The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-22 00:00:00

THE REFORM BILL.

Lord ALTHORP moved that the House do resolve itself
into a Committee on the Reform Bill.

Mr. CROKER protested against the House proceeding
further in the work of disfranchisement, upon informa-
tion which was avowedly erroneous.
.. _ .

Lord J. RUSSELL would reconsider the case of each
borough, and if it should appear that any one had been
improperly included in the schedule, justice should be
done to it on the bringing up of the report.
Mr. CROKER did not abject to irregularities arising
out of the general application of the same principle. He
only complained that some boroughs were treated in one
way, and others in another. The end of all was, that
Ministers had chosen a blind guide in their search after a
new Constitution.

After a few words from Mr. C. PELitasr, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House upon
the B;11; Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN put the question, that " Appleby, in
Westmoreland, stand part of schedule A."
Lord MAITLAND urged that Appleby ought to be
taken out of schedule A and placed in schedule B. The
information originally obtained respecting Appleby was
erroneous in many particulars.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that in the case of Appleby
there was no known boundary to the borough. The
Commissioners, therefore, had ascertained where the bur-
gage tenements were situated, and had drawn a line round
them, which constituted the limits of the borough. Pre-
cisely the same course had been pursued in similar cases.
Mr. POLLOCK thought that the case of Appleby wag
hardly yet ripe for decision ; but certainly the effect of all
the evidence at present before the House was to show that
it ought to be placed in schedule B. It should be recol-
lected that Appleby was a county. If any town more
than another required that justice should be done to it, it
was a county town. One of the reports upon the table
stated that the town had increased considerably beyond its
original boundaries. The people of Appleby had pre-
sented a petition, in which they stated that they were pre-
pared to show that the entirety of Appleby ought to b.-
included, and not that part of it merely in which the bur-
gage houses were situated. The Hon. and Learned Mem
her here went into a variety of antiquarian and local de-
tails with respect to the boundary of the borough in sup.
port of his argument; and stated that the Mayor of
Appleby was prepared to prove that his jurisdiction ex-
tended beyond the boundary on which the present Bill
proceeded.—(Hear. )

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was certain that no part of
the limits of the borough had been excluded—whether the.
burgage tenants or those of the town. With respect to
the other arguments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
he was quite willing that the Committee should decide
one way or the other as regarded Appleby and Petersfield.
Mr. W. BROUGHAM contended that the boundary
road was only the limit of the barony, and not of the bo-
rough, and referred to the terminal stones and landmarks
of Appleby in support of his position.
Mr. CROKER, after dwelling at some length on the
localities of the borough of Appleby, adverted to the ex-
elusion of the Bondgate, by Ministers, in rating its pre-
tensions to electoral qualification. He stated that thi,
gate, which was formerly the residence of the feudal
" villains," under the protection of the castle, and known
by the name of the Old Applegate, being four times nearer
the protecting fortress than any of the other gates, was
especially entitled to be included in e.titoeting the claim,
of the borough to Parliamentary representation. Had th.
Bondgate been included in the calculation concerning Ap-
pleby, that borough would not have been inserted in seta.-
dela A. A small portion of insulated houses had saved
Tavistock, and the Bondgate of Rippon had enfranchised
Rippon ; why, therefore, should the borough under consi-
deration be made a special sacrifice It had been said in
the course of the discussion on this borough in the last
session of Parliament, that the borough of Appleby ex-
tended into two parishes. lion. Gentlemen on the other
side of the House had taken upon themselves to, deny
this. Indeed, he well recollected that one I-ion. and
Learned Gentleman stated—and his statement made a
great impression on the Committee—that the borough of
Appleby did not extend at all into the parish of St. Mi-
chael—of St, Michael Bondgate ; and, as a proof of his
assertion, added, that the county gaol stood in the% parish.
He did not mean to find fault with that Hon, and Learned
Gentleman fur hazarding that asiiartion—perhaps he had
made it upon imperfect infarmation—but the Commis-
sioners now etateci, in their return, that the borough of
Appleby was in the parish of St. Micheal Bondgate.
(Cheers from the Opposition.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not believe that
Midhuret had been revived to His breath into the body of
its Hon. Proprietor.---(aAeers from the Opposition)—
and, furtherniore, he did believe that there was no
reason for taking it out of one schedule and for placing it
in another, except the operation of the rule laid down by
the Commissioners. If this were conceded to him, it got
rid of the imputation whirr had been cast on this cease by
the Right Hon. Member fur Aldeburgh, and which Le
weir certain would never have been oaat on it by so able a
debater, if he had not felt that there was really nothing in
all his objections to this motion. He was not now de-
fending the ease of Midhurse—(Laughter from the Op- .
positiora) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, for laughter
sometimes served them in lieu of argument, aod sometimes
was useful in diverting their opponents from the real point
which they ought to keep in view.—(Hear.) He main-
tained that the borou4h of Appleby could not be taken out
of schedule At. It had been said, " Why do you not add
tl,oncigate to the borough, to make it of sufficient extent
for schedule B. ?" He replied that it would not be made
of that extent, except the whole parish of St. Michael
Bondgate were added to it. But then it was said that
Bondgate was part of the ancient borough of Appleby.—
Now he was quite sure, that if his Non, and Learned
Friend, who lied displayed so ranch mathematical skill
last night, were to ex,-!t1 his legal ingenuity in address-
ing a Westmorilend jury upon that point, he would Lave
no ehr.-..ee of success in making them believe it, As to
the straight lines of the Cinutoisainarere, they were not
taken as the limits of the koroegh. We know that four
lines drawn from tile four boundary stones include all the
tow y; o Appleby, and all the burgage tenures within it.
The claims of the Corporation of Appleby to an exclusive
jurisdiction did not go beyond those fear boundary stones.
He thought thst the intervent;,:a3 of the hill and the stream
between Bondgate arm tlte castle of Appleby took Bond-
gate out of the protection of the castle and the hatrough.—
For tl.,eae reasons he thought that the Commissioners hail
alone right in fixing the boundary line which they had
drawn. He again repeated that he had not risen to, defend
Midhurst. If there was any thing wrong in the case c f
Midherst, let Midhurst be disfranehisealt at any rate, let
not a wrong in 11,1idlturst he taken as a reason for defend-
ing; a similar wrong i Appleby.—(Hear.)
Sir 0, WV.THERELL said, that after the manner is
wh:ich the obsequies of the borough of Midhnrst had been
performed in the last session of Parliament, amidst the ob-
loquy and reprobation of the Whig borougmongers, who
had consigned it to the tomb with the letters " T. R."
marked ripen its carcass, he did not expect to see its corpu.i,
galvanieed, and one-half of it re-animated for tile benefit of
• its honourable proprietor.—(Cheers and laughter from the
Opposition.) So, however, the
him to inquire, why Wes (watt'. to be shown to the bo-
rough of Mlkct was; and that led
dlautritr tud disfavour to the borough of
Appkby 2—(Cheers from the Opposition.) An Hon,. grad
Learned Friend of his on the other side of the Howe ap-
peared to him to have gone down to Appleby by the caravan.
Now he could not help saying, that after the speech which,
his Hon. and Learned Friend bad delivered that night, he
thought that it would have been much better had his Hon.
and Learned I.riend kept himself to Southwark. His
Hon- and Learned Friend had told the House that there
was in Southwark a liberty called the Clink, into which

1.- • CeilL
Itybeet,j,u,
sraisidaiehtei,on,,
tobfisthlieberMtyagoisfttrhateescldinikd, nwothireuhu
d;oe's' artn0kf12„.0.44.,
'along to Southwark, is added to it by the Reform 1141,W
Ind will be gifted with the elective franchise for that tto;,,'
rough." Why this Clink liberty is the Bonclgate,4,4,' t.
Appleby, and if his Hon. and Learned Friend had not -•
quoted
should certainly have
quoted the Clink-liberty as destructive of A laugh.)
out,it in
His Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General had
he(sir confirmationc. Wetherell) of thec case which he wished to
make
said, "Oh ! but you wish to add to the hisrough of
Appleby." " No"—he (Sir C. Wetherell) replied—" You
wish to take from the borough of Appleby."—(Hear, hear,
froth the Opposition.) We say that this Bondgate is
part of the borough of Applehy by old documents, by pe-
, ramhulathras, bv a Parliamentary survey of the time of
Henry VIII. We say that it is part of the borough far
municipal purposes, and we ask why is it not a part of
the borough for Parliamentary and representative pur-
poses ?—(Cheers from the Opposition.) It was said that
imputations ought not to be cast on the Goverto.
went for wishing to disfranchise this borough.
replied, that a month ought to be spent upon this case—.
(A laugh from the Ministerial henches)—aye, or upon any
case, to avoid such imputations as must rest upon the Go-
vernment, if Appleby was placed in schedule A without
some further explanation. Ministers ought to satisfy all
sides that, in deciding upon the different borota'h. to he
disfranchised, all political favouritism was avoided. and
that one rule was not adopted to throw one borough into
schedule A, and another rule to another borough to rescue
it from the exterminating power of the same schedule.—
(Cheers from the Opposition.)
Lord ALTHORP promised the House that he would
not speak with either the animation or the violence of the
Hon. and Learned Geutlentan who had just sat down—
(A laugh)—for it was a matter of no importance to him
whether it was Appleby or Petersfield that was disfran-
chised.—(Hea,r.) He felt himself bound to vote upon the
case as it appeared before him, and he would therefore
shortly state the grounds of the rote which he intended to
give. The facts of the case were agreed upon, he be-
lieved, on both sides of the House. The facts as stated by
the opposite side were, that there was a perambulation in
1741, headed " Borough of Applehy," and entitled
" Perambulation of the barony and borough of Appleby,"
and that within this perambulation the Magistrates of the
borough of Appleby claimed certain rights, as to license •
alehouses, and to levy tolls. On the other hand, it was
stated that one point had been omitted, and that there was
another record of a more ancient perambulation, said to be
the perambulation of the barony of Appleby, without say-
ing any thing of the borough or the corporation. It ap-
peared from the return and the map accompanying it, that
the boundary stones were properly laid down. It was also
admitted that all the burgage houses were within those
boundaries, and so it appeared from the information furnished
by the Commissioners, who might by possibility have
been mistaken, but if so, they were honestly mistaken ; but
in the case of Appleby it was expressly stated by the Coto,.
mis,ioners that all the burgage houses were included ;at the
return. The corporation of Appleby, it was trios, had
claimed a right of jurisdiction as to the arrest within the
limits of the perambulation ; and also a right to certain
tolls within their borough, such as tolls on goods sold and
delivered therein, as also for goods passing through. But
he begged to mention as an instance of immunity from toll
within certain districts, that there was a mill situated
within Bondgate, and that on flour ground in that will
no toll was payable. Another instance was also afforded
in the case of the fair held on Gallows-hill, within the
parish of Bondgate, but outside of the borough stone, and
beyond the right of the corporation to claim toll on goods
sold at that fair. For these reasons it appeared to bins
that a distinct difference existed, and he would vote on the
present occasion under the opinion that the precincts were
defined by the boundary stones, within which the corporate
jurisdiction was in every way restricted. There were un-
doubtedly several houses situate in Bondgate, but a great
interval existed between them sail the town of Appleby,
and the Commissioner had stated that interval to be a high
hill, and therefore that there was no appearance of Bond-
gate being part of the town. The case of Appleby bad
been compared with that of Midburet in which it had been
..,id partiality had been shown to his Hon. Friend the
Member for that borough t but the House was aware, that
he
it
timl
iganh interesttdbt
eh,
therefore
r:hafosi
re
de Ho
tnhaeen
a.
GwFaoryiv.eend in that
with
Government
bnt
yt
tt borough,
h e
could
p r,voitsi wh
b,,en.cioa,
aft
re
this
ged
with acting partially with respect to these two boroughs,
By the Hill the right of three holes or stones in a wall P-
turning Members to Parliament was done way with,.,.-„
(Hear, hear.) He entertained the same opinion v;ith re-
spect to Midhurst as he did to Applehy, and he cared not
which stood in schedule A. In the former, there existed
no corporation, and there could be no distinction between
one sort of jurisdiction and soother. The present question
was one simply of boundary, and it was asserten that in
Appleby there were two—namely, the liberty boundary,
and the borough boundary ; and he thought, on the
whole, that the latter was the 011 e to be considered in the
present question.—( Hear.)
Sir C. WETHERELL said a few words in explanation.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE said it was the bounden duty of
the Committee to see, that in ascertaining the boundaries,
the Commissioners bad executed their task fairly, and he
did not hesitate to say that in the case of Appleby this had
not been done. In all cases of burgage tenure, suer as
in Appleby, it was. incumbent on the House of Coininona
to see that an ancient borough was not wantonly disfrati-
chi-e.l, The line drawn by the Commissioners in the cause
of Applehy was such as he would venture to say no pro-
fessor woull draw.

Mr. J. SMITH rose amidst loud cries of " Question,"
from under the aide gallery, and spoke in a low tone f
voice. We understood him to say that he assured the
Flonee he had no connexion with the borough he repre-
sented further than possessing, in common with an Hon.
relitiee, the manorial rights of burgage tenure. He de-
nied he had any ohject in augmenting the atuount of as-
sessed taxes in that borough.
Sir R. PEEL acquitted the Hon. Member horn any
such imputation, and when be had alluded to the case of
Midhurst, he had only argued that to take the amount of
assessed taxes as, a qualification was manifestly unjust, and
duing so he did not make the slightest reference to t e
individual case of the Hon. Member who had last spoken.
Putting aside all questions as to the qualifications of bo-
roughs, the main question was the addition of Bondgate
tr the town of Appleby; and he contended that the pt o-
per limits of all boroughs were those which were called
the boundaries of the barony, and not settled by any at,
bitrary limitation. The return itself uniforruly stated,
that in all cases qt burgage tenure the boundaries
were extremely difficult to ascertain, but in the present
instance it was shown, by a reference to the perambulation
made in 1141, that the perambulation of both the barony
and the borough had been made by John Robinson, Mayor,
and the Aldermen, Corporation, and inhabitante of the
said borough, and it was therefore manifest that Bindg.tre
was identical with the barony. In the present instance,
he contended, not that Bontlgate shoiild he included as past
of the borough of Appleby. but that all ancient parts of a
barony should in every case be included; and therefore
that Appleby ohould be taken out of schedule A, and
placid in sobedule B.

- Mr. J. CAMPBELL said, that the question was not as
to the liberties, but as to the limits, of the borough. When
he saw that the Coroner held inquests, and the Magis-
trates granted alehouse licences, it was impossible not to
say tkiAt Yhose districts where this had been done were the
I Lerties of Appleby ; but, notwithstanding this, he eon.
tended that these districts formed no part of the limits of
that town. He felt sati,fied that the Commissioners had
drawn the limits with correctness and propriety.
Sir .1. SCARLETT rose amidst loud cries of " Ques-
tion." He had known Appleby long, and he was not
aware how his 11011, and Learned Friend had obtained the
fact be had jo•t mentioned with respect to the power of
arrest, lc; he (Sir James Scar/ett) believed there was en
record no instance of the power of arrest being exercised
later than 1795, and then only within the four boundary
stones. He was at a loss to imagine on what grminds the
stone!' affixed to mark the statiliis at which tolls were
payable should he d.emed and taken to be the boundaries of
the particular borough in which they might be so erected.
He had never heard of any such principle in law. He
believed that tolls were collected in Covent-garden market
on goo ,s sold within the market, and on the principle
Iwhich had been contended for, it might as well he said the
places where such tolls were payable marked the limits of
'he Bedford estate.

The noise, coughing, and stamping of feet, &c., became
now so violent thet

Mr. CROKER rose and said, with every respect for
those gentlemen below the bar who were interrupting the
proceedings of the House, he should feel it to b,his duty,
if they did not bow to what evidently appeared to be the
wish of the House, to take some elfztual step for the pre-
servation of order.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. SCARLETT then proceeded, He was sorry
in this
sorry to
hear gentlemen calling out Question, gneetion,'
manner.—(Here, from one side of the side galleries, a an-
litary voice called out ‘. Questi,m r in a rernarkolily cc-
alio tone, which excited a burst of laughter.) The Learn; d
gentleman said lie was of opinion that if, inoead of
out " Question," individuals wou:d pay atter:tioli to the
d hate, they would acquit e that inform aim' in wiri•h
present they appeared to be deficient. The Leal-lied
ttentaa then went over his previous argument with vesp.,:k

to the boundary stones. He contended that the case of
the city of London were not i❑ point. The bounds of the
pity of London were perfectly well defined ; and pat of the
walls which formerly. bounded the city were still in exist.
Puce. Where auy alteration had been made, that altera-
tion was noticed by charter. In conclusion, he stated that
he would unquestionably vote against the motion.
Mr. ATTWOOD was at a loss to conceive how Mini-
sters could include Appleby in schedule A, while they ex-
cluded Midhurst from it. The Noble Lord had stated,
t. at for a long time the battle on the subject of disfran-
chisement lay between Peters&ld and Appleby.
Lord ALTHOUP—The Hon. Gentleman has mis-
taken what I said.

Mr. ATTWOOD was very much mistaken if the
Noble Lord had not declared that the struggle with
respect to franchisement or disfranchisement was be-
tween Petersfield and Appleby. If, then, this were
so, the fairest way would have been, not to have
had a debate upon the subject, but to have put the
names of the two boroughs in a glass on the table,
and to have drawn one of them. It was quite clear to
him. that the boundary line with respect to Applebv and
Midhurst had been taken on a different principle. If the
same principle had been acted on with respect to both,
each of then► would have been excluded. He denied that
what the Learned Attorney General had asserted was a
fact—namely, that Appleby was an insignificant place;
and he must say, that if they proceeded in the way now
proposed, they would he doing a palpable irjury to the
people of Appleby who now held the franchise, by thus
deptiving ?hem of a right which was deeply important.
Mr. HUNT ❑ext rose, but the outcry was so great that
be was obliged to give way, when
_ _

Mr. ROBERTSON (we believe) proceeded to address
the House. This gentleman spoke from under the gal-
lery, and it was impossible to collect what he uttered in
the gallery. The only sentence we caught was, that he
was as anxious as any man to rescue his " dear, dear,"
estuary from the afflictions which were now pressing on her.
Mr. HUNT denounced both Appleby and Midhurst as
nomination boroughs and seats of corruption. It would,
in Ilia opinion, I e most unju.t to disfranchise Appleby,
=ad to retain Midhurat. He certainly meant to vote for
ti.e disfranchisement of Appleby ; but he then gave no-
tice, that if they came to the borough of .Midhurst before
twelve o'clock, and he happened to be in the House, he
should unquestionably move for the disfranchiaament of
that place also.
The gallery wag then cleared for a division, when there
Ipptared
Far the disfranchisement of Appleby 256
Against it
Majority ll3
The nest question was, that the borough of Lostwithiel,
Ownwall, stand part of schedule A.
Mr. CROKER. would not divide the House in the
instance of this boroegh, as the principle that applied to
it had been already decided by so large a majority in the
ease of Appleby.
Colonel CUST said that Midhurst had a better r;ght tc
be paced in schedule A than Lostwithiel.
Mr. CROKER said, that if no one else would do so, he
amnia? certainly move hereafter that 3lidhurst should be
placed in schedule A. He should like to know from the
Noble Lord what was the authority for the boundary as-
signed to Loatzvithiel ?
Lord J. RUSSELL referred to the authority, which
was that of the returning officer, and said that the boundary
Commissionera had been, after the former Bill was thrown
nut, deterred from extending their inquiries to those
boroughs in consequence of the threats that ere held
out that their authority in reference to them would not
►be attended to.

Mr. CROKEIt said that the authority as to the
boundary of Appleby had been just rejected by the House,
while the very same authority was that which was now
adhered to in the instance of Lostwithiel,—namely, the
authority of the returning officer.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that there was this great point
of difference in the two cases, which in fact involved the
whole question at issue. In the instance of Appleby there
were two limits stated, one by the returning officer, and
another by the Commissioners. Now they took the latter,
and rejected the tormer. But in the case of Loatwithiel
there was only one stated, and that one was not disputed.
Mr. CROKER certainly would take the sense of the
House hereafter as to whether other boroughs which im-
mediately fo!lowed in the list were not better entitled to
stand in schedule A than those upon which the House was
just deciding.
The question was then put and carried, and Lostwithiel
was placed in schedule A.
The next borough on the list—that of Brackley, North-
amptonshire—was, after a few words from Captain BRAD •
straw, placed in schedule A.
The next question was, that the borough of Amersham,
Buckinghamshire (which completes the liat of 56), should
stand part of schedule A.
Mr. PIGOTT suggested, that as the Right Hon, Gentle.
man (Mr. Croker) had signified his determination to move
that the borough of Midhuret should be placed in schedule
A, they had better dispose of that question before they pro-
ceeded to disfranchise Amersham, which was at present
the last of the 56.
Lord J. RUSSELL would certainly move the disfran-
chisement of those 56 boroughs. Let other Hon. Gentle-
men move if they pleased that more boroughs should be
disfranchised.

31r. CROKER said, that the Noble Lord might move
what he pleased, but that he (Mr. Croker) would certainly
take the liberty of amending his motion. He begged to
move as an amendment "that the borough of Midhurst,
instead of the borough of Amersham, should stand part of
schedule A."

Mr. DRAKE said, that the boundary had not been pro-
perly taken in the case of Ameraham.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL maintained, on the contrary,
that it had.

3lr. JONES said, that both those boroughs should be
disfranchised, and the franchise given to some large town.

Mr. CROKER observed that Midhurst was taken out
of schedule A by adding to it an extensive rural parish,
while, on the other baud, the boundary of Amersham had
been unfairly curtailed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that they always took the clear
boundary when it exited, and when it did not, their prin..
ciple was to take the boundary of the town. It did not
appear that the boundary of the borough of Amersham
extended beyond that of the town.
Sir C. WETHERELL advocated the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. Alderman WAITHNIAN said that he should vote
for the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a
rotten borough, and because there had not been an election
there within the memory of man.

Mr. CROKER said that there was not a syllable that
b td just fallen from the Worthy Alderman which did not
apply to the rase of Midhurst.

'The Committee then divided—
For the amendment. 153
Against it.. 254
Majority against it -101
nn returning to the gallery we found Mr. CRAMER on
his legs, hut were unable to catch his observations.

Mr: POLLOCK had examined Lieutenant Drummond's
mode of calculation with attention, and was convinced
there was some mistake in it. He would prove this by
the examples of Petersfield and Westbury in one case,
and East Grinstead and Wendover in another. In the
ease of Petersfield and Westbury, the superiority of the
one over the other was in taxes—of the other in houses.
Petersfield was 540 taxes compared with 278 ; Westbury
was 526 houses compared with 278. But Petersfield was
lower in the scale than Westbury, and consequently the
superiority of taxes did not produce an effect upon the
result. When be mentioned this last night, he was told
that it was quite right—that it was intended to give a
greater weight to houses. Now let the Committee mark
the other case, for it was just the reverse.—(Hear.) Ea.t
Grinstead had 198 taxes, and Wendover 198 houses ; but
East Grinstead was 131 houses, and the taxes of Wendover
were 124 ; and therefore East Grinstead in respect to
taxes was as 198 to 124, and Wendover in respect to taxes
was as 198 tq 131. Bat East Grinstead, which came
nearer in houses ,than taxes, was put higher in the list
(that is lower in the scale). One"led to the conclusion
that the superiority w♦s as to taxes,-.-the other houses.
There might be some good reasons for Lieutenant Drum-
mond adopting his plan, but be (Mr. Pollock) should be
glad to know them.

Mr. STEPHENSON defended the accuracy of the
principle of calcu'ation adopted by Lieutenant Drummond.
Mr. WARBURTON observed, that the instructions
of Lord Melbourne to Lieutenant Drummond were, that
houses and taxes should be taken together. The com-
mon interpretation of the term together," was that the
sum should be taken, not that the two sums should be
multiplied together. The course taken • by Lieutenant
Drummond was the best, and was conformable to Lord
Melbourne's instructions.
Mr. DAVIES GILBERT said, that it appeared from
the instructions of Lord Melbourne that each of the two
columns were to be equipollent, reducing the fractions to
a common denominator, and adding them togeth*. , That
was what Lieutenant Drummond hid attemptri j and
whatever differences might occur, they would have i!..7ry
slight effect upon the result.
Mr. CROKER objected to the plan of LiAttentint
Prumrnond, that it gave to the boroughs of Westbury

and Peters&ld:relative places which did not belong to them.
The question that Amersham stand part of schedule A
was then put and egres
The question nes then put that Petersfield stand part of
seeedule B.
Mr. SHELL said, that instead of the motion of which
he had given notice, that Eye, Wareham, Petersfield, Mid-
burst, and Woodstock, be inserted in schedule A, he should
move that Petersfield be inserted in schedule A. He took
this course in order not to embarrass the debate. If ho
suce,eded with Petersfield, he should then consider of the
propriety of moving his amendment as to the others. The
object of his motion was, that if the House acquiesced in
addition of the boroughs, it might make an ulterior and
fairer dietrihutiora. Petersfield. which was 57th in the
list, had 278 houses, and Amersham, which was 56th, had
361) : Amersham had 101 101. houses, and Petersfield 89.
If they compared Petersfield with Amersham as to popula-
tion, wealth, and rental number of 101. houses, they would
find that in all these particulars Amersham had far higher
claims to return a Member than Petersfield, though the
latter was placed in schedule B, while the former had just
been knocked down in lot A.—(Hear.) Petersfield con-
tained but 89 101. houses, Amersham 101. Petersfield
contained but 1,443 inhabitants, while Amersham had
2,015. And the rental of Amersham—that is, the value
of the houses in that place—was to the rental value of
Petersfield as 7,0001 to 2,5001.—( Hear.) On whet
ground, therefore, taking the three tests of qualification in
which the present schedules were framed,—namely, wealth,
population, and prosperity,—could it be justified to retain
Petersfield in schedule B, while Amersham was consigned
to schedule A?—(Hear.) He was aware that he might
be told that 56 was the adopted number of schedule A ;
but he had yet to learn the cahalistical virtues of that or
any other number, or why the principle which recom
mended it as the minimum of disfranchisement should not
be extended further, If Ministers Saw reason to depart
from the number of boroughs contained in schedule B of
the former Bill, why not also depart from the schedule A
number ? As a question of a mere nomination borough,
Peterfieid had less claims to a Member than Amersham,
for the population of the latter was increasing, while that
of Petersfield had fallen off since 1821. In conclusion,
the Hon. Member moved that " Petersfield stand part of
schedule A." If he succeeded in that motion, he would
proceed with the next four boroughs,
Lord ALTHORP was free to admit that an fir as the
abstract principle of Reform was concerned, his Hun. and
Learoed Friend's argument was irrefragable. As an
honest Reformer, he could not seriously argue the ques-
tion whether a place comparati-eely so insignificant as
Petersfield should retain the rieht of returning a Membsr
to that House.—(Hear.) But the question then before
the Committee, considered in all its relations, was not one
of mere principle—it also involved considerations of policy
end expediency. It was admitted that, let the number of
schedule A boroughs be what i; may, it must be in degree
arbitrary—that they must draw a line somewhere, the
boundary boroughs on which must appear on the one hand
to be unduly favoured, and on the other to be visited with
ucdue harshness.—(Hear.) Fifty-six was adopted in the
present fill, because op the one hand it was desirable th:t
a less extent of disfranchisement; than the former Bill pro-
posed, and which the public sanctioned, phsolif not be ef-
fected in the new measure; and, on the other hand, it wae
a matter of prudence that the success of the Bill should
not be hazarded in the House of Lords, by sending up to it
is higher number of disfranchised boroughs than was con-
tained in that which they had rejected, As a mere ques-
tion, therefore, of prudence, he would oppose his Hon,
and Learned Friend's 'notice:.
Sir R. PEEL felt himself at- irrinted to dieaw these im-
portant inferences from the Noble Lord's reinarks—nrst,
that the Noble Lord considered the present "final" Bill
but as a temporary measure,—as. in fact, a step towards
a still more sweeping innovation—(" !leer, hear," and
No")—and, in the next place, that it was, not intended
to fetter the independent action of the House of Lords, by
adding to its numbers for the mere purpose of ensuring
the suce,ese of this temporary final measure.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.) The Noble Lord admitted that the
principle of the present motion was irrefregable, but would
nevertheless vote against it for prodential eontideretions ;
" for," says he, "it would not be wise just now to ask
Loo much at once. Let us have this first, and then we
will push for the rest;' showing that the Noble Lord re-
garded the Bill but as: a mere temporary measure. Then
it was but fur to assume that it mss not intended to add
to the number of the Peers who are to discuss the merits
of the Bill; for, surely, the same number that it might be
necessary to create for the purpose of retaining Amersham
in schedule A, wceid suffice to place Petersfield there also,
if principle and onsistency recomrnen4ed it.—(Loud cries
of " Hear.") As to the motion of the Hon, Member for
Louth, he would vote against it, as he had are lily voted
against its principle, but he knew not how those Hon.
Members, who had just by their vote placed Amersham
in schedule A, could reconcile it to their consciences to
place Petersfield in schedule B.—(Elea:.)
Mr. STANLEY had nothing to add to what had just
fallen from his Noble Friend. Ministers never pretended
that the present Bill was free from some apparent ano-
malies; that it was a perfect rule-of-three scheme of re-
presentation —(Hear.) They knew that it contained
blots, but in order to obtain the great object of putting an
end to the nefarious system of borough-jobbing and nos
mineeship, and of admitting the wealth and intelligence of
the country to a share in the decision of the Legislature,
they were willing to overlook minor defective details, and
make some compromises so as to peevept as much hostility
AS possible. —( Hear.) As to the Right Hon. Baronet's
at tful insinuation with respect to the creation of new peerc,
he woehl not say one word—(Hear, hear)—further then
that it was the duty of Ministers not to unnecessarily pro-
voke hostility among the opponents or neutrals to the Re-
form Bill, and that four or five boroughs, more or less,
cite way or the other, was a comprotniee pot too great to
make for the purpose of conciliation and unanimity.
Mr. CROKER very much regretted that the Hun. and
Learned Member for Louth had not delivered his irresis-
tible speech on the 20th of January, when a motion
similar in tendency to that then before the Committee was
proposed from the Opposition side of the House. Had
he done so, fifty-six would not now be the cabalistinsi
number of schedule A, and Amersham would have been
;pared the injustice of being postponed to Petersfield.
the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer need not tell them
that the present Bill was but a temporary measure—" a
measure of expedieney of the moment"—(' No, no,")—
for it was necessarily a shertelived abortion, containing as
it did in its mass of crudities, and injustice, and contra-
dictiees, and absurdities, the seeds of rapid annibilation.
Lord MILTON denied that his Noble Friend had made
use of the words just put in his mouth by tae Itight Hon
Gentleman.—(Hear, bear. ) His Noble Friend merely
said, that the consideration of the peeeent amendment
was a mere question of prudence and temporary e;:pedi-
eney, and in that he agreed with him, and not that the
Bill itself was a mere step to further changes.—(Hear.)
Mr. SHEIL would not—seeing the tone the discusson
had taken, and which be never contemplated---noes hzg
,Notion.._.(Hear, hear.) The sole object was to establish
a strong case for ividing to the Irish representation, by
showing, that by the priociplea of both the former and
the present Bill, inanv Members might lie taken from the
small borough a, which would be advautage4:;siy added to
the representation of Ireland.
Mr. CROKER, in reference to some observations of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Louth, which applied
to him personally, as.sured the Howie that he should never
brine a proposition before them, arid tier. change round
again before he eat down.—(Cheers.)
The original motion was carried, the proposed amend-
ment having been withdrawn.
It was at tir,t proposed to proceed further with the
Reform Bill ; but the opposition threatened to divide the
House on the question of adjournment, and Ministers

I gave way.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave
to sit again this day.
NEW SOUTH WALES.
Mr. DIXON complained that the Governor had caused
considerable distress in this colony, by calling in all the
quit-rents. He wished to know whether the Noble Lord
was apprized of this intelligence ?
Lord ALTHORP had not been previously aw ,re of the
fact, and he had no doubt that it arose out of some miscon-
ception or mistake.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter put One o'clock.

Extract of a letter from an active and liberal
Magistrate of the counties of Kilkenny and Waterford,
d.ted Feb. 18:..-f0 We are stiil in a moat lamentable
state here. The White Feet are predominant iu mast
parts of the country, and nothing is done to stop them.
We have troops enough in our barracks, but they might
as well he in the Hebrides. The police, since the Carrtek-
shock business, arp taken from their different stations, to
be concentrated for their own protection : so they may be
considered as guarded, instead of being able to guard
others. We had better live under Russia, thun c.:; we are.
The clergy are in great alarm at Mr. STANLEY'S in tea.
tion to extinguish tithes, without proposing hitherto any
thing in lieu of them; and our ultra Catholic Press, after
joyously exulting at the announcement of their abolition,
calls upon the people to resist every substitute for them !
-Alts, slat, poor Ireland l"