HC Deb 14 September 1831 vol 7 cc28-46

The Order of the Day read for the further consideration of the Report of the Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.

Several clauses were, with some verbal amendments, agreed to.

On the clause respecting Courts of Registration,

Mr. C. W. Wynn

wished to know if the number of Courts of Registration in each county was to be specified. There was a provision that no one was to go more than fifteen miles to vote, but there was no regulation as to the distance persons might have to go to prove their votes. He must further observe, that there were no directions who were to attend such Courts, and no person would be able to tell what Court he was to attend.

Lord Althorp

said, he was unable to give a precise answer to his right hon. friend. The point was new—be did not remember to have heard it urged in the Committee.

Upon that part of the thirty-ninth clause which directs justices of the peace in Quarter Sessions to divide their respective counties into convenient districts for polling, and to appoint in each district a convenient place for taking the poll at all future elections of knights of the shire, in such manner that no person shall have to travel more than fifteen miles from the property in respect of which he claims to vote,

Mr. C. W. Wynn

said, he had great doubts whether this clause would answer its proposed purpose. If voters were to be carried fifteen miles, they would certainly require some refreshment, and they would have it, if not from the candidates themselves, from their friends and adherents. Much expense must also be incurred in carrying people that distance and back again. If the objects of economy and prevention of excitement were to be fully attained, polls must be parochial or nearly so. There were many difficulties, he confessed, in this project, but he thought it might be possible to accomplish the proposed purposes better than by the clause under consideration.

Lord Althorp

said, he must admit, that in all county elections there must be a certain expense in conveying voters, but he thought it would be very small under the new, as compared to the old system. If voters could poll in their respective parishes, he was prepared to admit that it would be an excellent arrangement; but as a set-off against travelling expenses, agents and poll-clerks must be employed in each village, and their expenses would probably exceed the expense of carriage. On the whole, therefore, he was favourable to the plan proposed in the clause, by which, even in the largest counties, no voters would have to travel a greater distance than fifteen miles, and the majority a considerably less distance; and as most county voters had conveyances of their own, he believed the present would turn out, after all, the cheaper arrangement.

Mr. Baring

did not see so much disadvantage with regard to voting as to registration. He thought it would have been better to have had a separate bill for that object alone, which, if then found unfit for the intended purpose, could have been repealed, altered, or modified without causing the excitement that any attempt to alter the whole Bill would create. He thought, further, it would be found necessary to vest the returning officer with some discretionary power to prolong the time of an election. He had known instances where the voters of one particular candidate could not be brought up to vote until the third day.

Clause agreed to.

The Amendments in the other clauses were all agreed to.

The Speaker

then asked if any hon. Member had any clause to propose?

Mr. Alderman Wood

proposed a clause making it imperative on the clerks of the different livery companies of the city of London to furnish every year to the town clerk, a return of the different liverymen in each company entitled to vote.

Lord Althorp

agreed that, from the peculiar nature of the local regulations of the city of London, such a clause was necessary.

Mr. Goulburn

complained, that the wording of this clause was almost as long as the Bill itself. It introduced into the city of London a regulation which was not to prevail in other parts of the kingdom. In that city the clerks of the livery companies were to make out a list of the voters—in other places, that list was to be made out by the overseers of the parish in which the voters resided.

Clause agreed to.

Colonel Sibthorp rose to make the Motion of which he had given notice, with respect to the four parishes which the noble Lord, by his Bill, had, in schedule H, taken from the division of Kesteven, in the county of Lincoln, and placed in the division of Lindsey. His Motion was, to restore them to the former district. By an Act of Parliament in 1812, for regulating the navigation of the river William, it was provided, that the Magistrates acting under that Act, should take cognizance of all the southern side of that river in the county of the city of Lincoln, including the four parishes he had alluded to; and that they should be all considered as in the division of Kesteven. Not only was it proposed by the Bill to break up that arrangement, but the effect would be to deprive the freeholders in those parishes of the rights which they at present enjoyed. In order, therefore, to remedy the grievance complained of, he would move a clause to the effect, "That all freeholders whose freeholds in the county of the city of Lincoln are situated on the northern side of the river Witham, shall vote in future for the Representatives in Parliament for the division of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln; and all freeholders whose freeholds are situated on the southern side of the aforesaid river Witham, in the said city, including the four parishes annexed by charter to the said county of the city of Lincoln, shall vote in future as freeholders for the Representatives in Parliament for the divisions of Kesteven and Holland; and that the same rights and powers of exercising the elective franchise, inasmuch as applies, by the present Bill, to leaseholders and copyholders in counties generally, be extended to, and exercised in future by, leaseholders and copyholders within the city and county of the city of Lincoln, with regard to the proposed respective divisions."

On the Motion that the clause be brought up,

Lord Althorp

said, that he did not see the propriety of the division which the gallant Colonel wished for; and was of opinion, that the parishes in question would gain rather than lose by the arrangement which had been made respecting them.

Mr. Wilks

, while he admitted that the division recommended by the gallant Colonel was the natural one, thought that inconvenience might arise to the voters, in consequence of the distance they might have to go to the place of poll, should the proposition be adopted.

Mr. Croker

said, the noble Lord had consented to a similar arrangement with that now proposed with regard to Bristol, and he saw no reason why it could not also be acted on in Lincoln.

Lord John Russell

said, that unless some special reason were assigned, a town like Lincoln ought not to be divided into two counties, or parts of counties.

Colonel Sibthorp

knew it was the most anxious desire of all the freeholders to preserve their franchise in the division of the county to which they belonged.

Lord Althorp

said, he did not think the hon. and gallant officer had thrown any new light upon the subject. The Motion had been already discussed, and as he had given his opinion on it before, it was of no use to again repeat it. He should certainly oppose the Motion.

Clause withdrawn.

Colonel Sibthorp

again rose to bring forward the other motion of which he had given notice—namely "to disqualify from any future power of exercising the elective franchise, all persons holding official civil situations during the pleasure of the Crown." He confessed that it was with great surprise that, in the recent debate on the Dublin Election, he had heard the right hon. Chief Secretary for Ireland state, that" It could not be disguised or denied that the Government had been naturally anxious that the views which they took of a great political question should be supported by their dependents." He must say he entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman, and was astonished that such doctrines should proceed from those who had talked so much of the expediency of the independent and uncontrolled election of Members of Parliament, and who had declared that the object of the Bill before the House was to strike at the root of all that corruption, which proceeded from what they termed the boroughmongering system. Under these circumstances, it naturally occurred to him to consider how Government might be disposed to influence the conduct of their dependents under this new Bill. When he looked at the Acts of Parliament by which even Captains of revenue cutters, Commissioners of Customs, and persons in similar capacities, were deprived of the elective franchise, he wished to ask what, under the 10l. household franchise, would be the state of Greenwich, Woolwich, Dover, &c.? The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving, that all persons who actually enjoyed any situation or office under the control or pleasure of the Crown, or of the heads of Departments, or others directly or indirectly connected with the public Civil Service, or any person receiving fees or salaries under Government, should be disqualified to vote for Representatives during that time, and within six months of holding the situation or office.

Lord John Russell

said, this undoubtedly was a most important business, and, if brought forward at all, should be made the subject of a separate Bill. If it was brought forward in that shape he would give it his best consideration.

Sir Charles Wetherell

observed, that if this principle were to be put in action, the Reform Bill should have been divided into twenty-five separate Bills.

Mr. Shaw

supported the Motion, and alluded to the gross instances of Government interference at the late Dublin election, in illustration of the necessity of not allowing persons dependent upon Government to vote at elections. The hon. Member was proceeding to make a statement in defence of Mr. Long, and in answer to the charges brought against this gentleman by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland on a former evening, but was prevented by calls to order.

Sir Richard Vyvyan

thought, the substance of this amendment ought to have been embodied in the Bill, as it was founded upon a principle which had been strongly supported by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were on the Opposition side of the House. He observed, also, that he did not consider it usual to interrupt an hon. Member when he was making a statement which might be regarded personal.

Lord Althorp

said, he had never heard any favourable opinion expressed by Ministers, when out of office, connected with the principle of the amendment. He should certainly have opposed it for one, but, at all events, there was neither time nor opportunity at present to discuss such an important subject. He should, therefore, oppose the clause being brought up.

Mr. Croker

declared, he could not join the hon. and gallant Member in any further disfranchisement.

Mr. Hudson Gurney

said, he never could sanction such a principle, that persons were to be disfranchised because they happened to be in the public service: they were generally persons able to exercise a sound discretion; the principle was highly objectionable.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. Croker

said, that for the purpose of recording upon the Journals his opposition, and that of hon. Members around him, to the two disfranchising clauses, he would now move as an amendment on the first clause, "That all words after 'And be it enacted that,' should be left out."

The Motion was seconded by Lord Stormont, but negatived without a division, for which the hon. Member stated it was not his intention to press.

Mr. Croker

then made a similar motion with respect to the second clause, which was negatived in like manner.

Lord Althorp moved, as an amendment, in conformity with the explanation given by his noble friend (Lord John Russell) on a former evening, that in the 12th clause, instead of the words" The county of Glamorgan," the words "The counties of Carmarthen, Denbigh, and Glamorgan," should be inserted.

Lord Stormont

had understood no new county Members were to be allowed to Scotland, and if the principle of population was now to be acted on with regard to Wales, it ought also to be extended to the other country, in which there were several counties which contained four or five times as large a population as those of Wales.

Lord Althorp

said, he did not feel himself called upon then to enter into the subject; the proper time to discuss it would be when the Reform Bill for Scotland was before the House.

Sir George Warrender

begged leave to be permitted to say, that the conduct of Ministers, with regard to Wales, induced him to indulge in the hope that the claims of the Scotch counties would be more fully considered. They had stronger claims than those of Wales to additional Representation, for they were far more populous and rich. He had no doubt that attempts would be made to give them this addition, when the Reform Bill for that country came under the consideration of the House, and he hoped the noble Lord would be prepared to concede their claims, as he had so very properly given way on this occasion.

Mr. Croker

regretted that he was likely to destroy the hon. Baronet's hopes, but he must do the noble Lord the justice to say, that he had very boldly and frankly admitted in answer to a question addressed to him by an hon. friend of his, that Government had no intention to increase the number of the Scotch county Members, for which determination, however, the noble Lord had assigned no reasons.

Lord Althorp

said, he had declared he would assign his reasons when the Scotch Reform Bill was before the House.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

merely rose to express his satisfaction at hearing of the addition of Members proposed for Wales. It was doing, in fact, that justice to the Principality which it deserved, but he thought there was yet some distinction made between some of the counties of England and that country.

Motion agreed to.

Sir John Owen rose to propose as an amendment, that the county of Pembroke should be added to the list of those Welch counties to which an additional Member was to be apportioned. He was aware, however, that it was of no use to divide the Committee.

Lord Althorp opposed the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. James L. Knight

complained that a return, which he had moved for on the 17th of August, of a copy of the letters-patent under which the Governor of the Isle of Wight holds that office, was not yet laid upon the Table. It related to a question of considerable importance —namely, whether there was a Sheriff in the island or not.

Lord Althorp

said, he had inquired into the matter, and he found that there was a Sheriff of the island, and that that office was filled by the Governor for the time being.

Mr. James L, Knight

said, that if the Governor was the Sheriff, of which there was no proof before the House, it was a great constitutional anomaly, that, as a military officer, he should execute the office of Sheriff.

The Attorney General

said, that he had no means of stating why the return had not been made. As to the Governor being a military officer, every Sheriff had a military power, and was, under certain circumstances, a military officer. The Sheriff of Westmorland was always a military officer.

Mr. Goulburn

observed, that patents were recorded in the proper office, and the information might be procured from thence. They were not bound to send to the Governor for a copy.

Mr. Bonham Carter

had understood, upon inquiry, that the Governor of the Isle of Wight was, by his patent, constituted Sheriff and Coroner of the island, and was directed to hold Knights' Courts there. For several years past the Stewards, who were his deputies, had not exercised the duties of Sheriff, but the Knights' Courts had been held, and the Coroners for the island were not elected as in other parts of the country.

Mr. Croker

remarked, that the information of the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared, after all, to be only hearsay; and, for himself, he must disbelieve in the existence of the authority of the Governor as Sheriff, until he should actually see the patent creating it.

Mr. Baring

thought it was the duty of the Secretary of State of the Home Department to see the order of the House carried into execution. It would be quite satisfactory if his noble friend would engage that the copy of the patent should be produced before the third reading.

Lord Althorp

had no objection to that understanding.

Mr. James L. Knight

repeated, that it was of great importance that this information should be before the House; he had mentioned it in the Committee twice and several times privately to Gentlemen connected with his Majesty's Government.

Lord Althorp

then moved the omission of the proviso in the 16th clause, "that nothing herein contained shall take away, or in any manner affect, the right of voting in the election of a Knight or Knights of the Shire, at present enjoyed by any person, or which may hereafter accrue to any person according to the laws now in force, in respect of any freehold property, rent charges, annuities, or any other right of voting now by law enjoyed in relation to the election of a Knight or Knights of the Shire." He proposed the omission because he had ascertained that the words were unnecessary. They were accordingly expunged.

Lord Althorp

then moved a verbal amendment in the 33rd clause, which was agreed to.

Lord John Russell

said, that some observations had been made with respect to the jurisdiction of an Election Committee appointed by the House. Such a Committee had the power to alter the poll, and order the return to be amended, but could not alter the registry of the votes. Now, if that continued wrong, the poll and the return at the election might again be bad; to prevent which, he proposed to invest the Committee with the power of altering the registry of votes. He would, therefore, propose to insert the words, "and may direct the registry to be amended."

Mr. C. W. Wynn

thought, that such an amendment would be placing great power in the hands of a Committee. The House ought to be very cautious how they delegated their powers to Committees; and, in his opinion, it would be better if the amendment went no further than to let the Committee report on the necessity of an amendment, leaving the House to adopt it, in pursuance of such Report, if it thought proper.

Lord John Russell

thought, he should obviate every objection by proposing that the clause should stand as follows—to expunge the words "direct the return to be amended accordingly, or declare the election void as the case may be," and insert these, "shall report the same to the House, and the return shall be amended, or the election declared void, as the case may be, and the register amended accordingly."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

said, there was a provision in the 44th clause, directing that a Committee of the House of Commons should assess the amount of a Barrister's costs and charges. He thought it would be much better that this duty should be discharged by proper taxing officers.

Lord Althorp

said, the duties of the Committee would be extremely simple, and he did not consider it involved any point of law.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

said, he had no desire to see a Committee of the House of Commons converted into a Law Court, for the purpose of assessing costs and damages. Such a Committee ought to be purely political; and he therefore was of opinion, that the old Election Laws should be adhered to.

Mr. Goulburn

begged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, how a party to whom costs and damages had been given by a Committee of the House of Commons, was to recover them.

The Attorney General

said, that the amount awarded could be recovered in a Court of Law.

Lord Althorp moved, that the proviso at the end of clause 44, viz. "That nothing in this Act contained shall prevent any Sheriff, or other returning officer, or their lawful deputies, from closing the poll previous to the expiration of the time fixed by this Act, in any case where the same might have been lawfully closed before the passing of the Act," be struck out. This proviso was unnecessary, because the proviso at the end of clause 48 was to the same effect.

Mr. Baring

suggested again, that it would be advisable to allow the returning officer some discretionary power to prolong the time of an election contest under particular circumstances. It might happen that one candidate, by means of having a strong party among the lower orders of voters, of whom there would be under the Bill a large increase, would prevent his opponent's electors being brought up to the poll in due time.

Lord Althorp

said, the persons who created riots at elections were not generally voters, nor did he see the clause was likely to have the effects apprehended by the hon. Gentleman. He should certainly oppose any additional discretionary power being invested in the returning officer.

Amendment agreed to.

Lord John Russell moved, that in clause 49 the words "public notice in writing" be substituted for the words "public notice."—Agreed to.

The next was clause 50: on its being read,

Lord Althorp

said, that acting upon the suggestion of an hon. relative of his, he would propose the introduction of a provision into this clause to enable returning officers to hire houses for the purpose of taking the poll instead of erecting booths, if they should so think fit, such houses to be liable to all the regulations which applied to booths under similar circumstances.—An Amendment to that effect was accordingly proposed.

Mr. John Campbell

said, he very much approved of the provision proposed, but he would suggest some other word than "hiring" should be introduced, because it would be more convenient if Courthouses, and other buildings of that description, could be made available for the purpose of holding elections.—Agreed to.

Mr. Baring

said, he would suggest some alteration should be made in the 51st clause: it enacted, that a person proposing a candidate should be liable to all the expense of proposing such candidate. No expense was incurred by the simple act of proposing a candidate. He thought, therefore, it would be an improvement in the clause, that it made a person liable only if he called for a poll, after proposing a candidate.

Lord Althorp

, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, would leave the case precisely as it stood at present. Under the existing system, if a person proposed and then polled for a candidate, unknown to the Sheriff in his official capacity, such person was not liable to all the expenses incurred. This had been often taken advantage of for the purpose of prolonging an election, which it was one of the objects of the Bill to prevent; he (Lord Althorp) was therefore of opinion, the most effectual way to put an end to this system was, to let such persons know they would be saddled with the expenditure incurred.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe rose to bring forward the Amendment of which he had given notice, for transferring the borough of Aldborough, in Yorkshire, from schedule B to schedule A, and thereby depriving it altogether of the right of returning a Member to Parliament. He should not, he said, persist in this Motion if he for a moment thought that it was opposed to the principle of this schedule, which had attracted more of the public admiration than any other part of the Bill or if he did not consider that such an amendment was in strict conformity with the general principles of the Bill. As a Reformer he could not permit such a blemish on the Representation of the country as this Aldborough was, to exist, but he would endeavour, if he could, to remove it. In the first Reform Bill which had been introduced by Ministers, Aid-borough stood at the head of schedule A. It was afterwards, however, transferred to schedule B, but upon what representation, or rather misrepresentation, his Majesty's Ministers had been induced to take such a step, he could not say. He should, at all events, like to know who the physician was by whom such a miraculous change had been effected in old Aldborough's constitution. The population of Borough bridge, which joined Aldborough, amounted to 900; that of Aldborough itself to 400; making a total population of men, women, and children of 1,300. The other places which were included in order to raise the population of Aldborough beyond the line of 2,000, had no connexion at all with that insignificant borough. It was true that Borough bridge was a tolerably decent place. It could boast of a good inn, a coal-yard, a timber-yard, and a resident apothecary. It as also a market-town, and there was a fair, too, held there, which was famous for the riotous and drunken scenes enacted at it— principally caused, he must say, by the Scotchmen who came there. If the constituents in Borough-bridge and Aldborough were entitled to retain the franchise, why not incorporate them with Ripon? or he would say, let them give this Aldborough Member to Doncaster, by which means they would not deprive the county of York of a Member. Boroughbridge and Aldborough had been too long a disgrace to the Representative system of this country. What use was there in allowing this borough to remain, unless it was, like some houses of ill-fame left standing in Vienna, to be as a memorial of former corruption? The Duke of Newcastle, or the family of Lawson, would still retain the power of nomination. He did not mean any reflection upon that noble Duke, for there was not living a more high-minded, a more noble, a more generous character, Long might he enjoy that character; but if he wished to increase and preserve it, it was not by infringing on those right which properly belonged to the people of England. He could not expect that his Motion would be supported by Anti-reformers, or by sham Reformers; but in justice to Old Sarum, in justice to Gatton, be required the extinction of Aldborough, that Old Sarum of the North. He hoped upon this occasion Ministers would not join the ranks of the Opposition. They would then, indeed, be in bad company. Let them at least act on the same principle as they did in their foreign policy—on the principle of non-intervention. Let them leave the matter between the real Reformers on his side of the House, and the Anti-reformers on the other, and then, he would answer for the consequence; they should soon be able to give a good account of Aid-borough. What would the Reformers of after-times say, when they learned that in such a measure as this, the borough of Aldborough was allowed to stand, the very prototype of insignificance and corruption. The hon. Member concluded by proposing his Amendment.

Sir William Ingilby

seconded the Motion. He was well acquainted with Aid-borough, and could declare that each succeeding election there, would be nothing more than a contest between the two families of Lawson and Newcastle, and he had the means of knowing, that the inhabitants were so well convinced of this fact, that they would prefer not to send a Member to the House. When boroughs were to be disfranchised on the ground of nomination, he could see no possible reason why Aldborough should escape, and be left as a bone of contention between two families.

Lord John Russell

would put this case simply on these grounds. His Majesty's Ministers had, in framing this schedule, adopted a well-known rule, and as that rule excluded from this schedule all boroughs which had more than 2,000 inhabitants, this borough obtained the benefit of that exception. It was true, that Aldborough in the first instance stood in schedule A, but it having been subsequently represented to Ministers that by adding the borough and the parish together, the population would amount to more than 2,000, and they having found, on consulting the population returns, that that representation was correct, Aldborough was excluded from schedule A, and transferred to schedule B. Beyond that statement he had little to say why Aldborough should not be included in this schedule. He did not think that his hon. friend had made a sufficiently precise or accurate statement, such as would warrant the House in coming to the conclusion, that in this borough, in the parish, and in the immediate neighbourhood, there was not a sufficient number of 10l. householders to entitle it to send one Member to Parliament. Wishing to preserve as nearly as possible the principle of the Bill as originally brought forward, arid thinking it better that they should avoid departing from that rule which had been laid down and acted upon in making out those schedules, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend.

Mr. Fynes Clinton

had no personal interest in the question. The interest in the borough would be so altered by this Bill that he could not hope to be ever again returned for it. The inhabitants of Aldborough would much prefer remaining in schedule A; and he was surprised when he heard it was placed in schedule B. The change was not made in consequence of any representations from him or his friends. It was another proof of the many anomalies and absurdities of the Bill, for there were many places exactly in the same predicament.

Lord Morpeth

did not feel much interested one way or the other, but there were two reasons why it should remain in schedule B; first, because it was situated in an important district of the county; and, secondly, because it came within the line of 2,000 inhabitants. He had not so much knowledge of the vicinity as his hon. friend (Mr. Duncombe) collected from his contiguous residence; but he believed Milly belonged to Aldborough, for an antiquarian friend informed him that Milly derived its name from the circumstance of being mille passuum de Burgo. He should certainly prefer having the Member given to Doncaster or Barnsley, but as Aldborough came within the line it was better not to re-open the case, quieta non movere.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, he was out of the scrape. Though the hon. Member who made the Motion, in the course of his speech seemed often to throw a longing lingering look at him, he could assure him that he had no concern with Aldborough. He must express his thanks to the hon. Member for the language he made use pf upon this occasion, in reference to an illustrious individual, the Duke of Newcastle. Whatever might have fallen from the member for Hertford before, in the heat, perhaps, of debate, he now spoke of that illustrious person in terms descriptive of his true character—of his generous, disinterested, noble, and independent character. From whatever quarter representations might have been made to place Aldborough in schedule B, they certainly did not proceed from that eminent person. By the arrangements of this Bill, the interest of that noble Duke in Aldborough would be completely swamped, as one right hon. Gentleman expressed it, or sluiced, as it had been expressed by another. For his part, he had no more chance than the member for Hertford himself of being returned for Aldborough, and perhaps less; for if the voters heard the able and humorous speech of the hon. Member, it must prove a powerful recommendation to their support. If those infectious diseases which the hon. Member imported from Vienna, should be communicated to Aldborough, there was no fear that he would catch them, for he did not mean to go there, not even within the mille passus of the noble Lord. That noble Lord (Morpeth) said he would vote for retaining Aldborough in schedule B, though he gave no convincing reasons for it; he did not even come within his own mille passus of any reason that would not equally apply to other places. They heard much of corrupt Aldborough, but never heard any thing of corrupt Tavistock, of corrupt Knaresborough, of corrupt Calne, or Ripon, or Horsham. Why not speak of the Duke of Devonshire's boroughs, of the Duke of Norfolk's, of the Marquis of Lansdown's, as well as the Duke of Newcastle's. The former were never mentioned, while the name of the illustrious individual to whom the member for Hertford so justly attributed so many eminent' qualities, was bandied about, and vilely traduced in the scurrilous publications of the day. What reason was there for this? No other reason but because one was the Duke of Newcastle, and the other the Duke of Devonshire. Though he admitted the force of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, he could not vote with him; and for this reason, because he could not vote for the disfranchisement of any place. It belonged to those who prepared the Bill, and not to him, to vindicate their own principle, and to show why Aldborough should be represented, while many large places in Yorkshire remained unrepresented. It was a second edition of the Bill; it was disgraceful altogether, and he would not disfranchise Aldborough.

Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer

said, that after what they had heard from the hon. member for Hertford, and according to the principles of the Bill, no place could more properly come within the line of disfranchisement than Aldborough. He begged to be permitted to ask, if large commercial towns in the immediate vicinity of such a place, would be satisfied to find themselves excluded from all representation, while Aldborough was retained in schedule B. He was, therefore, willing to see such a blot removed and would support the Motion of his hon. friend.

Mr. Croker

must declare, that according as he understood the principle laid down in the Bill, Aldborough, even with the townships that had been added to it, was not a place which came within that principle. At the same time, he could not vote with the hon. Member, as he could never consent to the disfranchisement of any borough on principles so wild and vague as those of the present measure. Neither could he vote against him, for that would have the effect of placing it in schedule B. He was not disposed to place it in either schedule.

Sir John Johnstone

merely desired to remark upon one allusion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had compared the Duke of Newcastle with other noble Dukes; but there was this difference between them, the latter were most anxious for the Reform Bill, while the former, who, he was ready to admit, was a most honourable man, was against it.

The House divided on the Motion:— Ayes 64; Noes 149; —Majority 85.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Lord Easthope, J.
Barratt, J. C. Etwall, R.
Biddulph, M. Evans, Colonel
Blamire, W. Ewart, W.
Burton, H. Ferguson, Sir R.
Bulwer, H. L, Grattan, H.
Buller, J. Grattan, J.
Bouverie, Hon. P. P. Harvey, D. W.
Campbell, J. Hughes, H.
Clive, H. Hutchinson, J. H.
Currie, J. Jephson, C. D, O.
Chandos, Marquis Jerningham, Hon. H.
Cradock, Colonel Labouchere, H.
Denison, W. J. Lefevre, C. S.
Dundas, Hon. J. C, Lennox, Lord G.
Dundas, Hon. T. Lennox, Lord A,
Lester, B. L. Smith, M.
Martin, J. Stanhope, Captain
Milbank, M. Stewart, Lord J.
Mills, J. Strutt, E.
Moreton, Hon. H. Tomes, J.
Ossory, Lord Troubridge, Captain
Paget, T. Vincent, Sir F.
Phillipps, C. M. Watson, Hon. R.
Price, P. Wason, R.
Protheroe, E,. Wilbraham, G.
Ramsbottom, J. Williamson, Sir H.
Rickford, W. Westenra, Hon. H.
Rochfort, G. Williams, Sir J.
Robinson, Sir G. Wilks, J.
Ruthven, E. S. TELLERS.
Rider, T. Ingilby, Sir W.
Smith, J. A. Duncombe, T.
The Marquis of Chandos

said, it was notorious that the seats for the borough of Evesham (Worcestershire), had been for years past sold, and that it was utterly unworthy to return Members to Parliament. He therefore begged leave to move, that the borough of Evesham be inserted in schedule A.

Lord John Russell

had no intention to deny that Evesham had been a corrupt place, but the inquiry which the noble Lord proposed to institute last year, had not taken place, and as the borough did not fall within the rule they had laid down, they could not look at its alleged corruption.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, it was clear that if the Reform Bill had not intervened, they should most likely have disfranchised this borough after due inquiry; but it was one of the stratagems of the Reformers, when the present sweeping measure was introduced, to put a stop to all gradual Reform. He was of opinion that they could not disfranchise this borough without going through the same forms as if it were pure. He therefore hoped his noble friend would not press his Motion.

Mr. Burge

said, a Committee of the House had reported this borough to be corrupt, and that was a ground of Reform on which they ought to proceed. He was opposed to disfranchisement as practised by this Bill, but he could vote for the Motion on grounds previously sanctioned by Parliament.

Sir George Warrender

said, it was perfectly true that a Committee had reported that the borough was corrupt, but there was no proof that the majority of the electors were corrupt, and in the cases of Aylesbury, Shoreham, and East Ret ford, the House was most anxious to establish, that the majority of electors had been bribed before they proceeded to disfranchise these boroughs. He was himself an elector of that place, and there were many other gentlemen of the vicinity in the same situation. He presumed it would not be said they were corrupt. It was, therefore, a little too much to deprive Evesham of its franchise in a summary manner, when, by the principle under which they had acted, it ought to lose but one Member. He had opposed every clause for disfranchisement in this Bill, and intended to do so as to this Motion.

Mr. John Campbell

said, if the inquiry into the case of Evesham had been carried on, he had no doubt the borough would have been proved to have been most corrupt. However, he must oppose the Motion, as that would be disfranchising without evidence. In the cases of Shoreham, Cricklade, &c, the examination of witnesses took place at the Bar, after the Report of the Committee had been received, and it was after a verdict of Guilty given in that and the other House of Parliament, that disfranchisement took place, but here the noble Marquis wished them to condemn without any trial whatever.

Mr. Goulburn

said, after the manner in which the noble Marquis was foiled last year, it was reasonable and natural that he should bring forward his present Motion, though he could not concur with the noble Marquis for the reason that had been given by his hon. and learned friend. But it was somewhat remarkable, that had the noble Marquis succeeded against the place last year, the consequence would have been, that Evesham would have, by including the surrounding hundreds, had two Members instead of one, in the same manner as the other boroughs disfranchised under similar circumstances.

Lord Eastnor

observed, the Bill before them would effect an entire change in the constituency, so that the punishment would not fall upon the guilty old constituency, but upon the new one which was about to be created, and which at present was wholly innocent of the charge of corruption.

The Marquis of Chandos

thought there could be but one opinion as to the corruption of Evesham, after all the information which had been laid before the House; and he therefore thought, they would be fully justified in punishing that borough in the proposed manner. However, as many of his hon. friends appeared to hold different opinions, he would not trouble the House to divide upon his Motion, although he could not help remarking, that Ministers must have the credit of saving as corrupt a borough as any in the country.

The question, "that the borough of Evesham be inserted in schedule A", negatived.

Mr. Croker

said, after the division which had just taken place with regard to Aldborough, which had retained its station in schedule B, he could not doubt that the House would extend the same favour to the borough of Downton. Aldborough had been, by a great majority, preserved, because it passed the line of 2,000 by about 150; now Downton passed the line by 1,500, and he could not imagine why, by the application of the self same rule, Downton was not to be preserved. He begged leave therefore to move, that Downton be removed from schedule A to schedule B.

Lord Althorp

said, the case of this borough had been so fully argued in the Committee, that there could be no necessity for him to again go over the same ground. Downton was a decayed and inconsiderable place, and had no right whatever to continue to be represented.

An Hon. Member

said, he knew the place, and although it was a perfect matter of indifference to him in which schedule it was placed, yet he felt bound to declare, that it was not so insignificant a place as the description of the noble Lord might lead the House to suppose.

The question that Downton, Wilts, be placed in schedule B, was put, and the House divided—Ayes 43; Noes 96—Majority 53.

Mr. Croker

trusted the noble Lord would be content for that night. The divisions that had taken place with regard to Aldborough and Downton, rendered it imperative on him to take the sense of the House in the case of St. Germain's.

Mr. Goulburn

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would prepare the clause of which he had given notice as soon as possible, as it was most desirable the Bill should appear as it was intended to stand without any further delay, as the third reading was said to be so near at hand.

Further consideration of the Report adjourned till next day.