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

REFORM BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, shortly. after Five o'clock,
moved that the order of the day for the House resolving
itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament Eng-
land Bill he now read.
Lord MILTON wished before the House went into a
Committee on the Reform Bill, not for his own satisfac-
tion, but for the satisfaction of those who resided in the
country, and who only read what passed in that House
from the daily Papers, and not the Bills themselves, to
inquire of the Noble Lord whether the clause with respect
to the fifty-pound freeholders, which had been proposed
last session by the Marquis of Chandos, formed part of the
present Bill? For himself, he was satisfied that it did,
but many of his constituents in the country entertained a
different opinion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that the bOl. clause,
according to the proposed amendments, was retained in the
present Bill. Upon entering into the merits of the question,
his Majesty's Government were of opinion that the
amendments proposed by the Nettle Marquis having met
tt ith the approval of a majority of that House, ought to
he included in the present Bill.
The SPEAKER then put the question, that the Order
of the Day be now read for the House resolving itself into
a Cominittee on the Reform Bill, when
Mr. CHOKER rose—He was really surprised at
the proposition which had been stated by the Noble Lord,
for he really was in hopes that the House would have come
to the discussion of the committal of the Reform Bill,
in a spirit of fairness, impartiality, and candour,
and after the fullest information had been brought before it.
No man in that House was more anxious than himself to
bring that question to a termination as speedily as justice
and a due consideration of the subject would admit of. Ile
now rose for the purpose of imploring the House and
his Majesty's Ministers not to force on a premature
discussion. The Noble Lord opposite had stated
the night before bast that the information necessary to dis-
cuss the Bill in Committee was not '
perfectly prepared—
that they were not prepared to go on with the schedules
and clauses, but that some of the minor points of the
Bill might be discussed. He (Mr. Crok, r) did not
wish to interpose unnecessarily with the proceed.
ings of the Committee, but he would now take
the liberty of reminding the House of a few important cir-
cumstances. On Friday the 16th of December he wrote
to the Noble Lord opposite, requesting him to give hint
certain in'ormation before the House went into Committee
—that Noble Lord had assured him that information
should be given, but he had not as yet received it. On
Dec. 17th he had also written to the Noble Lord to request
him, in order to save time, to furnish to him the it: m 4
which formed the principal features of the Bill—those items
had not been furnished till this morning. Now he (Mr.
Croker) really thought that before this, the Noble Lord
would have been able to lay the materials on which Lieut.
Drummond's calculations, were formed, before the House—
or that whatever information Lieut. Drummond had to
make, the statements which were delivered to the House
on the 12th Dec., might have been brought forward. It
was not necessary for him to labour this point, but it
would be necessary for him to state one or two particulars
which would chew the House the necessity of pausing
before it went on with the business of the Committee.
The House would be surprised to find, that Lieutenant
Drummond's list was calculated on such a principle that
the few and trifling alterations (as they were called)
produced this extraordinary result—that it changed
the places of forty-eight boroughs in the original list
of a hundred. nit number 40 being deducted in conse-
quence of Lieut. Drummond's suggestion that they were
of little importance, from 40 to 110 there are 44
changes, and two.third.i of the whole list presented
as the .basia of a new Constitution have been changed
in their relations. Lieutenant Drummond had chosen
one hundred boroughs, and by adding the aggregate amount
of taxes, he gave to each a particular place in the
list, not depending on its own value, but on the
value of these with which it was connected. Having
made some alteratiow in the higher numbers, it, in con-
sequence, operated in this way,—that is to say, that those
which bad no alterations in themselves, were nevertheless
changed in their position, and an effect is produced on the
earlier part of the list which totally disorgareaed it, and
changed the boroughs in their relative position. Take the
number 56 be disfranchised ; if in place of 100, 60 were
taken, a different order and relation would have been
given on this principle, and the position would have been
so altered that the borough to be disfranchised would
have been saved, and the borough to be saved would have
been disfranchised. He begged to state one particular in-
stance. There had been laid before the House yesterday and
to-day two additional documents, and several others previ-
ously, and he had selected only three boroughs for inquiry as
to the information thus produced. Ai for the borough of
Caine, the number of houses in No. 2 amounted to 710;
No. 3 confirmed that, and added this circumstance, that the
C onmissioners and Returning Officer agreed with Lieut.
Drummond that that number was correct. Nos. 5 and
6 were silent as to Caine, but No. 7 computed
the number at 996. No. 7 was delivered in the course
of yesterday. But this morning No. 8 was delivered
which gave not' 710; not 996, but 673.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) Every one of those alterations in
the value of Caine not only gave it a different
place in the lists as respected itself, but altered the
places of all the other boroughs in the list.—
He would take another instance, Chippenham, in No. 2,
was stated at 649 houses ; the third list corroborated that
statement. No. 6 stated it at 788, being a differ-
ricre of 140 houses.--(Hear.) But No. 5 stated it
not at 648, not at 710, but at 653. Indeed, every one
of the suggeolive paper, varied IA choir avaalacro froz-one

' soother; and this was the more remarkable, that so
the principle of Lieut. Drurnmeod's lists, bonsai were
preferred to population, as a criterion for t re Lea tee the
elective franchise.* He bad not had sufficient time to make
rut the exact relation of places, ierwhich Caine and
Chippenham would stand in the list ; but he had
made this calculation in reference to one borough. It
could surprise the House, that the boroughs to which he
referred, and in which- thine • most material alterations
were observable, were those very bokoughs whose names
were as familiar as household words, Caine and Maltoto—
( Hear, bear.) He would take the case of Mahon.
fn No. 8, Malton was stated to have 1,079 houses, and it
was of course put very far out of the way of disfranchise-
ment. Oh, fortunate Melton ! he ha 1 before said, hut
it was not • more' fortunate. • before than it was found
now. No. 3 corroded • a trifling error in taxation,
and states it at 840. No. 4 brought it up again,
end there stated it to have 1031. Then at last the pa,.er
AI this mot-nit-Iz., No. I, brought down Melton to 792,
heing a difference of three hundred houses between two
documents delivered within forty-eight hours of each
other. The Commissioners were preparing another
return, and he (Mr. Croker) supposed that when
they went home to-night, they would find another
o•port which most probably would at last be the .
eorreet one respecting Melton. The consequence of all this •
would be that Melton, which originally stood No. 110, if
he report of No. 5, in 2, was correct, would be. sunk
down to 89; if the second report of Ne..-5 hero
one, it would be 'raised considerably move ; if. the
third were true, it would be raised to 107, though in
t e paper delivered this morning it was again sunk down
t 98, and probably by the next report it would be changed
to something else. Having stated these farts, weich were
undeniable, they exhibited in the clearest manner
the confusion and absurdity of the system and pro-
ceedine that had been adopted, and which be bad
not the slightest doubt arose from the different
views, different plans, and different limits. proceeding
from different persons; and what he was anxious
about was, that in the midst of this confusion and absurdity
the Members of the British Government should not he
called upon to legislate, but that they should be allowed
to wait till they had that information which no doubt
it was his Majesty's Ministers' intention to girt,
and which would enable the House to come to a correct
conclusion. Under these circumstances. and especially
temente the House had not received the information which
it was stated it would be put in possession of, his opinion
was that the House was not in a state to r. solve itself
,nto a Committee. The real otrunal reports were the
only basis or authority which the House could proceed
upon, and until these were laid before the House, it was•
impossible for Hon. Members to know what to do.
He blamed not his Majesty's Ministers for the want of the
necessary information which the House laboured under,
as it arose no doubt from the difficulty of procuieng it.
Teose who recollected what he (Mr. C.) said respecting
This difficulty just before the House adjourned, would do
him the Justice of acknowledging that he lied emir...rely
predicted this difficulty. Ministers, at the same time,
considered that what he thus predict d was all chimerical,
and premised that the Members of the House should be
in possession of all the information in the course of a
week. He (Mr. Croker) had hoped to have found,
contrary to his expectations, that this would have been
the case, that much time and much trouble would have
heen saved, but no such information had they been to
This hour put in possession of. If his Majesty's Minis-
ters persisted in urging on the debate, they 'night empannel
as it were without indictment—they might even go on to cone
demn, but it would be conviction without evideece. He was
ready to go into the Committee with the same spirit with
which he entered it before, and to assist in tarrying into
effect the orders of the House, when that Bill should enable
him to do so, but be asked his Majesty's Ministers to
give to the House, and the country, in the first place,
that extent of information, without which it would be
utterly impossible that they could make even the first step
towards a proper Reform with any degree of safety.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the question was, whether
the House was in a state to resolve itself into • a Com-
mittee agreeably to the notice of motion that stood
in the Order of the Day. He did not deny, that in order
to investigate the particular claims of particular boroughs, to
be exempted either from one place or from another, it
might be necessary that gentlemen should consider,
as attentively as possible, the number of houses in each
particular borough, and the amount of value and taxation.
The Noble Lord said he was ready to state that that port
of the Bill, containing the schedu'e, could be better dis-
cussed at a period when the Right Hon. Gentleman and
the House would have had an opportunity of looking
into and examining all the numerous papers which had
neen presented, but that there was any reason for
postponing the Committee, or that there was not suffi-
cient information before the House to enable them to go
at once into the Committee, he could not accede to. As to
the pledge that the Right Honourable Gentleman
said he (Lord J. Russell) gave that the papers would be
ready in a week after the adjournment, he must say that, in •
public, he stated they would be ready by the 17th of
January, but he admitted that in private he told the
Right Hon. Gentleman that steins part of the information
would be ready in a week; hut as he had already said
there were some parts of the list in which it was neces-
sary to make some corrections, and therefore lie thought
it inexpedient to present to the House at that
time any information which he thought might requite re-
vision, consequently those papers were not presented till
last night, and now they were ready to be delivered.
Some part of the list of the 12th of December was still
tinder inquiry, and he put it to the nom whe-
ther be was acting irnpropetly in postponing that
information until sufficient inquiry had been made. Some
of the inquiries were still in progress, and some of the
papers were still in Lieutenant Drummond's hands,
not corrected, but there was not any place . now in the
two schedules which it would he necessary to alter in
the list of the -12th of December. There was not
awhich it would les necessary to heave out
ofif,:eig seesenhele that place,
dule
A or schedule B. The House would
therethere-
was no necessity whatever to refrain from
eoing into the Committee, and to decide whether or no 56
baroughs were to be disfranchised, and 30 boroughs were
to return one Member. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had mentioned now, as he did last session, the cases
of Caine and Chippenham. As to those boroughs,
there had been a similar error, namely, that the
Commissioners having given and pointed out what were
the limits of the boroughs the surveyor had made
mistake', and consequently there had been a va-
riance in . the returns. There were other boroughs,
however, which were alike similarly circumstanced,
and in which Lieut. Drummond had to judge b tween
different and separate accounts, sometimes taking ,he
census of the year 1831, sometimes the statement of
the returning officer, and sometimes the statements
of the Commissioners, in many of which eases those
statements differed ; so that the House would perceive
the great difficulty of arriving at a just estimate.
One great objection to the Bill of last se'sion wee,
that they took away the numbers from the cen-
sus without examining the limits of the borough.
He knew the great difficulty of taking an emu-
late account, and now he found that in taking 'melt
accounts there was a great variance in the state-
molts that bad been returned, and between which
they hail toChoese.—(Cueers.) However, having :idopted
that plan they were still accused by the flight Hon.
Gentleman, but they could note be properly blamed,
although separate returns were laid befo.c ihe [Lithe and
ens number differed from the other. The case ul Melton
hail been one, in which it appeared that the number 1300
had been placed by mistake instead of 1830. An inquiry
had since been made, and the result of that inquiry was,
de it it still leaves the borough in the schedule in which
it was first placed. It was at first s wed to
contain 110 houses, which was twenty-four above
time line of disfranchisement. It stood now 107, which
MIS twenty-one above • disfranchisement. In the care
of Appleby it would also appear that sortie mistake had
been made, and two separate returns had been sent
up. If the Right Hon. Gentleman thought it an easy task
to give the number of houses within the lierite of a
borough, he was very much mistaken. Lieut. Drummond
was required to give in a list by the 12th of December, be
did so, but stated that it was the last list he could furnish
considering the time in which he had to make it. That
clearly indicated that he could not pledge himself
for its accuracy. Now, the lists had been made
sufficiently accurate as to require no alteration in the
-chedules except in one particular case,- which he
(Lord John Russell) had already mentioned in his
opening speech. He therefore proposed to go iato the
Committee, and ascertain whether the 56 boroughs In
schedule A should cease to return Members, and fur the
purpose of enabling the House to come to that decision
the papers now before them would enable them
to judge. There were a great many boroughs whose
limits were entirely unknown, -some whose limits tv,ere
very extensive, some whose limits extended to the town and
.
others a great way beyond it, so th,t
.the -11°_u_7e,
would perceive that it required great dii!eerice.".
care to obtain the information which had bean
Right lists. Cie min opEc
tpvtil•roertspleb:l.ete,:ibtaitd:
tbteelwtiaiokouuellsdie.bLgSeeuegeeeadidi3jeil;:je:c:lici;Qia'eYncreudilt.sti:;.,::tushtie:i'

41r:ft AYS*lnaltSl r.b;►> Sfrt asw ridi bas vraette—it
.3135:1
• _ b-111519,

Idt

ant may ease for the removal daily borough from schedule
Aor B. His Majesty's Government were perfectly prepared
to co into the Committee, and they thought that suf-
Client information was now before the House to en-
enable them to decide whether 36 of the smaller bo-
roughs should be taken from the borough representation
of Eneland.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Noble Lord ap-
peared to have greatly misunderstood the observations of
his Right Hon. Friend. The whole objection of his Right
Hon. Friend went to this—that there being information
on this subject which Ministers themselves considered ma-
terial, it was improper, without that information, to go
into the Committee, which ought, therefore, to be post-
poned until the necessary documents were produced.—
(Hear, hear.) He entirely coincided in the sentiments of
his Right Hon. Friend, sad he would say that if the
House of Commons had any respect for its own privilege,,
if it had any respect for the tights of the people, it would
adopt the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend, and would
refuse to proceed farther until they had this important in-
formation regularly placed before them.—(Hear, hear.)
Before thsy proceeded to determine that 56 boroughs
should he disfranchised, he would demand, in the name of
justice, that there should be submitted to the House that
information which formed the basis and ground-work of
so great an alteration in the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.)
On the 6th of Decemher his Maj-sty called on them to
take into their most serious consideration the measures
which would he proposed to them for a Reform in the
Commons House of Parliament. They were recommended
to take those measures into their most serious consider•
amino. And what did the Noble Lord propose? His
proposition was, the principle of the Bill being affirmed by
the House, to go into a Committee on its details this
night, in the absence of that information which even the
Noble Lord himself admitted to be necessary.--( Hear.)
And what was his statement, his vindication, with re-
spect to that information ? Did he say that the papers
were ready for delivery, and would be delivered as soon
as possible? No. He told the House that they were
printed, and would be delivered as fast as they were
stitched.—(A laugh.) The papers, it appeared, were
printed ; but they, in the absence of stitching, were re-
quired in the Committee, to decide on matters of the
deepest importance.—(Hear.) Some papers were pre-
sented to the House, and printed, but certainly not all
that were necessary. The Noble Lord did not propose to
take other and more immaterial clauses into consideration.
No ; he at once called on the House to decide on the pro-
priety
of disfranchising 56 boroughs. Against such a pro.
ceeilirig, in the absence of the necessary information, he
would most strenuously protest. To show the anomalous
situation in which they were placed, he would call the at.
tention of the House to page 9 of the document No. 8,
and he begged of them to look to the places between 77
and 87, and the notes appended to them. The Right
Hon. Gentleman here read the names of those places, in-
cluding Horehim, Great Grimsby, Caine, Helaton, and
Northallerton, and also the note appended to each of them,
and complained that the letter, in nine instances, referred
or explanation to a document (the Commissioners' Report)
which was not in the hands of Members. They were re-
ferred to a document presented last night, and which, he
supposed, would be delivered as soon as possible. In the
mean time, however, they were called upon to proceed.
Now he would ask, if, in the absence of such information,
it were fair, it were decent, to do so ?—( Hear.) He did not
mean to attach undue importance to this matter, but im-
portant it undoubtedly was. In the first letter of the
Secretary of State to Lieutenant Drummond he said, ''the
Government have determined to found the Reform Bill on
a new basis." As that was admitted, was it not necessary
that this new basis should be submitted to the House ?
( [fear, hear.) Ought they not to know the peculiar cir-
cumstances of each borough, and the nature of its claims
Sorely they ought, when they were sitting in a judicial
capacity. They might rate the privileges of those boroughs
as of little worth. But they must see that it was not a
matter of small moment to those places on which they
were about to inflict disfranchisement at all; but it became
a monstrous and oppressive evil, if, in effecting that object,
they proceeded on a principle of injustice.—(Hear, hear.)
What possible inconvenience, be would ask, could there be
in pos'poning the first clause ? It was too important to
declare it in the absence of information. From the con-
eludine part of the Neble Lord's speech, he supposed that
the Noble Lord meant to press the question to a division.
Wherever the feelings or sentiments of gentlemen might be
on the question of Reform, be hoped that they would, on
the division, resist this attempt to decide au important ques-
tion in the absence of information.—(Hear, hear.) He
cared not for the number that might divide with him, but
• so strongly did lie feel the necessity of having proper in-
formation before the House, that if he stood alone he would
divide against the proposition of the Noble Lord..—( Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP said, the Right Hon. Gentleman
had entirely mistaken the view entertained of this ques-
tion by his Noble Friend. His Noble Friend had not ex-
pressed himself unwilling to grant information. He said
that the information called for was unnecessary in deciding
on the first clause, which respected the number of bo-
roughs to be disfranchised ; but he admitted that when
they came to the schedule, information would be neces-
sary, in order to see whether the boroughs designated ought
to be retained there or not. It had been insinuated that
Ministers wished to exclude certain boroughs from the
operation of the Bill, and to include others, from private
personal feelings. Such an insinuation was unfounded,
and the fact would appear, when at the proper time they
came to discuss the schedules, with reference to the infor-
mation that was in the progress of being laid before the
House. That observation, therefore, could form no
ground for postponing the Committee. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had read the names of different places, anal
the notes appended to them, as contained in page 9 of one
of the papers. Now, if the question were as to the rela-
tive claims of the boroughs contained in the schedule, it
would be necessary that they should have the Commis-
sioners' report before them ; but it was of no importance
at all in deciding on the number of boroughs that should
be placed in schedule A. The Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr, Croker) objected to the principle upon which Lieu-
tenant Drummond's list proceeded, and observed that the
alteration in a few boroughs altered the relative value of
others, with which they were not connected. This was
a necessary consequence when they proceeded on a general
principle, but it was not All unjust one. Fur his own
part, he did not think that they were doing any thing
unworthy of a deliberative assembly, in discussing the first i
clause n the absence of information which did not affect
it. That information did not apply, in the slightest de-
gree, to the question, which simply was, whether a cer-
tain number of boroughs should be disfranchised or not?
The information called for did apply to this point--
namely, whether such and such boroughs, according to
the principle laid down, ought to be included in schedule
A. Fur these reasons he saw no grounds for postponing
the Committee this evening. They might employ them-
be:yes most usefully in proceeding with other clauses of the
Bill, until they came to the schedules.
Sir R. VYVYAN contended that the arguments
against producing information possessed no weight what-
ever. Were they, he demanded, a deliberative assembly ?
And if they were, would they proceed to disfranchise those
boroughs without inquiry, and merely because Ministers
recommended such a course? He knew not the motives
of Ministers in thus precipitating the question, but he
should resist it to the utmost. Whether he and his friend,
divided on this occasion as numerously as they did on the
second reading of the Bill, mattered but little. The Bill
was one that contained within it no principle of perma-
nency, and if they now passed it, they would be compelled
to alter its provisions before twelve months had gone by.
Sir C. WETHERELL said that what they complained
of on his side of the House was, that it was now de-
manded of them to go into into a Committee on this Bill
without having that information before them which was
absolutely necessary in order to enable them to come to a
decision upon the very first clause in it. It appeared that
Lieutenant Drummond had been called upon between the
24th of November and the 12th of December to sketch
out a new constitution for the country,—a period that
seemed to him (Sir C. Wetherell) much too short for the
completion of a work of such important magnitude.—
(A laugh.) Lieutenant Drummond had himself acknow-
ledged that in making out his list the most difficult part of
his task was to obtain correct data and accurate inforrna-
tion whereupon to found it. Now if the House went into
Committee this evening without the information promised,
and which of course would be soon forthcoming, it would
place itself in a still worse predicament, for it would pro-
ceed to legislate without having the proper data on which
to ground its decisions. Could any thing be more un-
just--could any thing be less business-like than such aline
of proceeding ? They were called upon to go into Committee
with something promised to them that they should not hare,
—with soin• thing to look at that they were not now to
look at, and with something that was to be on the table,
hot which they would not at present be permitted to see.
When they were called on to disfranchise 56 boroughs on
the etriffeacg of facts, was it not consistent with common
justice iiii‘simtnon sense that they should have those
facts laid befprelilem.—(Hear, bear.) Lieutenant Dum-
snond's list 'consisted both of arithmetic and geography,
and they were-riew told that his arithmetic was correct;
ts• and they were requested to wait for awhile, and that by.
anal-by they would see that his geography was also accurate. I
au..
If he were arguing a ease of this nature under on en- l
4 ‘14.13‘115 Act, would it not be a gross absurdity on his

4y,

part not to have a map of the ground before him ? or, to
descend still lower in the grade of legislation, would it
not be equally absurd if, at a parish vestry, when a parcel
of land was about to be parcelled out to A, B, and C, they
should not have the plan before them, according to which
the allotments were to be made ? These familiar illustra-
tions served, he thought, in some degree to exhibit the
absurdity of their present proposed course of proceeding.
Such a species of legislation might suit very well those
who belonged to Political Unions, or those persons who
vrire for " the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the
Bill," but as legislation proceeding from the members of
a well-constituted and deliberative assembly, it was an
entire and perfect piece of unredeemed mockery.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had
told them, that in going into Committee they would
have only to declare that fifty-six boroughs were to he
disfranchised, and that hereafter, when they came
to the specific case of each individual borough,
they would then have the information before them ne-
cessary to enable them to decide upon that care. Now he
(Sir C. Wetherell) would assert that their first step in
going into Committee would ha to disfranchise specifically,
and by name, 56 boroughs, without having a single fact
before them to warrant any such proceeding. It was a
most monstrous thing that that House should be compelled
either under the domination of an influence out of doors
that deprived it of its deliberative character, or under the
equally odious domination of his Majesty's Ministers, to
come to a vote with regard to a case that altogether de•
pendcd upon facts, without having a single one of those
facts submitted to them.—(Hear, hear.) If the House
of Commons, operated upon by such an influence, whether
within those walls or without those walls, were to act in
such an absurd, unjust, and inconsistent manner, he (Sir
C. Wetherell) Anti-Reformer as he was, would not scruple
to lend his aid to reform that House, and he would do so
because in his opinion it would in such case have forfeited
the character that belonged to a British Parliament. Since
he had had the honour of being a Member of that House,
he had never seen such a blow aimed at its independence
as was now aimed at it by his Majesty's Ministers withi❑
those walls, and by as odious and intolerant domination
out of doors. Against the pressure, either of the influence
of Ministers, who might have their object, and who, no
doubt, had an object in view—(Hear)—or of that external
influence to which he had alluded out of doors, he, as an in-
dependent Member of Parliament, begged leave to en-
ter his most solemn protest; and he still hoped that
the House of Commons would not exhibit such a de-
parture from decency and justice as to proceed to vote
upon such a subject as this without having the necessary
information before it. He trusted that the Noble Lord
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Noble Lord
'be Paymaster of the Forces, would not risk their credit
and their character in the country by so ill-advised and
precipitate a measure as this. Why, the very Political
Unions themselves would not recommend such an indecent
proceeding. They would at le ist allow that it was but
fair that the printed papers should he in the hands of
Members, and that they should have sufficient time given
them to read them over. He did hope and trust, that a
British House of Commons would not exhibit the humi-
liating spectacle of being thus trifled through the dirt and
mire, at the chariot-wheels of ministerial domination.

Mr. PIGOTT, as we understood argued against going
into Committee on the present occasion, before the neces-
sary information had been pre luced to the House.
Mr. HUME observed, that the sole and simple ques-
tion now before the House was, whether or not it would re-
solve itself into a Committee on the Reformßill, and he ap-
prehended that the question which had been incidentally
raised as to whether the necessary information bad or had
not been laid before them, had nothing whatever to do with
the motion which they had now to decide. " Shall they
go into Committee or not, on the Reform Bill ?" That
was the question, he repeated, which they had to de-
cide, and he would ask whether there was any man pre-
pared to say that they should not do so. No doubt the
Anti-Reformers would be prepared to give their negative
to such a motion ; but if his Majesty's Ministers would be
advised by him (Mr. Hume), they would not pay the least
attention to those gentlemen, who would never let them
go into Commtttee on the Bill at all, if they could by any
possibility prevent it.—(Hear, bear.) He would call upon
the Howe not to be carried away by the artifices of Hon.
Gentlemen below him, but to decide tiris matter according
to reason and common sense.—(A laugh from the Oppo-
sition.) Were they prepared, or were they not, to consi-
der the Bill in Committee ? That was the question, and
let any man who was against their doing so say '' No."—
(Cries of “ No, no," from several Members on the Oppo-
sition benches.) That was his appeal to the House—that
was the question which it had this evening, in the face of
the people of England, to decide,—namely, whether it
would consider the Bill in Committee, or whether it would
not do so.—(Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the com-
mon sense of eve!), man in that House, and he would
fearlessly appeal to the common sense of Englishmen out
of doors, whether it was not right that they should that
night go into Committee and consider the Bill, it being un-
derstood that with regard to the details of it all the ne-
cessary information would be furnished hereafter as they
went along. Let them, in God's name, take the first step
and go into Committee, where alone that information could
be used by them in considering the details of the Pill.
He trusted that the House would not be prevented from
taking that step on this occasion by any of the devices
practised by Hon. Gentlemen below hind. Suppose, after
they went into Committee, the disfranchisement of only
one or two boroughs by name were proposed, the rest be-
ing postponed till the information with regard to them had
been furnished, was any man prepared to say that Old
Sarum should not be disfranchised? Let them go into
Committee, and suppose the disfranchisement of Old Sa-
rum, in which there were no houses, should be proposed,
was there any man prepared to say that the decision of the
House should not be taken with regard to th-it borough
There was another borough—the borough of Newtown, in
the Isle of Wight—with only 14 houses in it. Would
any man say that such a borough as that should not be
disfranchised ? In that way he would say that they were
prepared to go into Committe at this moment, and to take
the boroughs one by one; and if with regard to any bo-
rough it should be thought necessary to have more informa-
tion laid before the House, he for one would be ready to
acquiesce in having the vote as to that borough postponed
until such information should be produced. He trusted
that the House would persevere in going into Committee
on the Bill this evening.
Mr. GOULBURN said there was no objection on that
side of the House to going into Committee, nor had a
single syllable fallen from any individual who had spoken
against this motion that warranted such an interpretation.
All they bad contended for was, that if they were to go
into Committee, to disfranchise 56 boroughs, it was ne-
cessary they should have the grounds laid before them on
which it was proposed to deprive these boroughs of their
right of representation. The Hon. Member had recom-
mended them to discuss this question with coolness ; and
lie himself, no doubt, was cool. Indeed, be believed that
in the cause of Reform, no injustice, however gross,
would call forth that Hon. Member's warmth; and no
extent of injury, however undeserved, would excite his
phlegm. Was it just, he would ask, that they should be
called upon to disfranchise, in a wholesale manner, 56
boroughs, without being acquainted with the circumstances
appertaining to each of them, and without being put in
possession of that information with regard to them which
had been collected by the persons appointed by Government
for the purpose? It was not his desire, nor that of those
with whom he had the honour to act, to impute to Go-
vernment any species of partiality in the selection of those
boroughs, but he would say, if it was intended to net
with partiality in the cases of disfranchisement, the course
which the two Noble Lords opposite had adop•ed on this
occasion was exactly that which it would be their intertst
tinder such circumstances to pursue. The course which
Ministers were now tarcing on the adoption of the House
was one founded neither on justice nor reason.
Mr. ROBINSON said, that the real question before the
House should riot be misunderstood. The object of those
who opposed this motion was the defeat of Reform alto-
;ether.--(Hear, hear.) Looking at the course pursued
last session he did not see the necessity of going into
the discussion of the case of every single borough before
they had voted the general disfranchisement clauses of the
Bill. The arguments employed on that side of the 1-Iflu•e
against this motion might be more appropriately urged
when the House had gone into Committee, either for po-t-
-ruing the case of any individual borough, or for having
it omitted altogether out of the number of those proposed
to be disfranchised. The present opposition to the motion
now before the House reminded bias (Mr. Robinson) touch
of the attempt made in the last session of Parliament to
prevent the House going into Committee at all, and
which vexatious attempt was continued until past seven
o'clock in the morning.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The simple question before the House, was, whether they
were prepared to go into Committee to consider the Re-
form Bill, and as he (Mr. Robinson) conceived that the
whole principle of Reform was involved in the questions of
disfranchisement and enfranchisement, be was ready to
vote for the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs, leaving the
case of each individual borough to he argued and adjudicated
hereafter. When the House voted the disfranchisement of
56 boroughs, it would merely vote that 56 of the most in-
I considerable of the boroughs should be disfranchised, and,
when in Committee, they would apply the rule to those
boroughs individually, so as to ascertain that they came

~~

within that deseription. Now for his part he saw nothing
of injustice in such a course of proceeding, and though he
might wish that the principle of disfranchisement had
been extended to a greater number, he should at all events
give his cordial vote for the amount of disfranchisement
contemplate] by the present Bill. He could not sit down
without observing that the Right lion. Baronet, the Aletn-
her for Tamworth, after referring to the words in his lia-•
jetty's speech, and insisting upon the necessity of consider-
ing this subject with coolness and calmness, had in his own
instance set a very notable example of that calmness and
moderation which he had so forcibly preached, but lied so
little practised on this occasion.—(Hear.)
Mr. CRESSET PELHAM was determined on that
cccasion to vote as became an independent Member of the
Legislature, unswayti by any influence either in or out of
that House. He had a prejudice with re-pect to one bo-
rough, and others might have the same as to others. It
would therefore be trifling with the ft elings of the House
to go into the consideration of schedule A, including P 9 it did
56 boroughs, without full information regarding them all.
Sir C. FORBES entirely approved of the oppo-ition
in'endil to going into the Committee until the evidence
was fully before the House. He hoped the Right Hon.
Gentleman's plan would be re:or•ed to, and he for one
would be ready to remain until •even o'clock in the morn-
ing to give his support to it..-:-(Loud cries of " Question.")
Mr. HUNT ron to justify the vote he meant to give,
which would be against his Majesty's Ministers.—( Hear,
from both sides of the Hous:.) He would not be de-
terred by anything that might fall from the Hon. Member
for Worcester, or the Hon. Member for Middlesex. If
the question were that the whole 56 boroughs i❑ schedule
A. should be disfranchised, he would vote for it, or for
60, or for all in schedule B ; but it was a different thing.
when they were asked by one vote to declare that "each"
of them should be disfranchised.

Lord J. RUSSELL would repeat what he had before
said, in order to set the Hon. Member right. If they
wished at once to disfranchise the whole of the 56 bo-
roughs, that would ha a goad ground for objection ; but the
cl use was, that they should cease to return Members to
Parliament, and the insertion of the word "each," in fac,,
left it open to the Committee to dc aide the particular bo-
roughs as they occurred. This difference existed now,
—namely, that en the last occasion the clause and the
schedule were the same, whereas now the question is left
open until they came to the end of the schedule.
After a few words from Mr. Hunt,

Mr. CROKER wished to say one word as to the form
of their prcceedings. He would not object to the order of
the day being read ; but when it was read he would move,
on the question of the Sr eaker leaving the chair, that the
word " now" be omitted ; and he would then leave it to
the Noble Lord to fill up the blank with any day he chose
after the information necessary should be laid before the
House.

The order of the day was then read, when
Lord J. RUSSELL, in rising to move that the
Speaker do now leave the chair, observed, that this mode
of proceeding would give snore time for gentlemen to
make them elves acquainted with the information before
the House, than if they were to postpone the Committee
fur any number of days.
Mr. CROKER then moved that the word " now" be
left out, but on an intimation from the Speaker, altered
his motion by substituting the word " Tuesday" as an
amendment on the original motion. That, he thought,
was the earliest day when they could have the information
wanted, and he believed it would be a saving of time.
The question was then put, and the gallery was cleared
for adivisioo, when the numbers were—

For Lord John Russell's motion ls'2
For the amendment 99

Majority for Ministers
On our return to the gallery, we found the House in
Committee, Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
On the first clause being read,
Mr. CROKER said, that the House would, no doubt,
be glad to hear from his Majesty's Ministers their reason
for adopting the peculiar number 56. He could not
discover what reason there was for this, or what talis-
manic power the number 56 possessed that should induce
the House to agree to it.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that it was not from any
peculiar quality in that particular number, for he should
quite as well have liked 50 or 55, or 60 or 66, and there
was no motive except this, that the number in question
would include most of the inconsiderable boroughs of the
kingdom. The line being in any case arbitrary, it was
thought best to take the number which had been sanc-
tioned by the last Bill. If Ministers bad taken 60 or 66,
they would have done so on their own responsibility, but,
as the case stood, the number in the present Bill was the
same as that in the Bill which had passed that House,
and been sent to the House of Lords. It also, in point,
of fact, contained the greater number of the boroughs in
the former schedule A. The reason why some of those
had been left out he had formerly explained, and was oc-
casioned by the consideration of parishes or districts. For
his own part, he should have had no objection to go far-
ther with disfranchisement ; but, under the circum-
stances, it was not deemed advisable to proceed further
than they had gone before. These were the only reasons
for choosing this number, and if the various plans of Re-
form heretofore submitted to the House were examined, it
would be found that some arbitrary number of 100 or 150
Members had always been fixed upon, and for which no
satisfactory reason could be given. One lion. Gentleman
, had spoken of these 66 as it they were all nomination bo-
' roughs. He (Lord J. Russell) would not say they were
so, but he believed that on examining the schedule, far the
greater proportion would be found to be of that character.
Mr. CROKER said that the Noble Lord appeared to
make a total and radical mistake in the assertion he ven-
tured on—namely, that the House had agreed to the dis-
franchisement of 56 boroughs. The House had done no
such thing. It had agreed to the disfranchisement of par-
ticular boroughs which appeared to it to be decayed and
inconsiderable places, and at the end of the proceedings
the number of these happened to amount to 56. Up to
a late period in June, 57 was the real number, when
' Saltash was removed to schedule B, though it now came
back again to its original position. But now be would
ask the House why should the number 56 be chosen ?
The Noble Lord seemed to think the number indifferent,
although he said that the present schedule A included
nearly the whole of the last. This, however, was a mis-
take, as there were in the present only 51 out of the former
56. It was, then, a mere pretence to afford the reason
given by the Noble Lord, because the House only pledged
itself with respect to these 51 boroughs as being incon-
siderable places, and if ether boroughs could be shown to
be similarly circumstanced, then the Noble Lord had a
right, and it was his duty, to add them. There was a
great peculiarity in this case, for the original proposition
was the total disfranchisement of 60 boroughs, and the
partial disfranchisement of 46 others, and he asked why
not adhere to this plan at present? The changes in the
present Bill from that formerly under discussion were
purely arbitrary ; Ministers had not condescended to as-
sign a single reason for them, though it was but fair to
presume they were not without some cogent ones,—
(Hear.) Why, for example, was the borough of West-
bury, which was in schedule B of the last Bill, How to re-
tain its two Members? Was the change at all connected
with the circumstance, that a gentleman employed by the
Government with reference to the framing of the present
Bill had since been returned for that borough ? (Hear.)
The Rig4t Hon. Gentleman concluded with moving, that
the number " 51" be substituted for " 56" in the present
clause.
Sir R. FRANCO, as a representative and proprietor of
the borough of Westbury, just insidiously alluded to by
the Right Hon. Gentleman, begged to state, for the satis-
faction and information of the House and the Rig ht Hon.
Gentleman, that after the present Bill should have passed'
into a law, he should have no more controut over the
elections of Westbury, than had the Member for West-
minster at present.—r Hear.) At present it Was entirely
under his controul.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") He could
and did nominate whom he pleased for it—(flear, hear,
hear)—but when the Reform Bill should have passed into
a law, he should have 110 direct influence over ten of the
electors. From his first entry into public life, he had
been the consistent and uncompromising advocate of Re-
form, though from mere personal aggrandizement, he
should be opposed to a measure which went to destroy-
his borough patronage.— (Hear, hear.) Without profess-
ing to more patriotism than any other supporter of the
present Bill, he would add that he cheerfully sacrificed
all rights of borough proprietorship, at what he conscien-
tiously believed was the shrine of his country's good.
(Cheers.) For the satisfaction of the Right Hon. Geutle-
man, he would state why Westbury, set down in sche-
dule B of the former Bill, was permitted under the present
Bill to retain its two Members. The facts were simply
these—a petition was present;:) from the inhabitants of
that borough to his Majesty's Ministers, pointing out and
offering to prove several errors adopted by them, with
respect to its population and wealth. The petitioners were
heard, and made good their case. Hence the borough
was allowed to retain its two Members.
Mr. STEVENSON was the Member for Westbury, so
pointedly alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman; he
therefore begged leave to offer one word in explanation.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had represented him as having
been engaged by Ministers in framing the present Bill.
He wished the Right Hon. Gentleman would endeavour,
whether his statement were merely historical or inventive,

;Its.

~~~

to be more correct. He bad not been eraployed by Mi-
nisters in any way connected with the present
Bill.—
(Hear.) He had through life been a friend to Reform,
and had come there to support the measure of Ministers,
as one calculated to promote the interests of the country
by the destruction of a detestable system of nomineeship.
—(Hear, hear.) He stood there as independent as any
Member in that House, and he appealed to his Hon. Col-
league, the proprietor of Westbury, whether he held his
seat upon any condition save that of voting for the present
Bill.—(Hear.) He had tor 25 years been the advocate of
the liberal measures which had been propounded by the
party now for the fist time officially enabled to carry them
into effect, some of which had been adopted by the Right
Hon. Gentleman's colleagues at the eleventh hour, and he
now gave a cheerful support to those men who had the ho-
neity and courage to bring forward their last and greatest
meosure.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. CROKER had made no reference to the Hon
Baronet (Sir R. Franco) which amounted to a charge of
inconsistency. With respect to the other Hon. Member
for Westbury, he regretted he should have Leen in error
with respect to his connexion with the framing of the pre-
sent Bill. He, however, was not alone in his error, hav-
ing heard the same statement more than once in that
House and elsewhere.

Sir R. FRANCO had only to add to his former expla-
nation, that he had not only himself been a friend of Re-
form, but had nominated none but Reformers for his bo-
roughs.—(Hear.) The late Chairman of that House had
sat for Westbury, but he having voted against the Reform
Lill, he (Sir R. Franco) would not consent to his being
again returned one of its representatives..—(Hear.)
Mr. PRAED would suggest to his Right Hon. Friend
to withdraw his amendment in its present form, and sub-
stitute one to the effect, that the number 56 be left out
altogether,--that is, that there should be no particular
number fixed upon in the first instance.—(Hear.)
Mr. CROKER would act upon the well-timed sug-
gestion of his Hon. Friend. The Right Hon. Gentleman
accordingly moved (his former amendment being with-
drawn) that the number "56" he omitted altogether.
Lord SANDON was understood to be opposed to the
amend ment.

Sir R. PEEL thought the best course to pur-
sue would be to adopt his Right Hon. Friend's amend•
talent, and to omit specifying any number whatever. By
this means they would avoid blindly pledging themselves
in the absence of the information or data on which their
pledge should be founded. When he said this, he did not
mean to deny that under any circumstances the number
must be in degree arbitrary, but only to protest against
their being called upon to pledge themselves in the absence
of due information. It was important that they should
be in possession of every information in tha power of Mi-
nisters to bestow with respect to the basis of the present
schedules A and B ; as that founded on Lieut. Drum-
mond's calculations was, to say the least, extremely vague
and unsatisfactory. That officer told them he founded his
average of the relative importance of a borough on a com-
parison of the sums of the number of houses contained in
it, with the amount of its assessed taxes. Now the geo-
graphical limits of a borough being once defined,--and
that was a matter of little difficulty,—it was easy to ascer-
tain the number of houses ; and thence it would be easy
to ascertain its average rental, which average rental would
afford much more satisfactory data for determining the ac-
tual importance of the place than the amount of assessed
taxes. In fact, no more vague criterion existed than the
amount of assessed taxes paid in a borough,—though it
was that adopted, at the instance of Lieut. Drummond,
by Minister. Take, fur example, the cases of Milborne-
port and Nidhurst; the former in schedule A, and the
latter in schedule B. Milborne contained 383 houses, and
was to 10,,e its two Members ; while Midhurst,—a by-
word last Session,—with but 254 houses, was to reta'at
one.—(Hear.) And why was this ? Because, accord-
ing to Lieutenant Drummond's returns, Midhurst paid
more assessed taxes than the other borough.--(" Hear,
hear," from the Treasury benches.) Hon. Members cried
" Hear," but it would be easy to show that no more un-
certain and vague standard of the relative importance of a
borough could he devisad, than its contribution to the
assessed taxes, nor one, too, more liable to be abused for
elective purposes. Let them suppose—he knew not whe-
ther the supposition would he agreeable to the fact—that
the proprietor of Midhurst kept up a large establishment
in its immediate vicinage, and that he followed a course,
by no means unusual, of paying for his servants, carriages
&c. in the country, instead of town, where they were
chiefly used, as he might do under the act for compound-
ing for the assessed taxes,—would nor, under such a state,
of things, the assessed taxes item of Midhurst be thereby
so swollen, that if it were the criterion of representation,
it would be more favoured under the Bill than a place of
much more intrinsic importance.—(Hear.) And this
supposition was by no means improbable with respect to
six of the places set down in schedule B; for it was by
no means unusual for some Hon. Gentlemen to pay all
their assessed taxes in town, and others all in the country.
He himself, for instance, paid all his in town, and he
might pay all in the country—(Hear, hear)—showing that
no more uncertain criterion for judging of the real im-
portance of a place could exist than the assessed taxes
alone.—(Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP was sure the House would see that
the suppositious objections raised by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet at?ainat the assessed taxes standard, would equally
apply to any other rule they might fix upon. The suppo-
sitions were the more strange from the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, as it might be in the recollection of the House that
the reiterated objections of Hon. Gentlemen opposite last
session to the disfranchisement of each favourite borough
was the " amount of its contribution to the assessed
taxes."—(Loud cries of hear.) And yet when Ministers
take them at their word, forsooth, the Right Hon. Baronet
rises in his place, and tells them that no standard could be
inure fallacious, vague, and uncertain.—(Hear, hear.)
Ministers, however, did not rest their Bill on the amount
of assessed taxes levied in a borough alone. Generally
speaking, it was a pretty fair criterion of the relative im-
portance of a place, and when taken in conjunction with
the number of bona fide houses of election value, as was
done in the present Bill, a double test was afforded as valid
and unobjectionable as the nature of the thing could ad-
mit of.—(hear.) With respect to the proposition of the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) opposite, to omit
specifying any number whatever beforehand, all be need
say was, that it could not have the effect of satisfying the
five boroughs, in whose favour he had brought it forward,
for the clause as it stood left each hot ough in schedules
A and B to stand on its own merits, as if no number had
been previously fixed upon. The former Bill, with pre-
cisely the same number-56—of disfranchised boroughs
in schedule A, was, as they all kuew, rejected in the
House of Lords. Now, it appeared of great importance
to Ministers that as little risk as po•sible should be run in
incurring its being again rejected by the Lords, at the same
time that they felt that it was of equal importance that the
country should be satisfied that the great disfranchising
principle of the former measure should be preserved entire
in the present one. The number—necessarily, as the Right
Hon. Baronet admitted, somewhat arbitrary—fixed upon
is 56, that being the number of boroughs set down in
schedule A of the Bill of last session, Ministers not feeling
themselves justified—as still less would the country—to
have a less number in the present Bill. They therefore,
he repeated, adopted that number, hoping thereby to pre-
serve the disfranchising principle of the former Bill entire,
while it would leave the consideration of the particular
boroughs to be included under that number open to dis-
cussion.--(Hear.) The number to b, disfranchised being
agreed to--and, he repeated, Ministers could not go further
—that is, send up to the House of Lords a Bill containing
a larger number of disfranchised boroughs than that they
hadLa,lat
rejected,withouteiure,while risking its scuocuclessnintheoither branch
of the louver
number with satisfaction to the country—(Hear, hear)--
the integrity of the general measure would not be impaired
by a difference of opinion as to the claims of particular
boroughs.—( Hear.) For these reasons he trusted that
the House would s,e the expediency of supporting the
clause as it stood.
Sir It. PEEL begged leave, in corroboration of his
argument against their taking the amount of assessed taxes
as the basis of schedule A and B, to cite the case of Gat-
ton. That borough, containing 23 houses, !slid 207/.
assessed taxes, being more than was paid by many of the
boroughs set down in schedule B.
Lord ALTHORP had to inform the Right Hon. Baro-
net that the subject of the assessed taxes standard was stlll
under official consideration.
Mr. SMITH, in a low tone of voice, was understood
to deny that his father employed any undue 'trins to
swell the amount of assessed taxes levied on the borough
of Midhurst.
Mr. GOULBIJRN agreed with his Right Hon. Friend
that no more fallacious standard of the importance of a
borough could not be selected than its contribution to the
assessed taxes. He was sure that the Noble proprietor of
Gatton might have easily, under the Assessed Taxes Com-
pounding Act, made the amount levied on that borough
appear of sufficient value to entitle it to a place in
shedule B. He would further insist that they ought
not to be a: tiled upon to condemn fifty.six boroughs to
disfranchisement without being put in possession of such
local information as would justify their doing so. Indeed
a more preposterous proposition had never been brought
forward in the whole course of his experience of Par-
liamentary proceedings, Between several places Row

_
t

intended to be included in this schedule there was, in
fact, a greater difference as respee'ed their relative amount
of population than was to he found between some of the
boroughs in one schedule as compared with those in ano-
ther. The amount axed to No. 54, was 1,353 ; i❑
No. 35, the amount appeared to be 1,390; while in 56,
there was an increase to 1,584. Under these circum-
stances, he agreed with his Right Hon. Friend in think-
ing, in would be much better to omit the number, and
leave the question open for discu.sion hereafter, instead of
thus prejudging the boroughs before they were afforded the
means of knowing whether they were inconsiderable or not.

Mr. SHELL wished to understand whether the number
56 was to be considered as a minimum or a maximum.
He apprehended that it did not follow, because tkey might
agree to the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs, that they
would be thereby precluded from adding others to that
number hereafter.

The CHAIRMAN said, that the question at present
before the Committee was, whether they should omit the
number 56, and leave a blank, or agree to the clause as
originally proposed.

Mr. SHEIL trusted that Ministers would not oppose
his subsequently moving that the number of boroughs be
increased to 61.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, it was quite competent for
the Hon. Member for Louth to move either that the num-
ber Schedule A E. increased to 61, or that a certain
number of boroughs be included in the disfranchisement.

Sir R. PEEL remarked, that the suggestion of the
Noble Lord, in fact, showed that by assenting to the origi •
nal number they would virtually be doing nothing at all, as
it would then be open for any Member to raise the question
whether that number ought not to be altered.—(Laughter.)
Lord ALTHORP replied that the more regular mode of
proceeding would be for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
to move the substitutio❑ of 61 for 56.

Mr. GOULBURN recommended that a blank should be
left in the way his Right Hon. Friend had proposed, and
they might hereafter fill it up with any number which on
further consideration should seem exp2diest.
Mr. SHEIL said, it was his desire not to bring on his
motion until schedule A should be disfranchised. There
would surely be ❑o inconsietency in his proposing an ad-
dition to the number 56 as laid down by his Majesty's
Ministers.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the Hon. Member
might move, " that each of those 61 boroughs do not
henceforth return Members to serve in Parliament," or he
might move a separate clause, including the he boroughs
by name in the disfranchisement.

_ .-ar ~ ._

Mr. C. FERGUSSON should support the clause as it
now stood, and would reserve to himself the liberty to in-
crease schedule A hereafter, should the Hon. Member for
Louth bring forward the motion to that effect, of which he
had already given notice.

Sir C. WETHERELL maintained that the Noble Lord
should now try his hand at a smaller number--suppose 30
or 40,—as so large a total as 56 had formerly proved fatal
to the success of his first Reform Bill elsewhere. They
were told that the right of sending Members should depend
upon the amount of houses, but at present they had no
means of ascertaining accurately how many houses all these
boroughs respectively contained. Amersham, the 56th on
the list, it appeared, was the pivot on which the principle
of disfranchi,ement was to turn. Well, this borough con-
tained 360 houses, while Midhurat was proved to have
only 254 ; and yet two places with such dissimilar claims
on the score of population were to be treated exactly
alike, according to the Bill of the Noble Lord. This was
manifestly unjust, and he insisted, moreover, that they
ought not to be required to vote a specific number before
they were put in possession of the requisite information.
Lord ALTHORP was of opinio❑ that the question at
present was, not one of comparison between the rela-
tive claims of one borough and those of another, but
whether the number disfranchised should be 56, and he
had no doubt that the country generally would not be satis-
fied with !e.g.

Mr. WARBURTON explained, that the returns of
Lieutenant Drummond comprised two conditions—the
number of houses and the amount of taxation; and it was
entirely arbitrary how far the one principle should be al-
lowed to predominate in any particular case, when the de-
ci,ion of Government was formed on an impartial consi-
deration of the two taken together.
Mr. GOULBURN imagined, from the observations
which had fallen from the Hon. Member for Kirkcud-
bright, that he was totally ignorant of the situation in
which the Kates was placed with respect to the borough of
Downton. No less than five different returns bad been
made of the number of houses in that borough. By the
first return the number of houses was stated to be 316,—
by the second, 326,—by the third, 500,—by the fourth,
390,—and by the fifth, 715.—(Hear, hear.) Now if the
fourth return was assumed to be the right one, Downton
ought to be excluded from the fifty-six condemned bo-
roughs. He had mentioned these particulars to the House
for the purpose of showing the propriety of delaying to le-
gislate until correct information was laid on the table.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON should vote for including Down-
ton in schedule A, because he did not think its population
exceeded 2,000 to such an extent as to entitle it to repre-
sentation. His determination on this subject was made up,
without reference to Lieutenant Drummond's calculations.
Mr. GOULBURN—Nevertheless if Downton should
be found to contain 890 houses, the Hou. Member must
according to the principle now adopted in the Bill, consent
to exclude that borough from schedule A.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that even supposing a case
could be made out for excluding Downton from schedule
A, the number 56 could be made up by taking the
borough next in order—namely, No. 57. He would ex-
plain to the House the reason why Ministers had deter-
mined to take the number of houses and the amount of the
assessed taxes as the test of disfranchisement. During the
discussion on the last Reform Bill Ministers were con-
stantly reproached for having taken population for a test.
It was objected that this did not offer so fair a test as taxa-
tion and population united, and that it would inevitably
lead by the rule of three to ulterior changes. To remove
these objections, Ministers determined to take the amount
of houses and assessed taxes as the test of disfranchise-
ment ; but, notwithstanding, those who before found
fault with population now complained that the number of
houses alone was not taken as the test. He put it to Hon.
Gentlemen whether it would not be better at once fairly
' to say that they objected to disfranchisement altogether,
rather than continually to cavil about the adoption of this
or that particular rule ?—(Hear, hear.) Ministers had
taken into their calculation, not only the assessed taxes
on houses and windows, which they found to vary con-
siderably in the different boroughs, but the whole of the
assessed taxes in each borough. By these means they con-
sidered that a fair judgment might be formed of the com-
parative importance of the different boroughs.
Mr. W. WYNN objected to binding down the House
to the disfranchisement of the precise number of 56 bo-
roughs. He was of opinion that disfranchisement and en-
franchisement ought to proceed together ; and there ex-
isted the same argument for pledging the House to the
exact number of the places to be enfranchised as of those
which were to be disfranchised. On referring, however,
to the Bill, he found that all the enfranchising clauses
commenced in the following manner—" B.: it enacted,
that each of tke places enumerated in the respective sche-
dules, &c. ;" the exact number of those places not being
specified. The lion. Member concluded by repeating that
the amount of disfranchisement must depend on the amount
of enfranchisement.
Mr. CROKER, in answer to the observations made
by the Noble Lord (Russell), stated that he and the party
with whom he acted had certainly objected to the pupula-
tion test, because it was a principle which must lead by
the rule of three to extensive changes. They urged that
objection on the pecond reading of the Bill ; but when the
Bill went into Committee, they made no more objections
to the principle of population, but only wished to sea it
strictly applied. The Noble Lord himself was the first
to introduce the subject of the assessed taxes ; and he
(Mr. Croker) at the time stated that the union of popu-
lation and taxation would form the best test. He there
fore should not now object to that test, but he wished to see
it calculated fairly, and applied impartially, and he thought
the Scotch and Irish Members would also insist on its
application to their country.
Lord EAS I'NOR was prepared to go a considerable
length in the disfranchisement of boroughs, but he objected
to binding the House down to the precise-number of 56.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, that the principle of disfran-
chisement had been so mixed up with the question of the
number of the boroughs, that he wished to know, previous
to the division, whether it was merely a question of numbers
or one of principle? If it was not a question of numbers,
would another opportunity be offered of taking the sense
of the House on the principle of disfranchisement ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that the question before the
Committee related only to the number of the boroughs to
be disfranchised, but that it would be competent for the
lion. Member to divide the House en a future occasion
upon the principle of the clause.
The Committee then divided. The numbers were.
198
Noes 125
Majority -75
On our re-admission to the gallery,
Sir R. PEEL was proposing that the consideration of
the schedule should be postponed till Monday.
Lord ALTHORP was perfectly willing to concur in the
suggestion, Ile considered the luestieq to be &sides'

.THADMITOTCT Y fIATLIIII.r. lITHZ. A
t .
:../ji,v7 3v:31,20 !!3Prte :;,-iso2Lasif ;i1
.2111.44,C1 ELVII:* trs%-sq adJ,,,,3fLOn.
YR lo YHAZOIT3i(I
!,f,.41 noitradtiza ;

g'

that the clause should stand part of the Bill, and agreed that
the question of the individual boroughs should be reserve'.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY protested beforehand
against the disfranchising of specific boroughs without
fuller information.

The clause was then agreed to, the House returned, and
the Chairman reported progress.
SUBLETTING ACT.

Mr. STANLEY moved the second reading of the Sub-
letting Aet Amendment Bill. He hoped that the second •
reading would be permitted, under the pledge, he gave
that the subject should undergo the fullest discussion on
going to a Committee.
After a few words from Mr. Sum, the Bill was read a
second time, end ordered to be, commit►ed on Friday *ext.