The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-24 00:00:00

'would not be Uitogether cleared up till the ena of the year.
Now if the amount of taxes was taken at 9011. with the
Cimmissioner's list of houses, this again would take Dart-

mor.th just wit of the schedule 1-3 list ; hut if, as he contended,

the true amount of taxes and the true amount of houses

were taken, Dartmouth would be taken as high up the
list as No. 95, which would place it far beyond schedule. B,

which stopped short at No. Bti. Taking all 'these things,
conjoined with the shipping importance of the borough)
into consideration, he would venture to say, that not fiom
the very first day on which there had been a House of
Commons in England—not from the 49th of Heury
up to the present moment, hid there been an %nitance of a

town, so situated as Dartmouth, being disfranchised—
(Cheers)—and be would further add, that if the House
was determined, in spite of all these things, to disfranchise
that borough, it must be on some other printipie than that
laid down by the Noble Lord—(Cheers)—but if there
was one thing more important than another in this very
importint Bill, it was that they should clearly keep to
some intelligible rule of conduct.—(Loud cheers,) He
had heard it said that it was a matter of very little im-
portance whether Dartmouth had one or two Members.
That might be the case with respect to the community at
large, but it was of the last importance for the Honse to

take care that it did not-deprive any town of its franchise
without some distinct and undeniable rca,,on—(flear)—
and such a reason appeared to him to be entirely wanting
in this cage.--(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that here was only one
observation of the Hon. Member which he thought deserv-
ing of attention, and that 'related to the assessed taxes.

There was one difference between hint anti tire Hon.
_ _

Member. The Hon. Member said that the collector of
the assessed taxes had made the assessment 2JOI more
than it was stated in the list of Lieut. Drummond. He
understood from the tax-office that the assessment !!ad
been made by the surveyor of the taxes, and that his esti-
mate as to the town of Dartmouth was the same '.a that in
the list. He also said that the future taxes would be the
same as the taxes of the past year. There was, however,
a question of fact at issue between "ellen), and that was a suf-
ficient reason for postponing itie question of Dartmouth till
the assertions were reconciled and the fact clearly esta-
blished by further information.—(Hear hear.)
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHI3Y explained.

Mr. HOULDSWORTH denied that there had been
any decrease in Dartmouth, except in relation to New-
foundland, and that was owing to a change in the policy
of the Government. Dartmouth had still a great trade.
The coasting trade bad not decreased, as had been stated,
but it had increased. The Hon. Member entered into some
statistical statement to show that Dartmouth was a thriv-
ing and a flourishing place.
Captain BASTARD said a few words, which were in-
audible in the gallery.
A short conversation ensued betwer_‘n Mr. COURTENAY,
Mr. HouLnswoarn, and Lot.; ItniN RussELL, which
the noise in the House prevented the persons in the gallery
from catching.

Mr. CROKER w,uld take that opportunity of repeat-
ing a statement which be had previously made in It thinner
House, and which would show that Dartmouth did not
deserve to be disfranchised so well,as Tavistock. In fact,
according to that statement, Dartmouth, which was 67
in the list, ought to be placed higher than Tavistock,
which was 84. He would take the four elements of re-
presentation which bad been assumed by the framers of
the Bill—namely, population, 101. houses, and the
amount of assessed taxes. Dartmouth then had 4,566
inhabitants, 411 101. houses, 634 houses, and paid I'6B/
in assessed taxes—making a total of 6,379. Now Tavi-
stock, which it should be remembered, was not next to
Dartmouth in the list, contained 4336 inhabitants, and 269
101. houses. He begged leave to call attention particu-
larly to this circumstance, because it was the important
element. The 10/. houses were the very element of the
new Bill. In Dartmouth there were 411 10/. houses, and
in Tavistock only 269. In Tavistock there were 624
houses, and it paid 11241. of assessed taxes, making a
total of 6355.—( Loud cheers).
Lord ALTHORP made a brief statement, in reply to
the Right Hon. Gentleman, which was totally lost in the
gallery, owing to the noise in the Mouse.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had heard some calculations
of the same kind before, and they were certainly the most
curious he had ever heard. The Right Hon. 'Gentleman
added together the four elements of representation, but he
added some of them twice. He took, first of all, the 101.
houses, and then he took all the houses, including the 10/,
houses, which he had previously added. To that he added
the population and the assessed taxes, and that the result
should excite the astonishment of the House was not ex-
traordinary. He saw that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had taken his advice, and had studied Cocker, but he was
afraid, with such perverse ingenuity, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman bad not profited by his studies, or had not un-
terstood his teacher.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CROKER said, that that was the second time
that night, and the fortieth time since the Reform Bill
had been before the House, that the Noble Lord had un-
dertaken to be his schoolmaster; but he had not profited
much by his lessons, though he did not know whether
that arose from incompetency in the teacher or dullness in
the scholar.—(Hear, hear.) He would strike out the
element of the houses, and confine himself to the three
elements of the 10/. houses, the population, and the as-
sessed taxes, and then he would say, that the sum was
greater at Dartmouth than at Tavistock. He was able to
show that there were not less than six or seven towns
which had been favoured in regard to Dartmouth.
A conversation then ensued about sonic discrepancies in
the returns, and about Totness and Appleby, in which
Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Stanley, Lord Althorp, and Mr.
Praed took part, but which the noise and confusion in the
House rendered unintelligible in the gallery ; and then the
question as to Dartmouth was postponed.
St. lye's, Cornwall—after a few words from Mr. MAC..
KINNON-Rye, Sussex, and Clitheroe, Lancashire, were
ordered to stand part of schedule B.
On the question that Morpeth stand part of schedule 11,

Mr. CROKER said, if Appleby had been treated like
Morpeth, there would have been no reason to complain.
To Morpeth two places had been added, by drawing two
yellow lines, which places were said to be the property of
William Ord, Esq. He wished that William Ord, jun.
Eqs. had made similar additions'to Appleby.—(Hear.)
Lord MILTON—It was not Wiliam Ord, jun. Esq.
who was the Commissioner.

Mr. CROKER—We wish he bad been, and then the
work might have been done for Appleby al for Mot peth.
Question agreed to.
The next question was that Heston (Cornwall) be placed
in schedule B.

Mr. CROKER reminded the Committee that they were
then sitting in a judicial character, not deciding a question
of policy but of right. Ile was not going to enter into
arguments as to the principle of Reform ; he was not
going to enter into any arguments as to the mode of
carrying that principle into effect ; he was going to ask
them calmly to consider the cause of Helston, and decide
whether lielston should or should not be disfranchised.
The case lay within a very narrow compass, and he be-
lieved that he should not delay them five minutes in com-
ing to a decision. There were two elements of disfran-
chisement—houses and as ess,d taxes With regard to
houses, he made no claim for Heston ; the return cor-
rectly stated the number. The Committee however,
aware that, in some of the boroughs, a part of the amount
of the assessed taxes was omitted-. Helston was one of
those. The assessed taxes amounted to 411., and the ef-

feet of adding the assessed taxes to the houses, would be to
raise Helston from 84 to 86. He had understood front a
communication he had had with the Noble Lord, that the
Noble Lord admitted that fact.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—It would raise the borough
one.
Mr. CROKER--It was agreed that supplying the 411.
of assessed taxes omitted must raise it, though that would
nut take it out of schedule B. But there was
another circumstance. The assessed taxes of Helston
were stahtd short 75/. In the paper in the posses •
sion of the Noble Lord, and which had been laid on
the table, the sum was 57/. ; but this was a clerical
error ; 571. having, by a change of the figures, been
written for 73/. But taking 571. as the sum, which was
the amount of the exemption allowed for yeomanry ca-
valry, he contended that that exemption for the horses of
the yeomanry ought to be added to the assessed taxes. In
estimating the taxes paid by any town, nothing was more
unfair than to exclude the exemptions. Helston was, he
believed, the only town where this exemption took place.
This was the case for that borough—by including the
amount of the exemption for the yeomanry horses in the
return of the assessed taxes, Helston would be entitled to be
removed from schedule B. In his opinio❑ it had a just
claim to that removal.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, if the suggestion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would introduce an en-
tirely new principle. It was impossible that the exemp-
tions should be included in the returns of the assessed
taxes. If they included exemptions for yeomanry cavalry,
they might include exemptions for farm homes, and for
farm servants. With respect to the yeomanry exemp-
tion, he believed it was well known that many persons en-
tered the yeomanry i❑ order that they might keep horses
without paying the taxes.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said the yeomanry were a patrioti
corps, and it was too bait t; wake that which gave th