discharged out ofcustody.
The whale arfOir excited very little at teotion.7
Sir R. PEEL proceeded to say, that he had last Session
so fully discussed the principle involved in the present
clause, that he had then little to add, but that after the
moaturest investigation of the subject, and wholly unin-
fluenced by what had been said on former occasions, be
had arrived at the conclusion—similar to that formerly
stated by him—that it would be as injurious as it would
ise unconstitutional to take away from the 30 boroughs
set down in schedule B the right of returning more than
one Member each. The very principle on which Mi-
nistei a attempted to justify the total disfranchisement of
schedule A, went to show that they were wholly unwar-
raniel in depriving the borooghs of schedule B of a int&ty
of their representation. For what was that principle?
Why, that the boroughs in schedule A were mere nomina-
tion boroughs.—(Hear.) Now, for the sake of argu-
ment, let it be granted that they were nomination boroughs,
and that as such it was tight to wholly disfranchise them,
did it follow that therefore boroughs which Ministers did
not and could not designate to be nomination ones, should
in like manner suffer entire or partial disfranchisement ?
—(Hear, hear.) Either the boroughs in schedule B
were nomination boroughs or they were not ; if they were,
why, on the Ministerial principle of disfranchisement.
should they be permitted to return any representatives '
whatever ? If they were not, why deprive them of their

full complement of Members ?7(11-nr..) Would it not he

much more desirable—even with a view to check the evils
of nomination—to add to the number of those small
boroughs which were not under the influence of individual
Patrons ? Then if they were to retain the right of return-
ing Members at ail, would it nut be better to prevent the
~,n.eronces of party collision and compromise, by allow-
ing those places to return two representatives? Bi.t all this
he ha 1 entered into so folly on a former occasion, that he
need not then repeat it. One word with respect to the
clause fixing " 56 " as the number of boroughs to be
contained in schedule A, on which he had expressed his
•eutimeute on Friday last. On that occasion he had asked
for delay in order that they might have the evidence hefore
them on w!;ich they were c died upon to agree to a propo-
sition for depriving 56 boroughs of their franchise privi •
ges, but was left in a minority, \lini'ters refusing to
grant his rational reqncst. Judge of his surprise—indeed,
he would say humiliation,—on finding on the morning of
Sa,tirday, on his table, the very inlermation which Ministers
refused to tarry fur even one day, and on a motion to olnain
which delay he had, at ten o'clock on Friday night, been
outvoted. The v,.ry promptitude with which the infiirmation
was furnished snowed not only the justness and timeliness of
his reqt;est for a short delay, hut also the essential im
portanre of the information required to a due investiga
tion of schedule A. Indeed, on this last head, there were

I the " instructions" of the Home S-cretary of State to the
gentlemen appointed to examine into and report upon the
houndariea, population, taxe', rent ,1, &c., of the several
cities an I boroughs included in the schedule of the present
Rll, insisting upon the necessity of full and accurate in-
formation as of the last importance to the discussion o!
the de'a'ls of those schedules. As, however, Ministers
had refused to grant this information in the fist instance,
it was but fair to presume that the !notion, fixing upon
fifty-six as the numl,er of boroughs to be contained it,
schedule A, did not preclude a discussion of the merits of
!lie particular boroughs) to make up that number.—
(Hear.) The evidence, he was sure, that it would not tie
possible to fill up that number without violating the very
principles on which Ministers protested ti ground their
proceedings—but more of this on a future occasion. Tie
argument of the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer jut.
tificatory of the clause fixing upon the number fi:ty-six,
struck hint as unusually unsatisfactory. The Noble Lord
I said, " We take fifty six, because that is the ❑umber of
boroughs set down fur disfranchisement in our former Bill.
Wed° not go farther, because we might thereby risk the
success of our measure in the House of Lords, it being not
probable that those who rejected a Bill with fifty-six dis-
franchised boroughs -.vould sanction one containing more ;
and we cannot insert a lets numhtr, because the country
which approved of the tnrmer Bill would not be satin-
tied with a less efficient disfranchisement schedule." To
this he would reply, that though it might not be politic to
send up a Bill with a larger number of disfranchised bo-
roughs than 56 to the House of Lords, it did not follow
that it would not be very politic to send up one with a
less number.—( Hear.) And then, if the circumstance of
ti,e country's having approved of a particular number in
a former measure were an argument compulsory for such
number being retained in the new Bill, how did it happen
that Ministers fixed upon " 30" as the number for schedule
" B," being eleven less than the number in the Bill ap-
proved of by the people ?—( Hear.) If the country would
be satisfied with 30 instead of 41 boroughs as the com-
plement of schedule B, was it not probable it would be
equally satisfied with 50 instead of 56 boroughs in sche-
dule A ?—( Hear.) And if the number was to be thus
taken at haphoz.ard in the first instance with regard to
schedules A and B, without any reference to circumstance .s,
might not the country be d s-atisfied that some pet number
should not also be beforehand fixed upon for schedule C,
which Ministers left to be determined by circumstances ?
Ile should like to bear these questions answered. The
Right Hon. Baronet concluded with saying that he would
move either that the present clause he omitted altogether,
or, what would practically be the tame, that each borough
in schedule B should be permitted to retain its two Members.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in answer to the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet's complaint of the refusal of delay for information re-
lative to the boroughs in schedules A and B, before time
motion for fixing upon the specific number of those bo-
roughs, had only ,0 state that the evidence had no direct
reference to any number, but to the particular boroughs
which in a future stage, and after the evidence shall have
been laid before the House, it !nay be expedient to set
down for disfranchisement. If Ministers had framed the
clans? to the effect that there should be 56 boroughs, each
containing not more than 2,000 inhabitants, or 500
houses, then it might be reasonable first to ask for inform-
ation in order to determine whether so many boroughs an•
swering to the description could be found ; but the pre-
sent question admitted not of such cavil, it being a matter
(.f well•knewn certainty, that there were not less than
100 small boroughs in England whose representatives it
would ,he mockery to consider as the representatives of
the people of England.--(Hear, hear.) Ministers, then,
in retaining the disfranchisement clauses of their former
Bill, and filling up time 56 boroughs of schedule A, and
the 30 boroughs of schedule B, as was proposed in the
present measure, were only carrying into effect the great
principle of their measure, which was to make that House
virtually, and not nominally, the representatives of the
people of England.—( Hear, hear.) That they were war-
ranted in fixing upon 56 boroughs for total disfranchise-
ment, would he made clear by the evidence alluded to by
the Right Hon. Baronet. From that evidence it would be
seen, that many small places now returning Members to
tiat House had no electors, no returning officers, and,
in some cases, were without any defined limits or
boundary.—(Hear, and cheers.) Beeralston, for example,
according to the papers on the table of the House, had nut
one resident voter, and the Commissioner could not ascer-
tain who was the returning officer.--(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet had asked why his Majesty's Mini•
sters did not mean to leave these 36 boroughs in the en-
j .yment of two Members : to this he replied, because
they feared lest the boroughs in question might have an
undue weight in the representation. It appeared also to
be the opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet, that the power
of returning one Member, and one only, would give rise to
much local jealousy, bickering, and ill-will ; but who bad
ever heard th t such had been the result of the exercise of
a similar franchise in Abingdon and other places, where
it had been in existence hitherto ? The event, in his
judgment, would prove exactly the reverse, for an election
of two Members, instead of one, generally produced an
increase of party-heat amongst the partisans of the disap-
pointed, inasmuch as the.ptobability of success must have
originally appeared the stronger, and a failure would there-
fore be attended with the greatest bitterness of feeling.
Under the present defective state of the representation, at
.certain crises of unusual popular excitement, the .force of
public opinion, it was true, might occasionally overflow the

duns designed to keep it down, but a moderate party, desir-
ous cnly or fair objects, would have no chance of succ.'ss,
should they O'er themselves to the populace at a general
election.—(C!eers from the Opposition.) He repeated that
Close who only desired to tee economy and a fair Fyatem
of national policy adopted by the Legisla!nre under the
exicing form of representation, would inevitably find
themselves defeated by bribery, monopoly, and corrup-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) The present order of things he he
to be the very worst that could possibly prevail in a
realm nominally free, and he therefore wished, instead ef
it, to substitute that which the Constitution had originally

contemplated. He demanded only that the people should
h,+ve the power to send untrammelled an-I enlightened re-
presentatives to discuss their interests in this important
in-inch of the Legi•iative Councils of the nation.
Mr. FANE made a few remarks, which were totally
inaufhble.

Lord SANDON was understood to contend in favour
of the rett nti ,n of franchise in the rural boroughs.

Mr. ADEANE would not consent to pledge himself to
interfero with the franehiz,e in these 30 boroughp, without
previothly inqui,ing into the i xtent of their claims to re-
tain the frdnehise as i- now stood.

Lord AL THORP observed, that the Hon. Gentleman's
argument would have been much stron;cr under the
former Bill than it was at present, as it had been already
decided by the House of Commons that 41 boroughs wen•
not entitled severally to a larger share in the representation
than Ministers now proposed to allow to the 30 in this
seledule.—( Hear, hear.) It was not likely, therefore,
that these 30 would include any borough which merited an
additional Member, and he had no doubt that they would
all of them he very sufficiently represented under the ope-
ration of the Bill.
Mr. CROKER said, that placing 30 boroughs in a po-
sition in which they had never stood before, was rather a
curious mode of restoring them to the state of constituency
which hail existed before the bribery and corruption of the
last century had reduced them to their present rank in the
community with relation to the Legislature. He stood
upon the argument of his flight Hon. Ftiend near him,
and maintained, that the number 30 could hot be thus par-
tially disfranchised on any rational principle of fairness or
sound policy. Even supposing the schedule curried, their
next step must be to alter the Bill as at present worded,
for Totness, which now stood in the schedule, must be
tal;en out of it, and Wallingford, it appeared, was to be
substituted in its more.
Mr. C. PELHAM made some observations, the purport
of which we could not catch.
The question was then put, and the gallery was cleared
for a division, when the numbers were_
ror the original motio❑ '2.10
For the amendment
Majority for Ministers

Oa our re-admission to the gallery, we found Sir R.
PEEL on Lis legs, the question before the Cou:mittee being,
that the part of the clauie following the words " from and
after the end of this present Parliament" form pat t of the
Bill. We understood the Right Hon. Baronet as declining
to offer any formal opposition to this part of this clan.e.
Mr. D BROWNE would not interfere with the pro-
gress of the Engli-h Reform Bill, but would consider it his
duty to propose hereafter a certain number of additional
Members for Ireland.

Sir R. VYVYAN objected to the discrepancies in the
returns respecting Ttristock, Ashburton, and other ho-
niughs, the returns of the Commis:ioner rating the number
of houses lower than those of the returning officer. The
Hon. B tronet also complained of some numerical errors,
and protested sgAmst the loose mode in which the business
of disiranchisement had been conducted.

Lord J. RUSSELL would not enter upon the subject of
Tavistock until a aub.equent stage of the proceedinc,4.
He would merely say that the return of the Curntnis.ion:r
had bee❑ taken in framing th:! 1311.

Sir R. VYVYAN said that the ground of his vunplaint
was, that in the Parliamentary pader, No. 2, t':e borough
of Tavistock was rated by the return, nut of the Commis-
ioner, but of the returning officer.—(He,r.)
4:iri.rise.l to hear a cheer from the other side of the
hion,e, as the Noble Lozd's (Russell's) reply had only eon-
firmed his statement.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that when the Bill was
brought in, he (Lord J. Russell) bad states], that the re
corn was incorrtct, but that inquiry should be made. In-
quiry had b, en made; and now the Hon. Baronet corn-
Wainer' because the originally inaccurate number ha 4 b en
corrected, and the rtaht pitcher put in its pare.
Mr. CROKER referred to the paper No. 8, as the
amended return of Lieutenant Drutnmond, and supposed
that his Hun. Friend had not had the opportunity of
seeing i,.
Mr. STANLEY begged to remind lion. Members of
the question before the Committe.
The second clause, enac•ing that each of the 30 boroughs
enumerated in rel,e,lnle B should only return one Member
to Parliament, was put and arced to.
The third elitist-, enacting "that each of the plat:. is
named in schedule C. should, for the:purposes of that Act,
he a borough. and should as such borough include the
place or places respectively which should be comprehended
with,n the boundaries of such borough, as such bfiunda-
ries ahoul I be settle I and dceritied by an Act to be passed
fur the purpose in the present Parliament ; and that each
of the said boroughs named in the said schedule should,
from and afrer the end of the present Parliament, return
two Members to serve in Parliament," was then read.

Lord J. RUSSELL, with respect to the present clause.
in which the number of places enumerated in the schedule
C was not specified, intended to follow the conrse pursued
in last session, and take the schedule as p irt of the clause.
lie had mentioned the subject to the Speaker, who ap-
proved of that mode of proceeding. The schedule C
would therefore come under the consideration of the House
immediately after the enacting part of the 3d clause should
be agreed to.
Mr. CROKER said, that his only objection to the pro-
posed course was, that he should be drawn quite unawares
into the discussion of schedule C, for he had imagined the
all the schedules were to be postponed until the rest of the
Bill had been disposed of.
Lord J. RUSSELL made a few observations in reply
across the table, but they were not heard in the gallery.
Mr. CROKER perceived that the present clause pro-
vided that a Bill should be brought in to ascertain the
boundaries of the new boroughs, but notwithstanding that
the boundaries of almost all the old boroughs hail been
altered by the Commissioners, no provision had been made
for the introduction of a all to determine those boundaries.
Lord J. RUSSELL informed the Hon. Gentleman that
it seas intended to inti educe a Bill for that purpose.
Mr. GOULBURN conceived that it would be utterly
impossible for the II use to come to a definite decision
with respect to the boroughs named in schedule C, until
the Bill determining their limits was before the House.
He therefore wished to know when it was the intension of
Ministers to introduce the Bill for ascertaining the limits
of the new boroughs?
Lord ALTHOIIP said it was impossible for him to
answer the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
present moment, but he could assure him that it was in a
state of forwardness, and that no time would be lost in
introducing it,
Sir C. WETHERELL said, that the Bill for defining
the limits of the boroughs ought to go hand in hand with
the Reform Bill.

Lord NEWARK thought that the object of his pro-
posed alteration eras sufficiently apparent upon the very
face of it; it was to get rid altogether of schedule D,
without interfering with the adjustment in point of num-
bers of the 63 new borough Members with the 63 new
county Members, as proposed by his Majesty's Govern-
, ment. The Committee would recollect, that when the
principle of schedule D was so ably attacked by the Noble
Lord, the Member for Northamptonshire, who moved in
tke Committee in Aueust last, that the 26 hot oughs then
in schedule D should return two Members each, one
principal ground of resistance to that Noble Lord's mo-
tion which was urged was, that it went to destroy the ba-
lance, and that it would be a sort of breach of faith to the
agriculturists if, for the sake of getting rid of schedule D,
we were to have added 26 Members to the commercial
towns. But, if his memory served him, it was at the
same time admitted, by most of the speakers, and on al-
most all hands, that schedule D was faulty in principle,
though the mode then imposed did not appear to the House
to tie the best way of getting rid of it. It was the recol-
lection of what passed then, which had induced him
to guard his proposition against any similar objec
tion. He did not propose to destroy ti 3 balance as now
adjusted, or in any way to affect the balance or the num-
bers; except that as 63 happened to be an odd number,
that would make a difference in the numbers created by
the new schedule C, as compared with the present C and
D; and that one, he thought, if it were given to the
West Riding of Yorkshire, would not derange the balance
much, by being taken out of the schedule of boroughs.
His proposition, then, rested first upon the inexpediency of
left
i 0
that D ;
Ministers,cre;itinga its appearscheiluleDto; ainiidmt,hiait inexpediencyadttlyacknowledged, if
his Majesty's
not openly proclaimed, in the course which they had taken
as to these very schedules. For by the former plan of
these schedules, C and D contained together 53 Members,
out of which actually a M
whereas now, out of 63, leaibr
schedule. In short, it appeared that having ten more
tihtYan was
one-thirdn to
are schedule
Members to give to the towns, they had preferred that
schedulfC should have nine of them, rather than add ten

more places to schedull 1), at one Member a-piece. So
that he thought it looked very much as if they had no
great fancy upon the whole for these Cyclopean boroughs
in schedule D. Now, his objection to the principle of a
schedule D was twofold ; first, as to the places themselves,
because he thought it was furnishing the majority in those
populous towns with the power of utterly extinguishing'
rnd overpowering the wishes and opinions of the mi-
floe ity; and because he thought nothing so likely to
provoke violent contests ; and it ought not to he over-
locked that, in many of these places, that majority would
probably lie of the lower, rather than the higher order
of voters. And next, as to the general effect upon the
country ; be could imagine no means more con-
ducive than the creation of this schedule D, to a succes-
sion of interminable claims on thee part of many other
places, now treading close upon the heels of the smaller
places in the schedules, and which moat infallibly dtoi irre-
sistibly urge those claims if they see the principle of one
M,mber acted upon ; and he would ask what should we
he then prepared to meet them with, or how should we
make room for them, but byre-opening the qmstion of di,-
franci•ernent ? How should we resist Bradford in Wilt-
shire, and Trowbridge, and Doncaster OH ah,ve 10,000),
and Leek in St,ffordsbire, and Mansfield in .:Vittingh..ev-
shire, and Copgleton in Cheshire, with little shott of
10,000 each, ufficss we drew some definite line, and did

away with this plan of one Member? Tht.se were some of
the grounds upon which he objected to a schedule I), and
it now only remained for him to say a few words with
respect to the manner in which he had ventured to pr.-
pose to get rid of it. Of comae there were three ways of
doing this; he might have proposed to merge ihe whole
of 1:0 in C, but that would have ri quired addition of
disfranchisement, for the two together wool I have tequired
eighty-two Members instead of sixty-three, or he m,ght
have proposed to omit the enfranchisement. of any of the
places now in schedule ll ; but ti, is would have destroyed
any thing like a balance between the new county and pew
borough Members, as the former world then have been
sixty-three, and latter only forty-f mr. Thereremained the
third course, which was to adhere to the numbers as now
proposed ; but to say to the towns, " we will give to the
thirty-one most consider side among you each its two Mem-
bers, and whichever of you can prove yourselves so entitled
shall be enfranchised accordingly." Thi-, therefore, was the
course which be had ventured to propose. He was not pre-
pared at the present moment !•() say which were the places
which would probably fail in making out their claim, but
the test of houses and assessed taxes being once applied,
vi.old 1 aye no doubt or difficulty- in determining thet
point. In urging these considerations, he had no desire
to see impairer! the great and suhstanti.,l boon which •his
8,1 l offered to the p.ople. It must be unnecessary for
him to state that he brought forwatd this proposition from
no feeling of hostility towards the Government or their
measure. At the saute time it was tepidly unnecessary
for him to say, that their only title to his humble suppot t
must rest upon the merits of their mea-ures. He trust d
that his conduct as an unpledged Measlier of Parliament
through the Committee on the late Bill, would have ,L,ffi..
ciently proved that he was not one of those who were
liberal merely from compulsion, or whose prtrio•ism was
merely to he measured by the extent of their pledges. In
tt inging forward this a!teration, his only desire was, that
that settlement to which our efforts had been so earnestly
long directed should lie as satisfactory and as nc
final as possible.
After a few words from Mr. CROICKIt and Lord AL-
Titortr, which were totally inaudible in consequence of
the continual buzz of conversation among Members in the
blouse, the enA sling part of the third claw, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then put clause 4, which enacts that
emit of the places named in schedule I) shall be a borou:,.l),
and return one Member to Parliament.
Mr. CHOKER expressed an opinion that the giving of
one Member to newly created boroughs would be produc-
tive of inconvenience and mischief.

Cui,mel WOOD gave notice that at the proper oppor-
tunity be would move that Merthyr-Tydvil should return
one Member.

The claw,: wa4 titan agrfe•! to.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question on clause 3,
which is as follows :
And be it enacted, that the borough of New Shoreham shall,
for the purposes of this Act, include the whole rape of Bram-
ber, hi the county of Sussex, save and except such parts of the
said rape as shall be included in the borough of Horsham, by an
Act to be passed for that purpose in thiS pre ent Parliament
and that the borough of Cricklade shall, for the purposes of this
.A_ct, include the hundred: and divisions of Highwortb, Crick_
lade, Staple, Kingsbridge and Mahnesbury, in the county of
Wilts, save and except such parts of the said hundred of
Malmesbury as shall he included in the borough of Malmesbury
by an Act to be passed for that purpose in this present Parlia-
ment ; and that the borough of Aylesbury shall for the purposes
of this Act include the three hundreds of Aylesbury, in the •
county of Buckingham ; and that the borough of East lletford
shall, for the purposes of this Act, include the hundred of Bas-
seilaw, in the county of Nottingham, and all places locally si-
tuate within the outside boundary or limit of the hundred of
Bassetlaw, or surrounded by such boundary, and by any part of
tie county of York, or county of Lincoln."

Mr. GOULBURN ebset ved, that this clause proceeded
upon a correct prineip'e, by establishing t'-e boundaries of
the boroughs, instead of leaving, them to be defined by
another Act.—The clause was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN next put the question on the clause
which enacts that the towns of Weymouth and Melcumbe-
Regis stall he deemed and token to Le one borough ; that
the towns of Penryn and Falmouth shall be deemed and
taken to be one borough ; tie the towns of Sandwich
and Deal shall be deemed and taken to be one borough,
and that each borough thus formed shall return two Mem-
bers to Parliament.
Mr. FRESHFIELD objected to the union of the two
places. There had, he said, always existed a considerable
degree of jealousy between Penryn and Falmouth. The
ba)s belonging to the two places were accustomed to fight
battles with each other, and no Penryn man was ever
known to marry a Falmouth woman, and vice versa. The
town were likewise rivals in trade. If they should be
uni•ed, every election would be attended with contests
which would disturb the public peace. If Ministers thought
that Falmouth ought to return a Member, they might
place it in schedule D. Under these circumstances, he would
move that all that pat of the clause which related to
Penryn and Falm,mth be omitted.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that all the information a hien
Government had received showed the propriety of uniting
the two places.
Mr. GOULBURN complained that Ministers kept all
their information to themselves, and gave none of it to the
House.

The amendment Iraq then put, and n.gatived.
Mr. GOULBURN nt.xt expre6sed hhi objection to the
union of Sandwich and Deal.

A NlEatern said that the inhabitants of those towns de-
precated the tini,,n.

Mr. CROK ER moved " that Aldehurgb and Orford,
in Suffolk, for the purposes of this Act, be d,emed and
taken to be one borough, and from and after the present
Parliament do send one Member to Parliament."

Lnrd J. RUSSELL objected to the motion, as they were
both inconsi:l”rable places.
. _

Sir C. WETLIERELL concurred in the motion of the

Rivht lien. Gentleman.

Mr. CROKER declined dividing the Committee on the
present occasion. If he should think it right, after fur-
ther inquiry, be should again bring the motion forward.

The amendment was then negatived, and the clause
agreed te.

Before elatie 7 WAS read,

Sir R VYVYAN gave notice that when the Bill was
before the House, unless he was better advi'ed, and unless
there was more evidence berme the House, he should move
that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, to be
chosen by ballot, to consider the propriety of limiting,
bounding, and dividing, the boroughs as may appear just.
Sir C. WETHKRELL and Lord ALTHORP made a few
observations, which could not be heard.
Sir IL PEEL complained of the errors in the •ulu•
minous papers before the Howe. If the further papers
were to be equally voluminous, he hoped they would be

more correct.
Sir C. WETIIERELL made a similar remark, and in-
timated a wish that the clause should be suspended till the
volurninous returns were presented in a more correct shape.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was deemed better that Par-
liament should have the office of adjudicating upon these
returns, which were therefore laid before the House as they
were received. Although there was no report, the map
would show the boundaries of places.
Mr. KNIGHT observed that the intention of this clause
was, that the representation should be regulated hereafter
according to limits to he defined by an Act of Parliament
which the present clause declares shall pass. Either the
Crown therefor,, might be precluded from its prerogative
of dissolving Parliament, or the country might be left
without a Constitution. He, therefore, gave notice of a
clause which should provide that this Act should not take
effect till the Boundary Act should have passed.
Mr. WILKS objected to the clause as too extensive, and
beyond the necessity which the measure of Reform required.
The clause was then read.
_ _

Mr. WILKS moved that the words in the clause" that
every city and borough in England, which now returns a
Member to serve in Parliament (except the several cities
and boroughs enumerated in the said schedule A, and the
several boroughs of New Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury,
and East Retford)," be omitted for the purpose of insert-
ing the words, " every city and borough in schedules B,
C, and D."
Before the question was put, a conversation took place
betiveen.,,Alr. Robinson, Mr. J. Campbell, Lord John Rut.

.111,

.

sell, and Sir H. P,el, the purport of which it was in:-
possible to catch.
Mr. KNIGHT moved the addition to the clause of
which he gave notice,—namely, that this Act should not
take effect till the Act for defining the limits of the
boroughs shall have passed.

Lord ALTIIORP thought the amendment unnecessary,
as he believed the ease was provided for in another part
of the B 11.

Mr. KNIGHT did not find that any such provision was
made in any ptrt of the Bill.
Lord ALTHORP observed, that it would be better to
move the amendment as a separate clause.
Mr. KNIGHT would withdraw it, on the understand-
inz that the Noble Lord would introduce such a clause.
Loyd ALTHORP said, he would prefer not going
into it now, as he was taken rather by surprise by the
amendment.

Mr. CROKER ,ugae•ted that, as it was now rvir the
time (twelve o'clock) fixed for the termination of the
Gotninittee, it would be better to report progress, and by
the next sitting of the CAninittce the N“ltle Lord would
have had time t,+ con,ider of it.—:Crit:s of " Go on.")
Mr. G BANKES said, ,hat in fa.rne.s to both sides
they aught now to report progress, and he made a motion
to that effect.

After a few words from Lord ALTHORC and Sir T.
FREMANTLE, it was agreed that the Chairman Jrou!d re-
port prm.trrs,,.

WILKS gave notice thathe would move hisamend-
ment on thy bringing up of the report.
The House then resumed, and the Chairman having
reported progress obtained leave to sit again to-morrow
(t his day.)
VESTRY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE mined the second reading, of
this Bill. It was not his intention to go into the details
of the Bill at that late hour, but if the House would per-
mit the second reading, he would enter into them on
going into the Committee. He would only observe at
present, as a proof that the Act lately passed on thin sub-
ject could not he carried into operation in many pari,hrs,
that in the parish of St. James, Westminster, there were
upwards of 2,800 rite-payers, and that under the present
Act only 135 couhl vote in vestry. This was the result
of the amendments introduced into the late 13,11 by the
Hcolse of Lords, and never could hive been the intention
of the L gislature i❑ an Act which purported to give
io the parishioners a controul over their own afftirs
in vestry.

Mr. MACKINNON said that the Bill which the Hon.
Baronet had introduced would give the controul of the
affairs of the parish into the hands of the lowest class of
the pari.hioners.
Mr. WEYLAND said that the 2,800 individuals to
whom the Hon. Baronet had alluded might qualify the rn-
sdves as voters by paying the rates.
Mr. G. LAMB urged upon his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Westminster not to press this Bill at present. He
thought thaw it would be a most premature piece ~f- legis-
lation to introduce a 1311 to amend an Act until time had
been given to see how the late Bill would operate; but
as yet it could not be carried into effect, for no parish
could bring the late Act into operation until March.
Sir C. FORBES was of opinion that before any altera-
tion was made in the late Act, time ought to be given to
see its operation.

Mr. HUME regretted to find an opposition given by the
Government to the Bill of h e Hon. Friend, and the more
so, as he had been given to understand lay several who had
applied to him en the subject, that bard Melbourne ha 4
promised that the late Act should be amended. The Bill
sent up to the Lords was a good one, but its best provi-
sions were destroyed there. If the Bill were allowed to
to a Committee, he would undertake to show that the
Act, as it now stood, was inoperative; as that few, if any,
parishe, could c :ray it int, effect.
Mr. nuNT supprted the second reading of the Bill.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE, in reply, contended that the
Bill now before the House was necessary by the great de-
fects in the Act of the last Session.

Tie Howie then divided, when these appeared—
For the second reading
Against it 4

Majority against the s.cond reading
The Corporate Funds Bill writ through a Committee.—
Rrrort to-rnorrov,..
The Erni); zzleinent Prevention Bill wai read a seconi
time.—'lb be committed to-aiorrow.

On the motion of Mr. Wmtauirros, the Anatomy Bill
went through a Committee, pro forma.
The report was received, and ordered to be taken into
further consideration on Wednesday next.
The Charity Estates Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
Mr. W. BROUGHAM, after briefly adverting to the
case of two individuals who are at present imprisoned in
the Fleet for a contempt of the Court of Chancery (to
which subject he had caged the attenrion•of the House on
the preceding evening), moved for and obtained leave to
!Ting in it Bill " to amend and enlarge the provisions of
the Act of the Ist f William IV., cap. $6, for altering
awl amending the law regardi, g commitments by Courts
of Equity for contempt, and the taking Bills pro confesso."
Mr. W. BROUGHAM soon after brought in the Bill,
which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second
time on Wednesday next.
Adjourned at Half• past One o'clock.

His Royal Highness the Duke of SUSSEX
his returned to Kensington Palace from a visit to the Earl
of LICHFIELD, at Renton Abbey. His Royal Highness.
it is un lersteod, did not on this occasion extend his tour
to Coloael WILDMAN, at Newstead Abbey. With respect
to the stories which hare been circulated in the higher
circles of the claims of Sir AuGusres D'ESTE, and Made-
' !noise!". ELLEN D'ESTE, the children of the exalted indivi-
dual by the late Lady AUGUSTA D'AMELAND, it appears
that, in 1806, his Majesty King GEORGE 111. grinned
his Roy license to Letly AUGUSTA. MuenAy to assume
t name of D'AmELANn, which was, in some degree, a
recognition of her affinity to the Royal Family. The
alliance of his Rovil Highness with Lady AUGUSTA Was
formed at home, where they were united on the 4th of
April, 1793, and were re-moiled by banns at St. George's
clutch, Hanover-square, on the sth of December follow-
ing. At the period of his Royal Highness entering into
this ne,rriztee, he wanted nine months of being of age, and
was styled Prince AUGUSTUS FREDERICK:. Hie consort was
the fourth daughter of the late, and sister to the present,
Earl of DUNMORE and the Hon. ALEXANDER. 'MURRAY.
It was confidently asserted at the time that the Prince
addressed a letter to his father, begin permission to re-
linquish his contingent rights in the succession, and to
'retire into the character of a private gentleman, rather
than he sep :rated from Lady AUGUSTA; but this, of
teary t,,
course, could
Royal
n(ab;i4grrrait.ige Actted,as, the marriage was con.
paessted a message in 1772, on the
recommendation of the KING,
who n
Houses of Parliament, authorising them to introduce some
new legislative provision to prevent the descendants of
sent
to both
GEORGE 11. from marrying without the approbation of
his MAJESTY, his heirs and successors. Accordingly a
Bill was introduced, enacting that no descendant of the
body of King GEORGE 11. (other than the issue of Prin_
ce.ses married in foreign countries) is capable of contract-
ing matrimony without the previo is consent of the KING,
signified under the Great Seal ; and any marriage con•
tracted without such consent is void. All persons solem-
nizing, assisting, or being present at any such prohibited
marriage,--incur the penalties of prcemMire. The Court
of Arches, accordingly, by a formal process, pronounced
both his Royal Highness's marriage in England and that
at Rome null and void, and her Ladyship, who lived upart
from the Duke many years, died on the 28th February,
11330. It is now said, that although Sir AUGUSTUS and
his sister are illegitimate by the law of England, the gal-
:ant officer will succeed, in failure of male issue of his pre-
sent MAJESTY and the Duke of CUMBERLAND, to the
Crown of Hanover.
CORONER'S INQUEST.—nn inquest was held
last evening at the Hero, of Waterloo, Waterloo-road, on
the body of JAatEs REID, many years in the employ of Mr.
DEFREE, Savoy-wharf, who died in the station-house of
the above district while in a state of intoxication. A
witness who was in the watch-house when the deceased was
brought in, proved to the police having pushed him in, and
he fell on his head, and the witness never heard him speak
after. The Jury returned a verdict, that the deceased
died from excessive drinking, and reprimande I the police-
men for their inhuman conduct towards the deceased.
THE PICTURESQUE.--A mail has been very
recently started, in connection with the mail from this
town, from Alinehead to the romantic neighbourhood of
the Valley of Rocks, at Linton. A hitherto almost inac-
cessible district has thus, through the spirited conduct of
the General Post-office, been satisfactorily thrown °pit—
a circumstance of which, no doubt, the lovers of the pic-
turesque will not fail to avail themselves at the proper
season.— Taunton Courier. _ _

A correspondent defends the intermixture of
the succory or chicory root with coffee, on the pleas—fir,t,
that it is wholesome; next, that it enables the vender t,
sell his coffee, which, if pure, would be too dear for generid
consumption; lastly, that it tends to destr the monopoly
of real coffee. If all these pleas were true, they would
make up a case to which we should have no objection that
chicory or succory might be sold as such ; but to sell it
mixed up with coffee, and as coffee, is evidently a frdta
Timm