PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BlLL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTEENTH DAY. (Hansard, 30 July 1831)

§ Mr. Cresset Pelham
strongly protested against the unfair conduct of Government, in proceeding this day, in violation of an understood arrangement.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
said, that according to the unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary rules laid down by his Majesty's Government, the borough of Malmesbury must fall. He had had the honour of being returned honestly and independently, and without being bound down by pledges, for five Parliaments, by that borough; and even now, when it was threatened with extinction, he would say, that he would prefer being returned to that House by the borough of Malmesbury, to being returned to it by London, Middlesex, or Westminster. In his estimation, therefore, 567 Malmesbury ought to be preserved, but under the circumstances he could barely hope for such an admission on the part of the present Government, even although Malmesbury had returned Mr. Fox to Parliament.

§ Mr. Moreton
said, he lived in the neighbourhood of Malmesbury, and when the hon. Baronet said he was not bound down by pledges, that was easily to be accounted for, for the electors who voted for the hon. Baronet, when asked the name of the candidate to whom they would give their suffrages, could not tell it.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
said, it was often necessary to go from home to learn what was done at home. The hon. Member was in this condition. Although residing near Malmesbury, he evidently knew nothing of that borough. A gentleman, a Reformer, had sought the suffrages of the electors of Malmesbury, and had advised them to redeem all past sins by returning a Reformer. The electors, however, refused to adopt this sagacious advice, and declared their determination to support him (Sir C. Forbes) and his hon. relative. A meeting was held at the Town-hall, and the Reformer started for Chippenham, where he met with a similar reception; and thus aiming at two birds, missed both. He repeated, that Malmesbury was as independent as any borough in the kingdom.

Mr. R. Gordon
said, the hon. Baronet was independent, if being purely the Representative of himself and his own money, could make him so. If any borough in the kingdom ought to be called a nomination, a corrupt, or a rotten borough, Malmesbury was that one. There were thirteen electors, burgesses, respectable persons, according to the hon. Baronet's statement, which he would not gainsay, but merely remark, that six out of the number were unable to read or write. Each of these, however, up to the passing of Mr. Peel's bill, received 50l. a-year for his vote. On the passing of that bill, the sum paid to those burgesses was reduced to 31l. a year each. This was notorious; indeed so notorious, that his own steward, who lived near Malmesbury, had been applied to by the widow of one of the burgesses, to know how she could get her arrears. Nor was that all; for it was the practice at certain dinners in Malmesbury to have cheesecakes, under which a bank-note was placed.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
admitted the hon. 568 member for Cricklade was so facetious and good-tempered that it was difficult to find fault with him; but he called upon the noble Lord to observe, that the present discussion was not excited by the opponents of the Bill. He must say, that the interruptions by the hon. members for Gloucestershire and Cricklade, were only calculated to promote delay. When the borough was about to be disfranchised, and his hon. friend rose to take his leave of it with a good grace, then the hon. members for Gloucestershire and Cricklade rose to throw dirt upon it very unnecessarily.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
called on the member for Cricklade to prove his charge of bribery and corruption against Malmesbury. It was his duty, if he knew of those thngs, to bring forward his accusation, and sustain it by evidence, in which case Malmesbury would not merely be placed in schedule B, but must be disfranchised altogether. He could tell the House, that he had sat down to dinner with the burgesses and the burgesses' wives, not to eat cheesecakes, for cheesecakes there were none, but to partake of good rounds of beef, and other provisions equally substantial and plain.

Mr. R. Gordon
could not prove the charge of bribery from his own knowledge, but from such credible report, that he made no doubt of the fact.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
was of opinion, that the statement of the hon. member for Cricklade ought not to have been made at all, or should have been made at a former period, and then it might have proved a sufficient reason for placing Malmesbury in schedule A. If those facts could have been established, he should have readily agreed to that proposal.

Sir R. Inglis
said, they were wandering from the subject under discussion, which was, not whether bribery and corruption prevailed in Malmesbury, but whether the population was sufficient, under the plan now before the House, for the borough to return two Members. As it appeared it did not contain the required number, they were wasting their time in remarking on other matters,

§ Mr. Attwood
said, that the borough of Malmesbury, according to the shewing of the hon. Member, did what that House had not done, and ought to have done, viz. it had accompanied Mr. Peel's bill by a measure of equitable adjustment. He defended the borough, on account of 569 the high character of the Members it sent to that House.

§ Mr. G. Bankes
wished to know of the hon. member for Cricklade, as he objected to persons representing places with which they were not locally connected, how our West-India property was to be represented? It, was clear, from the conduct of the other side, that it was not the Opposition which always got up unnecessary delays.

Mr. Baring
said, none of the new-created places could send Representatives to the House more able and honourable than his hon. friend who represented Malmesbury. He feared, the newly-created constituency would have an appetite for cheesecakes equal to Liverpool itself.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, the population of Malmesbury was calculated in a manner not allowed in the case of Clitheroe. It was made to include several districts not in the borough, and, without that, Malmesbury would have been altogether disfranchised. He wished to know, why this took place?

Mr. Stanley shewed
that the population of the borough of Malmesbury, without including the tithings, was 2,900.

Mr. T. H. Estcourt
said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to this question, but he protested against its injustice. Calne and Marlborough were but eight miles distant, from each other, and, therefore, it was natural to make a comparison between them. Marlborough was, in every respect, superior to Calne, and yet, under the conduct of the present Government, Marlborough was to be disfranchised, and Calne preserved.

§ Mr. W. Bankes
said, he did not address the Committee with any expectation of receiving justice on the part of Marlborough, after what had happened with respect to Dorchester and other cases; but, there was another tribunal, one at which the Attorney General did not preside, and one in which, he trusted, the justice of the Attorney General would not be found to prevail. There was another tribunal, one not pledged against reason, common sense, and justice, but where sound argument and facts would have effect; and it was to enable that tribunal to come to a fair judgment, that he now addressed himself 570 to the case of Marlborough. This was his feeling; and he entreated all those who had any local information respecting the boroughs, the destruction of which was resolved on, not to shrink from doing their duty, because facts and arguments were disregarded by that Committee, but to come forward and to state all they knew, with a view to each case being considered elsewhere. Marlborough and Calne were situated on the same high road, and every one who had passed through these two boroughs must have been struck with the immense superiority of Marlborough: but not only to the eye was Marlborough superior to Calne; it was also superior in reality. It had a greater population; and where Calne had 208 10l. houses, Marlborough had 227. The inhabitants of some boroughs might be desirous of losing the franchise. Those of Marlborough were not. It was an ancient and flourishing place, against which no charge of complaint or misconduct had been made, and against the question then put to the Committee, he, on the part of the borough, loudly protested. And what was this schedule B? It would be schedule A of the first Reformed Parliament. He did not expect justice, after the language used by the Attorney General two nights ago—he did not expect courtesy, after the conduct of the noble Lord (Althorp) yesterday and to-day; but if he was to expect neither justice nor courtesy at the present moment, what was he to expect after this great change and great step towards the destruction of all our institutions should have been taken? What was he to look for, when the Attorney General imitated the conduct of those times which ought to be regarded as a beacon and a warning to be shunned and avoided? The Malignants of the first Parliament were those who were opposed to republican principles. The Malignants of the second Parliament were those who had any property to protect. The step was short and sudden upon that occasion; God forbid that, on the present, it should be imitated.

§ Mr. Hunt
was well acquainted with all the three boroughs of Chippenham, Marlborough, and Calne; and felt, as the people in Wiltshire felt, extreme surprise, that Calne should not be in the same schedule as Chippenham and Marlborough, which had so obviously the advantage in the eye of the least attentive observer. There was no good in going about the bush 571 to avoid wounding the sensibility of Ministers; so he would, without disguise, tell the secret, if it were one, to the House and the people out of doors. The fact was, this borough of Marlborough was in the interest of the Marquis of Aylesbury, whom the noble framer of the Bill knew would be against his Bill of Reform, whilst he as well knew, the borough of Calne was in the nomination of a supporter of it, namely, the Marquis of Lansdown, and, therefore, the noble Lord eked out the requisite number of voters for Calne, by adding to its own population that of the liberties of Bowood. When the proper time came, he trusted the House, out of a true spirit of consistency, would support him when he pledged himself to make a motion for placing Calne in schedule B. It ought not to have, it was obvious, as many Representatives as Westminster.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, he frequently travelled the road on which Marlborough and Calne were situated, and he knew that the people of Calne expressed their astonishment when they found that they were to retain both their Representatives, while Marlborough, so much their superior, was to lose one. They, however, were taking but half the borough, and their successors would take the other half. The measure was said to be final; it would be no such thing. It would be like parboiling a dish, as they did in Scotland, where salmon was sent to table half-cooked. Gentlemen might flatter themselves that they were accomplishing a great work. They would find themselves only the rough hewers, and better workmen than they were would polish and finish the great business of confiscation, disfranchisement, and destruction. But though his learned friend, the Attorney General, or rather, he ought to say, the radical member for Nottingham, might lay down the doctrine of confiscation as a part of the law and constitution of the country, he was perfectly satisfied, there was another place where such a doctrine would undergo revision, and would not be confirmed.

§ Mr. Cresset Pelham
objected most strongly to the Bill and all its details. If it pointed out any mode of paying the national debt, and reducing salaries, it would be something to the purpose.

§ Lord Althorp
complained that so much time should be occupied in discussing the case of this borough, when the two members for it had admitted that they could 572 not give any reason why it should be taken out of the schedule, if the principle which had been acted upon with regard to other boroughs was applied to it. He must say, that the time of the House was unnecessarily wasted by such discussion, though he was far from throwing all the blame on one side.

Mr. Yorke
had never heard it alleged that Reigate was a rotten borough. That, however, he was aware, was no reason, nor would any observation he could make, be regarded as sufficient reason, why this borough should not be continued in the schedule. He would not, therefore, take up the time of the Committee.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, that Reigate was a contemptible place when compared with Guildford, and that it would, after this Bill passed, be just as much the nomination borough of Lord Somers as it was now. It ought to be in schedule A.

§ Lord Eastnor
gave the statement of the hon. member for Preston the most unequivocal contradiction.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the borough had been placed originally in schedule A; but that, upon inquiry, it was found that there was abundant ground for taking it out of that schedule; and that, at least, could not be attributed to partiality, because both the Representatives for the borough were opposed to the Ministers.

§ Mr. Hunt
did not believe, that there were twenty 10l. houses in Reigate. He had not accused any of his Majesty's Ministers of partiality as to this borough.

§ Lord Eastnor
said, that it did not much matter what the hon. member for Preston believed, since the fact was, that there were 228 10l. houses in the town of Reigate alone.

§ Colonel Cradock
said, the inhabitants of Richmond had presented a memorial to the Government, stating facts that ought to take their borough out of the schedule. The borough and parish were co-extensive, but the town had a place connected with it which contained about 150 inhabitants, and thirty-three 10l. houses. The inhabitants 573 generally were of a most respectable description. It was superior to any town in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and was a wealthy, flourishing place, having more than 4,000 inhabitants at present.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the case of Richmond was perfectly simple; the borough and parish were co-extensive, and contained 3,456 inhabitants, which clearly brought it within the rule, without possibility of escape.

§ Mr. Wrangham
said, the rule so often talked of was not applicable to the various cases which came under their consideration, and was not adhered to.

§ Lord Althorp
must suggest to the hon. Gentleman, that without some fixed rule, it would have been impossible to have decided any case.

Lord Milton
said, undoubtedly Richmond was a very respectable town, with a most respectable population; but had his hon. friends made any exception on that account, a great clamour would have been raised against them. The principle applied might work unequally, but those who proposed the rule adopted it with the best intentions. Richmond was better fitted to send Members than Northallerton, but it was necessary to adhere to the rule laid down.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
observed, that the experience of going through the schedule, which they had now acquired, proved how defective the principle was on which it was formed. The practical operation of the principle was a refutation of the principle itself.

§ Mr. Wrangham
did not rise to endeavour to exempt Richmond from the rule laid down, nor had he intended to extend his observations so far as had been interpreted, but he certainly wished it to be understood, that he thought, the rule itself most absurd. The qualification of property should have been taken into consideration.

An Hon. Member
would be ready to support any motion for removing this borough from schedule B. He was of opinion it ought not to be partially disfranchised.

§ Mr. North
said, that the observations of the hon. Member, as to the qualification of property distinct from population, was deserving of attention. If small towns were to return each one Member, and considerable towns were to have none, the projectors of this measure, who adopted population as its basis, acted in a very 574 extraordinary manner, which ought to excite suspicion. It was well known, that Calne, which was to retain its rights, was not of equal importance to many boroughs which were either wholly or partly to be disfranchised: such proceedings could neither be satisfactory nor final.

§ Mr. Wrangham
wished to impress upon the Committee the fact, that many places were wholly removed from the operation of this measure, while the privileges of others were completely extinguished.

Mr. Baring
said, a population of 4,000 had been announced as the line to be drawn for a place to continue to return its Members, but that had not been altogether adhered to. In some instances, distinctions had been made where parts of the population, of what was, in fact, the same place, were in another parish; in other instances, the same principle was acted on in an opposite manner, and the population of other places included in the borough. He therefore begged to ask the noble Lord, when the different boroughs were assigned their limits by the Commissioners, whether the portion of the population taken in by the speeches of noble Lords would possess the right of voting for the borough?

§ Lord Althorp
must decline answering the question, because it would have the effect of introducing a new subject for discussion, perfectly extraneous to that before them. At a proper time, he should be ready to have the question discussed, and they could then come to a regular decision. To agitate it now would be of no avail.

Colonel Evans
said, that the population of this borough in 1821 was 3,599. It was highly probable, that, in time of war the port of Rye would become a port for steam-boats, and he believed, that at this moment the population of the borough amounted, within two or three hundred to what the Gentlemen opposite called the mystic number. There was, however, at the distance of a mile and three quarters from Rye, a town which might perhaps be advantageously added to it for the purposes of Representation. The town to which he alluded was Winchilsea, and this town and Rye had been united in service and duty to the Crown for the last 500 years. Part of Rye was 575 within the limits of Winchilsea, and had been for 500 years an appendage to that ancient Cinque Port, enjoying under one and the same charter equal privileges in all cases. The two places were intimately connected. Their united population, including the liberties, was about 6,400 inhabitants, and a most respectable constituency could be had. The towns of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, were by this Bill to send two Members; the population of these towns did not far exceed that of Rye and Winchilsea, he, therefore, considered it reasonable that these two latter places should also be joined together, and return two Members. A great deal had been said with respect to the riots which were supposed to have taken place at the late election for this borough. He could confidently assert, that far greater disturbances had occurred at the previous election. He meant to move, "that the towns of Rye and Winchilsea should be united, and that they should send two Members to Parliament." It was intimated to him that this course was informal, and he should, therefore, move, "that the borough of Rye be excluded from schedule B."

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
, so far from admitting that the disturbances at the last election for Rye were moderate, compared with those which had occurred at the preceding election, declared, that a more riotous or outrageous scene could not be imagined than that which was exhibited at the last election. The hon. and gallant Member had not done credit to the military talents of his constituents. That, however, had nothing to do with the question at present before them. In his opinion, there was much stronger reason for uniting Winchilsea with Rye, than could be adduced for uniting Deal with Sandwich. He, therefore, was in favour of the Motion.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued, that if there were any difference between the union of Sandwich and Deal, and the union of Winchilsea and Rye, it was in favour of the latter. Now this was not so. Ministers had attached Deal to Sandwich, because it was a large and populous town, which was not the case with Winchilsea. There was, in his opinion, no reason for uniting Rye with Winchilsea, and he should oppose the amendment.

Mr. Hope
was of opinion, that Rye 576 ought to be taken out of schedule B. He could not help expressing some surprise that the gallant Officer who brought this question forward should have founded an argument on the ancient charter of Rye, when he had voted for disfranchising a great number of boroughs in schedule A, which also possessed chartered privileges.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
was favourable to the union of Winchilsea and Rye. He was also of opinion, that it would be just to unite Newport with Launceston. Conjointly they would have a right to return two Members; instead of which, Newport was placed in schedule A, and was totally disfranchised, while Launceston, being comprised in schedule B, could only return one Member. It appeared to him, that the legislation of Ministers was a legislation on names, and not on things. It certainly was not a legislation on property. That principle appeared to have sunk entirely from their view. If it were not so, why should Shoreham and Cricklade, the former having twenty-six, and the latter twenty-four 10l. houses, be allowed to send two Members to Parliament, while county-towns were "curtailed of their fair proportions?" In the cases he had mentioned, corruption had been proved before that House, and the franchise was in consequence extended to the hundred. So that, in point of fact, it was former corruption which secured to them that privilege of which Dorchester, a county-town, with a constituency of upwards of 3,500, and 10l. houses to the number of 333, was deprived. This was a legislative absurdity which must and ought to be corrected.

Colonel Evans
said the charge brought against him, of having voted for the extinction of other chartered rights, while he defended those of Rye, was well founded. The only point of difference in his favour was, these were insignificant place, while larger and more populous towns were not Represented. If there was that difference between Deal and Sandwich, and Rye and Winchilsea, which had been said by the noble Lord and his colleagues who had brought forward this measure, and they did not approve of his proposition, he certainly did not mean to press it.

§ Sir John Malcolm
was surprised, that the hon. and gallant Member should have voted for the disfranchisement of Launceston on a former evening, with the opinions he had now expressed.

Colonel Conolly
would be most happy to support the hon. and gallant Member, if he would undertake to show the line laid down by Ministers was unjust with regard to Rye. It might then be inferred, that it was unjust with regard to other places, and the hon. and gallant Member would probably support a motion on the third reading, to get rid of schedule B altogether.

§ Mr. Curteis
had some local knowledge of the places in question, and, therefore, wished to point out to the gallant Member, that it would be somewhat difficult to unite the towns and liberties of the two boroughs, because the liberties of Winchilsea extended into several parishes, which had distinct jurisdictions. The proper course would be, that such matters should be settled by the Commissioners.

Colonel Evans
withdrew his amendment, and the original question was agreed to.

Mr. E. L. Bulwer
said, he feared that he could not serve his constituents by making out a case in their favour. He hoped, however, that he was forwarding their interests, and those of the public in general, by doing nothing that could in any way delay the Bill. By sacrificing local to general interests, he believed, that the welfare of all would be most promoted.

Sir John Walsh
said, in this case the interests of a large body of constituents were intrusted to his hands; and it was his duty to substantiate the very just claim which their borough had to be taken out of schedule B. This was one of the best cases, if not the very best, which the House had been called on to adjudicate, in considering schedule B. He would endeavour to be as brief as possible with his statement, for he could not help recollecting, that this was the fifth day (and they had sat till very late hours) during which they were occupied with this clause, and of course the bodies and minds of Gentlemen must be very much wearied. Gentlemen opposite had been in the habit of complaining that they were interrupted by hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He thought, however, that the accusation ought to be reversed. 578 It could not be forgotten that when he addressed the House on the second reading of the Bill, the Gentlemen opposite opened, in full cry, with those volleys of cheers which they so much condemned if they happened to come from any other quarter. He regretted much, that he had not the opportunity of laying the case of Sudbury before a more numerous assembly, because he felt that it was one which demanded serious attention. He, however, would now protest against considering the decision of the Committee as being final and conclusive upon the whole merits of this case; and hereafter, if the decision of the Committee rendered it necessary, he would bring forward the question for solemn discussion. He would now state, that Sudbury, with respect to population, might be ranked as the first borough in schedule B. In reference to population, it approached nearest to the arbitrary line which his Majesty's Ministers had adopted. In 1821, the number of persons within the limits of the borough, was 3,950; and the amount of inhabited houses was 843. Since that time, Sudbury afforded ample evidence of an improving and rapidly flourishing condition, as was the case with other boroughs to which hon. Members had alluded. The population within the limits of the borough in 1831, was probably 4,677, and it would have been very nearly that number in 1821, if Ballingdon, a part of the town, had been included in the census at that time. In 1821, a flourishing manufacture was established in the borough. It could not, indeed, rival Manchester, but still it was a growing and thriving manufacturing town. The 10l. houses, in 1821, were said to be 180; but he believed that that return was extremely inaccurate, and that they actually amounted to 271 within the borough. The population of Ballingdon, which was a suburb district, forming a continuous street with Sudbury, amounted to 662; and if that were added, as it ought to be added, to the population of the borough given in the return, it would make it, amount to 4,612, which would clearly take it out of this schedule. The population of which he spoke was to be found in one continuous town; it was not a scattered population, nor an agricultural population, and that circumstance, he thought, should be sufficient to induce the Committee to take this borough out of schedule B. He was certainly determined 579 to take the sense of the Committee on this part of the clause, though he did not conceive that its decision would in any degree detract from the justice of the case.

§ Lord Althorp
said, he was ready to admit, that this was a case similar to those of Dorchester and Guildford, and that it should be decided upon the same principle. The hon. Member contended, that it ought to be taken out of the schedule, because it had a hamlet connected with it which would make its population sufficient to bring it within the line, but the same arguments had been used as to those other places and the motions founded on them properly rejected. He should, therefore, persist in keeping Sudbury where it had been placed.

Lord Milton
said, that it appeared to him, that according to the rule which his Majesty's Ministers had laid down, this borough ought to be taken out of schedule B. The population return stated, that the hamlet of Ballingdon was not in the borough of Sudbury, but there was no doubt that it was in the parish of All Saints, which was in the borough of Sudbury; and the difficulty which his noble and right hon. friends seemed to feel, as to connecting this hamlet with the borough of Sudbury, was only similar to that which might be experienced in the case of the borough of Tamworth, the constituent parts of which were in two different counties. Though he should be sorry to vote in any instance against his right hon. friends, if he could not persuade them to omit this borough in schedule B, he would certainly vote against its being retained there.

§ Mr. Wrangham
said, that the hamlet of Ballingdon paid tithes and church-rates to the parish of All Saints, and that its population ought, therefore, to be included in the population of that parish. If that had been done, this borough would have been placed beyond the line laid down in the Bill, and on such grounds he should vote against its being included in schedule B.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that he was ready to admit that this was a difficult case, and if the hon. Baronet (Sir John Walsh) had no objection, he would move, that the consideration of this borough be postponed.

§ Mr. Wrangham
pressed for an immediate decision in the case of this borough, he was so thoroughly convinced of the justice of its claims to be excluded from schedule B.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, that a very strong 580 case had been made out in favour of Sudbury, which tended to convince him of the expediency of examining witnesses, as had seen suggested in the case of Appleby. He certainly thought the case had better be postponed for further inquiry.

Mr. Baring
said, undoubtedly the population of Thetford was under the line drawn by the Ministers, but the Corporation were most honourable and respectable people, and they had no objection to increase the number of electors. There was no person who had sufficient property or influence to coerce the voters, and should the number of voters be increased, no person could, previous to a contested election, calculate who would be returned. The Corporation objected to disfranchisement, but not to enlarging the franchise. He feared that the events of a few years would convince the Gentlemen of the landed interest, that they had done wrong in consenting partly to disfranchise several of the county towns, and Thetford was one. The field of coal would beat the field of barley; the population of the manufacturing districts was more condensed, and would act together with more energy, backed by clubs and large assemblages of people, than the population of the agricultural districts. They would act with such force in the House that the more divided agriculturists would be unable to withstand it, and the latter would be overwhelmed. They had, in fact, been already completely gulled in supposing that the proposed increase of county Representation would afford sufficient security for their interests, promoted as other interests would be by the effects of this Bill. He saw with great alarm the injury to be apprehended to the agricultural interests, believing as he did, that the prosperity of the country chiefly depended on the prosperity of the farmers. He would return to the particular case of Thetford. Horsham was to return two Members, but there was a distinction made between the borough and town. By the returns of 1831, the inhabitants of the borough were only 1,887; one parish adjoining it contained 1,187 more; this was not enough, but then another pariah was added, and the population of the three united made up more than 4,000, and 581 Horsham was preserved. It was the population of the rural districts, and not the town population, however, that accomplished this, though such a population was expressly excluded in the cases of Thetford and Dorchester, which was a still stronger case even than Thetford. He had no objection to the line of 2,000 and 4,000, but he objected to their being drawn in a vague and arbitrary manner. To some towns less than justice was done, and others were too liberally dealt with. It was said, they were returning to the ancient practice of the Constitution, but at no period had the Representation of county-towns, been such as was now proposed, and they were not proceeding in conformity with the recommendations from the Throne, to arrange the details of the measure before them, upon the understood principles of the Constitution.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
allowed the borough of Thetford was now, and had ever been, a close Corporation of a peculiar class, and at a proper time he should prove, that it had never stood upon the basis of popular Representation, and that it was no usurpation of popular rights. He hoped to convince some hon. Gentlemen, that electors in this class of boroughs had always been very limited in numbers.

Mr. R. G. Russell
agreed generally to the principles of the Bill, but as Thirsk was a town of considerable manufacturing and commercial importance, he had hoped it would not be included in schedule B. There was an irregularity in the population returns for 1821, and a township belonging to the borough was omitted. He believed this might have caused the insertion of Thirsk in the schedule, and as he had long represented the town, he could do no less than bring this before the House.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the population of Thirsk would not amount to 4,000, if the adjacent township or parish were added. He was ready to admit it was a flourishing town, but thought it would be sufficiently represented by one Member.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that really the lots were put up so quick, and knocked down so soon, that there was no knowing how they went.

§ Lord Althorp
thought there was not much reason to regret the fate of Wallingford, which contained only 2,093 inhabitants. The noble Lord then moved "that the borough of Saltash be inserted in schedule B."

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
thought, that the least which the right hon. and noble Lord could do, was to state some grounds for his Motion.

§ Lord Althorp
did not conceive it necessary to state any grounds why this borough should be taken out of schedule A, for both himself and the learned Gentleman had voted, on this point, upon the same side. He would always give way on any question when he was convinced he was in error; for he was not like a former Member of that House, who had openly asserted, that he had heard many speeches in Parliament which had made him alter his opinions, but he had never heard one that had induced him to change his vote. The reason for inserting the borough in schedule B was, that including the parish of St. Stephen, it contained a population of more than 3,000, and less than 4,000 inhabitants.

Mr. Hughes Hughes
would willingly support any Member who should move that this borough be returned to schedule A.

Lord Milton
said, upon reconsidering the transfer of Saltash from schedule A to schedule B, he was disposed to believe (although he had voted against the transfer) that it had been done on fair grounds. He wished to be allowed to make a few remarks on what the hon. member for Boroughbridge had asserted relating to close Corporations. He concurred with him, that it could not be proved these small boroughs were founded generally upon popular Representation, but he believed, if the case was closely looked into, some principles of the Representation of property would be observed, and although the inhabitants generally had no votes, yet the members of the corporation themselves were the representatives of property, and the question now arose, whether these corporations, as at present composed, fulfilled this object. He believed it would not be asserted that the corporations consisted of the most respectable persons in the respective boroughs, and therefore it 583 did not answer the original intentions with which the boroughs were created. So far from representing property, many such persons were under the influence of individuals. He did not apply this case particularly to Thetford.

Mr. Baring
said, he did not object to opening close corporations, and on this point his constituents agreed with him; but what he feared was, that in the arrangements for the new Constitution, they were letting loose too much democratical influence, and he wished to find, to make or to retain, something to balance it, and he, therefore, objected to taking away Members from the close corporations, which were to be thrown open.

Colonel Evans
said, the Bill would have the effect of destroying the wretched system of corporation monopoly which existed through the country, from which he anticipated the best effects. No persons, but those acquainted with the facts, knew how injuriously this system operated in small towns.

Mr. Hughes Hughes
having been one of the minority of 150 on the division concerning Saltash, and having still an opinion that Saltash ought not to have been omitted in schedule A, he should feel himself bound to support any motion for restoring it to that schedule, though he would not divide the Committee on the present occasion.